"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his home in Washington DC. He was on the phone to his
girlfriend when it happened. Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly 4.20am. It was reported
that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times" and "at least once in the back".
The New York Daily News reported:
" police have found little information to explain his death. At this time, there are no suspects, no motive and no witnesses
in Rich's murder.
While initial theories were that the killing was robbery or mugging gone wrong, the Washington Post said:
" There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack but it has not been ruled out as a possibility."
Rich's family have also reported that nothing was taken:
" [Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they
never took anything."
On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which he seemed to imply that Rich's death was politically
motivated, and perhaps suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:
That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar reward for information on the killing of Mr Rich.
These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.
I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or possible suspects. But I do want to point out the general
level of media silence. Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked, and then a staffer with possible
ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead. Imagine this poor young man had been a Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker,
or an Iranian blogger.
If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton, would it be being so ritually and rigourously
ignored by the MSM?
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
Currently in the USA only nationalist politicians display some level of courage and
authenticity. That's why they attract people.
The problem with superdelegates in Democratic Party is just the tip of the iceberg of the "Clinton transformation" of the
party. The Part is
now neoliberal party that have nothing to do with the democracy. At best it would qualify as a
moderate Republican wing.
Notable quotes:
"... This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim and none, at least in my lifetime. ..."
"... If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement. ..."
"... No lobbyists, no big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other permitted categories). ..."
"... I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon -- combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic. ..."
"... Team D cares not a whit for its voters, but it cares very much for the concerns of big donors. ..."
"... under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate. ..."
"... In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux democracy, rather than inhibited? ..."
"... This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth. ..."
"... See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's (Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance). ..."
"... I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. ..."
"... What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic" party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary). What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that "wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984, Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016 campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their self-serving careerism. ..."
"... And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars, including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets through the machine. ..."
"... The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of the majority of We the People. ..."
"... While I was at the post office, I had a conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention. ..."
"... I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist, progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a problem. ..."
"... So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole. ..."
"... Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop. ..."
The Report is fair, but supporting things like reduction of Super Delegates from the
mid-700s to mid-200s is wrong! Complaining about lack of democracy within the Party means
getting rid of them altogether! That's just one small example.
This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their
Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim
and none, at least in my lifetime.
It is a good start. If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic
members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former
Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement.
No lobbyists, no
big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other
permitted categories).
I can't point to any particulars -- but I felt something disingenuous about Norman Solomon
-- something 'off'. An even meaner thought came to mind as I listened to his complaints and
details of the DNC machinations -- Norman Solomon would be perfect to work for unity in the
Green Party. He could make theater of herding the Green cats and accomplish nothing in
particular.
I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver
Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been
haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling
that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and
self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon --
combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us
and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic.
But this time the DNC has no dying Roosevelt to tack a Truman onto.
Aye! and you can't burn a thing down by continuing to send it money, or lend it undying
support, or by continuing to vote for their horrible lesser evil moderate republican
candidates.
I quit the damned party as loudly as i could in november 2016 emails to all and sundry,
chewing them all new ones, as it were.
i never heard a word back, of course and the AI that runs the damned thing keeps sending
me emails begging for cash; and surveys,lol which i send back to them with my chicken scratch
all in the margins with my outrage and my considered opinions. i assume all that goes unread,
as well. perhaps if i incorporated and obtained a po box in the caymans or pulau or
somewhere
Short-term (2018)–Norman Solomon is right. Only the Democratic party is in a
position to defeat the rightists. In the longer term, Howie Hawkins's recent argument for a
new, genuinely working-class party is more convincing to me. It's a lot more work,
though.
The DNC may be becoming irrelevant, but individual Democratic politicians can monetize
their current positions as they stock their personal lifeboats before the Bernie Sanders
mentioned Titanic goes down..
Instead of thinking short term and trying stay in the Dim party real left wing people need
to take the long term view and start a new party which will be the only way forward.
In the draft proposal, a special national party commission calls for keeping some 400
members of the Democratic National Committee as automatic delegates to the convention.
But under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the
convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all
superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate.
And yet
Cohen and other Democrats stressed, however, that commission members have been busy
circulating amendments ahead of the commission's weekend gathering in metro Washington.
So, which superdelegates will remain and with what actual
constraints, and how far does this move the system away from the status quo? In light of
Solomon's interview, I do wonder about actuarial sleigh-of-hand here. Is there a way of
affecting a likely purge of 2020 Sanders/"grass-roots" aligned superdelegates now? Is there a
way of suggesting that the superdelegates must vote as the states' primaries/caucuses (thus
defanging them) but then not actually imposing any real penalty of these "party elders" and
such? (Will 2020 be about "unfaithful superdelegates voting their conscience against the
party rules for the greater good"?)
In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the
superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux
democracy, rather than inhibited?
The report itself is worth reading. I downloaded it a while back when Lambert and Yves
first posted it.
Solomon gets Moore wrong. Moore is not a neo-fascist or fascist. Moore represents some
very deep-seated religious ideas that are prevalent in the South and in the border states.
When Naked Capitalism and other sources report a bishop of an African-American church making
rather ambiguous comments about the rock with the Ten Commandments, we see an ancient
religious attitude emerging:
Yet as many Southerners point out, the South has a progressive / populist tradition. And
where are the Democrats? To me, this is part of the thorough corruption of the party and its
deterioration into a fan club. Too many Democrats are looking for fascists and Rooskies.
People are fleeing the party, and various Democrats living the "Don't know much about
history" aspect of U.S. culture are desperately trying to pin the fascist label on people.
And what is the solution being offered? Fly in Jon Ossoff? He didn't live in the
congressional district where he ran anyway, going counter to another deeply held U.S.
tradition, that you live in your district.
This isn't about "smart" or not smart thinking. This is about people being so thoroughly
corrupt in their thinking that they can only frame questions corruptly and give corrupt
answers. Maybe I'm being hard on Solomon, but looking for Benito Mussolini in Alabama is
wrong history, wrong metaphor, wrong diagnosis, wrong meme.
Next up? The question and and answer of "gentle" "entitlement" "reform." Corrupt from its
very inception.
This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and
Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the
party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth.
See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a
progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary
memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the
Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's
(Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance).
Watt4Bob: You refer here and below to the states along the inland sea, in a sense, the
rather eccentric Great Lakes States. I'd add:
–Chicago agitators and the Haymarket "Riot" (which the police caused)
–The United Auto Workers (Flint strike among others).
–Unions and Youngstown.
–Jane Addams and her own ideas about building community and building peace.
–The Milwaukee Socialists and the mayoralty there.
–The whole rambunctious structure (if it's a structure) of neighborhood associations in
Chicago, where many of those involved in the Harold Washington campaign got their start.
–Henry Gerber, the Society for Human Rights, and the first agitation for acceptance of
gay people, 1924, Chicago. Who even knew that midwesterners thought about politico-sexual
themes?
Yes, there is very talented group of people here who simply have to cut down on the
distractions and get back to work.
Socialism was actually a powerful movement -- with elected officials -- all throughout the
Upper Midwest during the so-called Progressive Era and the 1920s. Part of this was a result
of German settlements; any Midwestern town with a significant population of Germans
(especially from Hamburg) had a strong socialist impulse. Often this was manifest in the
elected officials, but even where the Socialists didn't win elections, they were able to
influence policy.
I have little patience for the so-called "Democrats" who, as you said above "don't know
much about history".
Thank you for bringing those points up. I'd say that buzzwords like fascist and Nazi are
bull horned (as opposed to Republican dog whistles) only as a means to distract from actual
policy issues (vis-a-vis Bernie), but I wonder if it is the case that even the most cynical
Clintonites believe their own BS at this point. These narratives have taken on a life of
their own.
I don't think Norman Solomon has bad intentions. If anything he is appealing to pragmatism
and reason too strongly in a political environment that is unreasonable. Bernie does a much
better job at blowing the emotional horn just enough to fit the political zeitgeist while
maintaining an engine of actual policy issues to move his political machine. Historically,
this has always been a successful strategy for socialists, Americans love fire-brands.
As far as Norman's claims of fascism I just don't see how tossing around those terms adds
any strategic value to the political struggle against the right. It just comes across as
preaching to the choir. We (the left) all know Moore is an ass, calling him fascist doesn't
make that any more evident. The trick is trying to understand why he is still viable
politically to a significant number of people despite being an ass. This was the mistake made
with Trump. To loosely paraphrase Adolph Reed, calling something fascist or Nazi and $2.25
will get me a ride on the subway but it does nothing to develop action to counter right wing
agendas. The normalization of the right (Republicans) does not occur because they have
"better ideas" (their current tax bill shows they aren't even trying to appeal to 99% of
society) it is because the current left option in the USA (Democrats) are offering
no ideas , or certain members are not allowed to express ideas because of corporate power and
corporate-supported political power. Assuming I am directing this at the DNC, then who is
actually supporting the so-called fascists?
As goes fascism in the United States, I don't really think anyone has a good
definition. Some see it as a politics that are largely aesthetic as opposed to based on
discourse or debate. Some see it as a marriage of corporate power with state power with
police and military supremacy. By those two measures I think the USA is already deeply
fascist. Though it seems by the current measures, the only thing that make someone
unequivocally fascist (or Nazi) is their being a bigot. This simplistic view of fascism is an
insult to history, and all the people that either died fighting fascism or were sacrificed at
its political altar.
I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another
testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit
Authority.
What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic"
party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a
much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary).
What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent
blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that
"wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable
candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984,
Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan.
I think a little history would be useful at this point to help us understand that we've
been this way before.
As concerns the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party which later merged with the Minnesota
Democratic Party to form the DFL, which has lately devolved, IMO, Wellstone and Franken not
withstanding, to much more closely resemble the party of Clintonism than the party of the
young Hubert Humphrey.
The Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party emerged from the Nonpartisan League in North Dakota
and the Union Labor
Party in Duluth, Minnesota, on a platform of farmer and labor union protection,
government ownership of certain industries, and social security laws.[2] One of the primary
obstacles of the party, besides constant vilification on the pages of local and state
newspapers, was the difficulty of uniting the party's divergent base and maintaining
political union between rural farmers and urban laborers who often had little in common
other than the populist perception that they were an oppressed class of hardworking
producers exploited by a small elite.
That 'divergent base' thing ring a bell anyone?
"The farmer approached problems as a proprietor or petty capitalist. Relief to him meant
a mitigation of conditions that interfered with successful farming. It involved such things
as tax reduction, easier access to credit, and a floor under farm prices. His individualist
psychology did not create scruples against government aid, but he welcomed it only as long
as it improved agricultural conditions. When official paternalism took the form of public
works or the dole, he openly opposed it because assistance on such terms forced him to
abandon his chosen profession, to submerge his individuality in the labor crew, and to
suffer the humiliation of the bread line. Besides, a public works program required
increased revenue, and since the state relied heavily on the property tax, the cost of the
program seemed likely to fall primarily on him.
At the opposite end of the seesaw sat the city worker, who sought relief from the
hunger, exposure, and disease that followed the wake of unemployment. Dependent on an
impersonal industrial machine, he had sloughed off the frontier tradition of individualism
for the more serviceable doctrine of cooperation through trade unionism. Unlike the
depressed farmer, the unemployed worker often had no property or economic stake to protect.
He was largely immune to taxation and had nothing to lose by backing proposals to dilute
property rights or redistribute the wealth. Driven by the primitive instinct to survive,
the worker demanded financial relief measures from the state."
The upper-midwest was fly-over land long before the Wright brothers, and it makes perfect
sense that the the Minnesota Farmer-Labor, and its predecessor, the Non-Partisan League of
North Dakota should sprout here, where the effects of elite neglect/abuse and the related
Great Depression had left We the People feeling mis/unrepresented by the two
national parties.
Of course it's good to remember that Hubert Humphrey, and the Minnesota Democratic party
did not embrace the populist revolt until it had been successful on its own, in electing
multiple Minnesota Governors, Senators, and Representatives in the 1920-30's, but embrace it
they did, and from 1944 until the 1970's, the DFL stood for something a bit more than the
local franchise of the National Party.
I strongly encourage you to follow the links in the quotes above, you'll find the history
of, among other things, the Bank of North Dakota, still the only state-owned bank in the
country, founded in 1919 to allow ND farmers to break the strangle-hold that banks in
Minneapolis and Chicago held over the farmers of the northern plains, and demand of working
people for free, universal health-care.
So far, the Democratic party, sadly, including the DFL, seems dedicated to putting down
the populist revolt by its neglected base, but with some hard work maybe this time around we
can figure out how to shorten the time between being resisted and being embraced.
The enemies are perennial, so are the solutions, but populism did have a season of
successes in the first half of the 20th century, and there is no reason to think it couldn't
happen again.
Remember too, the Non Partisan League of
Alberta Canada, and was one of the principal champions of universal healthcare that Canadians
now enjoy.
I think incumbent Governors and Congress members have earned the right to be a super
delegate by virtue of having won their own election. Their re-election will be affected by
the top of the ticket.
If Repubs had been blessed with super delegates, would Trump have still won?
July 2016, after the primaries were over, the WaPo, that bastion of Dem estab groupthink,
suggested the GOP adopt super delegates to avoid another surprise primary outcome. And we see
how well not having super delegates turned out for the GOP.
"There are probably a few missteps I am forgetting. Priebus's spinelessness may well
result in an irretrievably divided party, not to mention a humiliating loss in a critical,
entirely winnable election. Priebus's successor had better learn some lessons from 2016. He
or she might also consider using super delegates. It turns out party grownups are needed.
This cycle they've been AWOL."
The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is
actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist
hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being
responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016
campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay
themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their
self-serving careerism.
They're not going to let go of the self-licking ice cream cone that the Democrat Party has
become until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing that
they're wasting their money. That day may be coming soon; however, the current coup d'etat in
Washington may render a party of $27 donors irrelevant
This: "until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing
that they're wasting their money. "^^^
A similar sentiment was included in all of the flurry of angry emails i sent hither and
yon when I quit the demparty right after the election. ie: the current course of pleasing the
donors is unsustainable if they continue to chase off their own base. what are the donors
paying for?
one would presume a voice in gooberment .meaning won seats,lol.
without voters, why would any self respecting conglomerate continue to shell out dough to the
demparty?
of course, all the hippie-punching and other abuse of their base makes perfect sense if the
demparty is, in truth, a ringer party for the oligarchs a pressure relief valve, like on the
side of a water heater
if, in other words, they pretend to be the "opposition" and "for the people"(tm) so all
us'n's don't go rabid and Wobbly.
This seems a more and more likely explanation every week.
Perhaps old age and failing memory is to blame, but I can't remember not hearing the
nonsense arguments of 'vote for the lesser of two evils and reform from within', and the fear
mongering about the right or Republicans winning. (Republicans used to have sort-of 'liberal'
members, like Lowell Weicker, who would make current Democrats look like fascists -- well, a
lot of them are really ). It never worked and everything just gets worse.
And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars,
including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote
for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but
those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the
ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets
through the machine.
I've given up on both parties, and their phony elections -- there are no solutions there.
What is needed is to see through the games and destroy the machine. Not easy but there is no
other way. Solomon is part of the machine, and the so-called 'progressives' are not
progressive. We are at the point where the only possible solutions are radical -- striking at
the root. The collapse of the empire and capitalism (corporatism -- just a larval stage of
fascism) is coming one way or another because it is not sustainable -- and that which cannot
be sustained will not be. It's like how slavery and feudalism reached a point where they
could no longer survive as dominant systems, nor returned to as such (similar to how the gold
standard, or non-tech agricultural society can not be universally restored). The writing
finger moves on.
We can either see how the global wind of history and culture is blowing and intelligently
move ahead with it, or we can destroy ourselves. The action must be on the streets, in the
workplace, from the masses, in collective consciousness, and world wide. Democrat shills like
Solomon and clowns like Trump should be ignored as symptomatic noise.
The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of
the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To
prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for
decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of
the majority of We the People.
Thank you for shining the light on this latest episode of their actions for their
financial benefactors.
Just got back from running errands. While I was at the post office, I had a
conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She
just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran
as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning
addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear
from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if
she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention.
it's really not possible for the leaders at the national level of the Democratic Party
to have a close working relationship with the base when it's afraid of the base.
And strangely, this is a big reason for why after three plus decades, I am no longer an
active member of the party. If you treat the majority of American nation as dangerous,
deplorable, or at best just dumb, please don't be shocked when people start either start
ignoring you, or just try to get rid of.
I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist,
progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class
political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including
marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and
armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead
poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your
home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by
other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black
misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a
problem.
So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some
business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with
violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole.
Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop.
"... The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect. ..."
"... Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order to get this amazingly low debt service. ..."
"... Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing? If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at artificially low levels in perpetuity. ..."
"... I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans". ..."
"... For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us, especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show. Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least, totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them. ..."
"... poll end of October 2017 shows widespread fed up with government policies and war https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/news/cki-real-clear-politics-foreign-policy-poll/ ..."
"... It is impressive how the Democrats do nothing, but nothing at all against the catastrophic tax 'reform', instead - me too! ..."
"... I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately $3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town. ..."
"... We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes? ..."
"... You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments. ..."
"... People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets available at depressed prices ..."
"... There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these technologies existed. ..."
"... Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to create much flow on to the rest of the population. ..."
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday said the tax cuts included in the tax reform
package Republican lawmakers crafted in conjunction with the Trump Administration have to be
deficit neutral so as to conform with budget reconciliation rules.
The U.S. Republican tax cut plan that President Donald Trump wants passed by the end of the
year is unlikely to trigger a big deficit expansion because it will spur more investment and
job growth, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told Reuters in an interview on
Wednesday.
"Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also knows that you
have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take-home pay, that means higher tax
revenues ," Ryan told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."
The tax overhaul legislation that Ryan shepherded through the House -- the Senate takes up
its version this week -- would add at least $1 trillion to budget deficits over the next
decade, even when accounting for economic growth, according to independent tax analysts.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday said House Republicans will aim to cut spending
on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs next year as a way to trim the federal deficit .
"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle
the debt and the deficit ," Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio
show.
And no. The Democrats aren't any better. Look at the trillions Obama handed to Wall Street.
That wasn't even a tax cut, it was a give-away. Obamacare is a sham, willfully constructed in
way that makes sure it can't survive. The Democrats only pretend to care for the people. As
soon as they again have a majority and fake intent for pro-social reforms the Repubs will again
whine about the deficit and the Democrats will be happy to fold.
The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class
while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin
Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect.
Indeed. Two faces, same coin. The msm desperately wants to keep the relevant the age-old
rope-a-dope of the Demotards vs. Rethuglicans 2K17! Jesus, ever-loving-Christ, though, you
fuck with social security and Medicare and you bring on the wrath of AARP's membership.
Release the BLUE-HAIRS!
Can't wait, but that is another struggle for another day. In the mean time, I notice that
even the mention of Paul Ryan elicits a shudder. Such a slime.
It [was] a remarkably low $240B as of 2016. Does this mean that the Fed can just keep short term
rates low or even reduce them, vis-a-vis the Japanese model, and allow U.S. govt debt to grow
to arbitrarily high levels?
Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order
to get this amazingly low debt service. Now let's suppose over the next 50yrs our national
debt grows to a ridiculous $100T, if the fed puts short term rates at 0.1% then our annual
debt service will still be at the same levels or less.
Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing?
If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at
artificially low levels in perpetuity.
Here's to the evolving True Political
Awakening .
Move beyond the two-faced monkeys; the 2-faced division-makers; the 2 lying parties. Move
beyond them into yourself, your own mind and thoughts, owned by no-one; a critical and
independent thinker who seeks the truth.
I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement
reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans".
There was a large mound formed recently over the grave of former Republican senator from WI
Bob Lafollette Sr., this protrusion was caused by his rapidly spinning corpse.
For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us,
especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show.
Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least,
totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them.
The Democrats, all while the GOP Tax SCAM was being shoved down our gobs, wasted all of
their time and "emotions" on a witch hunt to toss Al Franken outta the Senate. Franken is not
my favorite Senator by a long shot, but this is yet another chapter of the Democraps ACORNing
their own purportedly in the name of "taking the moral high ground." My Aunt Fanny.
Complicit, greedy, conniving, venal, deplorable bastards the whole d*mn lot with the
possible exception of Bernie Sanders (no great shakes but the pick of the litter).
Ugh. Don't get me started on all of those dual Israeli/USA citizens in riddling our
Congress. They are ALL in favor of this Jerusalem travesty with Schmuck Schumer leading the
charge. That's not about Trump... or not much about Trump. I place blame on worthless scum
like Schumer.
This is why people voted for Trump: they could see the worthlessness of both parties. Of
course, voting for Trump was a complete Mug's game, as for sure, the way things have turned
out was a foregone conclusion.
I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security
funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately
$3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town.
We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in
place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes?
top rate on regular income: 91%
top rate on capital gains: 25%
top rate on corporate tax: 52%
The top income tax tier back then was $400,000 - adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars,
that's about $10 million. So anyone with an income of $10 million would still get a take-home
pay of $1 million a year. Seems like the right thing to do, doesn't it?
Good one b, the demodogs will stoop their feet point figures so they can raise lots of
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay their friends the consultants and lose more seats. It's what they do
best.
I've almost given up. It's not just amerika; lookit Australia this week where the citizens
are being distracted by a same sex marriage beatup which should have been settled in 5
minutes years ago - meanwhile the last vestiges of Australia's ability to survive as a
sovereign state are being flogged off to anyone with a fat wedge in their kick.
Aotearoa isn't much better the 'new' government which was elected primarily because the
citizens were appalled to discover that for about the first time in 150 years, compatriots -
compatriots with jobs in 'the gig economy' were homeless in huge numbers, has just announced
that the previous government's housing policy was a total mess, and that fixing the problem
will be difficult -really Jacinda we never woulda guessed, I guess what yer really trying to
say is nothing is gonna change.
The englanders are in even worse trouble with their brexit mess, the political elite is
choosing to ignore a recent Northern Ireland poll which revealed that most people in the
north would rather hook up with Ireland than stay with an non EU UK, so the pols there are
arguing over semantics about the difference between "regulatory alignment" and "regulatory
equivalence" as it applies to Ulster while the pound is sinking so fast it is about to
establish equivalence with the euro by xmas.
No one is paying attention to what is really happening as in between giving us the lowdown on
which 2nd rate mummer was rude to a 3rd rate thespian and advertorials about the best
chronometer (who even wears a watch in 2017?) for that man in your life, the media simply
doesn't have the time much less the will to tell the citizens how quickly their lives are
about to go down the gurgler.
The only salient issue is - will the shit hit the fan before the laws are in place to
silence, lock up and butcher dissenters, or will there be a brief period where we hit the
barricades and have a moment of glory before humanity gets to enjoy serfdom Mk2?
b, have you really taken a look at federal government spending? What is the ratio of spending
by the German government between social programs and discretionary spending for defense,
agriculture subsidies, infrastructure, etc?
The majority of federal government spending is non-discretionary social entitlement
spending with the biggest being health care spending. Just Medicare & Medicaid is a third
of all federal government spending. Then you have to add health care spending for federal
government employees and members of Congress, Tricare and VA. With health care costs growing
at 9% each and every year as it has for the past 30 years, medical related expenditures as a
share of total federal government spending will continue to rise.
Deficits will continue to grow as these entitlement programs grow automatically as
eligibility grows. Even if all defense expenditures were zeroed out, the federal government
would still run a deficit.
You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative
yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments.
European junk bonds with 10 year duration yielding less than 10 yr US Treasury bond. Loss
making, junk rated European companies raising even more intermediate term debt at 0.001%.
Corporations borrowing to buy back stock. The Swiss National Bank creating money out of thin
air and owning $85 billion of US equity in major US companies like Apple & Google. The
Bank of Japan owning a third of all Japanese government bonds outstanding and the Top 10
holder of the companies in the Nikkei 100 index. Financial speculation off the charts across
the globe.
People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is
like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which
they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to
pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no
printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows
up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the
supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the
economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets
available at depressed prices
As for the debt owed by the US the privately owned Fed will ensure the government can
borrow whatever is needed for interest payments since they can create an infinite supply of
money by acquiring junk and calling them assets. Out pal OPEC (Saudis) keeps Petro dollar
(USD ) in demand and exchange rates are set within agreed upon limits by the worlds central
banks under the BIS, with input from various shadowy groups like Bilderbergers, trilaterals
and CFR. And if all else fails, an attack on the USD will result in the military option being
used
To remain in power corrupt governments rely on a citizen base that is uneducated or
misinformed, busy surviving to pay taxes and daily expenses, is dependent on government and
in debt and is well entertained. They must also be divided by religion, race, social, gender,
age and party (secular religion) and given a common external enemy to fear.
The system is working to perfection. Neoliberal economics is the icing on the cake and is
the gift that keeps on giving to the chosen ones.
Check out the pdf on money creation by the Bank of England
There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to
campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video
conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign
rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care
of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of
Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these
technologies existed.
I think people are just too lazy to make the effort. Most elections people are just too
lazy to even vote.
While I agree that money can just be created there is a limit to that particularly when
low constraints on consumable supplies run parallel to established shortfalls on finite goods
such as houses, land, food etc. Inflation runs rampant and we weak humans distract ourselves
with cheap baubles instead of creating useful shit and putting a roof over the heads of our
children - "waddaya want for xmas kid, a freehold shithole or a new VR headset?" "I'll take
the vive Dad".
Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by
encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright
production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like
railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into
health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to
create much flow on to the rest of the population.
And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual
harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their
eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . .
.
It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting
for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what
they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.
It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a
job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying
and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.
Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats
put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.
"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the
companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants
Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington
Examiner.
She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see
through.
To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You
want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your
Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were
like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.
America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it
has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians.
These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in
the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so
much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.
This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are
incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that
any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters.
They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich
people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work
because that is what they learned from their parents.
Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to
either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.
And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL
Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from
Greeks.
That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems
to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population
since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.
However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most
predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a
high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could
make them very popular.
Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we
have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships
around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total
failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil
rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective
propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to
vote. Bleh.
This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto
repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He
is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished
this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals
and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity
of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have
nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America
loves its winners.
There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that
"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which
is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even
win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the
past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want
to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"
Then Brooks goes on to explain
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey
that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans
say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right
away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that
favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."
The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for
defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.
The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental
health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to
privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private
company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.
The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a
resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military
adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent
press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which
helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per
Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital
allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to
spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.
But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.
Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?
The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions
(House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.
And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the
failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on
fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.
he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%
I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is
only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at
these web sites:
The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately
called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive
"capitalism" aka "looting."
It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but
the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening
event(s)".
While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil
society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual
Policy.
Renegade ( ex-? ) Republican David Stockman NAILS IT TO THE WALL:
To be sure, some element of political calculus always lies behind legislation. For instance, the Dems didn't pass the Wagner
Act in 1935, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as exercises in pure civic virtue -- these measures
targeted huge constituencies with tens of millions of votes at stake.
Still, threadbare theories and untoward effects are just that; they can't be redeemed by the risible claim that this legislative
Rube Goldberg contraption being jammed through sight unseen ( in ACA redux fashion ) is for the benefit of the rank
and file Republican voters, and most especially not for the dispossessed independents and Dems of Flyover America who voted
for Trump out of protest against the failing status quo.
To the contrary. The GOP tax bill is of the lobbies, by the PACs and for the money. Period.
There is no higher purpose or even nugget of conservative economic principle to it. The battle cry of "pro-growth tax cuts"
is just a warmed over 35-year-old mantra from the Reagan era that does not remotely reflect the actual content of the bill
or disguise what it really is: namely, a cowardly infliction of more than $2 trillion of debt on future American taxpayers
in order to fund tax relief today for the GOP's K Street and Wall Street paymasters.
On a net basis, in fact, fully 97% of the $1.412 trillion revenue loss in the Senate Committee bill over the next decade
is attributable to the $1.369 trillion cost of cutting the corporate rate from 35% to 20% (and repeal of the related AMT).
All the rest of the massive bill is just a monumental zero-sum pot stirring operation.
Stockman, who knows federal budgeting better than most of us know the contents of our own homes, goes on to shred the tax bill
item by item, leaving a smoking, scorched-earth moonscape in his deadly rhetorical wake. And he's not done yet.
But Lordy, how he scourges the last hurrah of the know-nothing R party, just before it gets pounded senseless at the polls
next year. Bubble III is the last hope of the retrograde Republican Congressional rabble. But it's a 50/50 proposition at best
that our beloved bubble lasts through next November. :-(
thanks Jim, yes, this looks like it will knock the legs out of the "main st" economy, but over at versailles on the potomac
they'll be listening to/playing the fiddle and watching the country burn while guzzling 300 dollar scotch and and admiring their
campfire.
Right next to "Versailles on the Potomac" is the site of the former Bonus Army camp, Anacostia Flats. The burning of the Bonus
Army camp at Anacostia Flats could be seen, as a red glow, from the White House. Historians charitable to Herbert Hoover suggest
that Gen. Douglass MacArthur 'conned' Hoover into letting the Army 'disperse' the Bonus Army. The resulting spectacle can be said
to be one of the prime reasons why the American public rejected Hoover when he ran for re-election against Franklin Roosevelt.
I don't know if Hoover played the fiddle, but MacArthur was known to be able to play politicians like one.
The lesson here, if there is one, is that the present occupant of the White House had better be very circumspect about taking
advice from Generals.
"anacostia flats" bonus army raided by Wall Street General MacArthur which is reason in previous iteration of Wall Street power
grab by "American Liberty League", ("The Plot To Seize the White House"-Jules Archer) Marine General Smedley Butler felt forced
play whistle-blower, providing FDR leverage he needed to prosecute banksters.
Big River Bandido December 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm
The gist of the commenter's statement was true - Democrats are totally complicit in the end result of Republican economic and
foreign policy. Until now, Republicans could only deliver on their promises when Democrats helped them out. The Democrats' enabling
strategy eventually alienated their own core supporters. With this tax cut, the Republicans have shown, for the first time, the
ability to enact and sign their own legislation.
The Democrats basically accommodated the Republicans long enough to ensure their own irrelevance. They will not rise again
until their "mixed stances" and those who encourage them are purged.
"... By Shannon Monnat, Associate Professor, Syracuse University and David L. Brown, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University. Originally
published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Economic, social and health decline in the industrial Midwest may have been a major factor in the 2016 US presidential election,
Monnat and Brown's INET research finds, with people living in distressed areas swinging behind Trump in greater numbers. Trump performed
well within these landscapes of despair – places that have borne the brunt of declines in manufacturing, mining, and related industries
since the 1970s and are now struggling with opioids , disability, poor health, and family problems. ..."
"... The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs ..."
Economic, social and health decline in the industrial Midwest may have been a major factor in the 2016 US presidential
election, Monnat and Brown's INET research finds, with people living in distressed areas swinging behind Trump in greater numbers.
Trump performed well within these landscapes of despair – places that have borne the
brunt of declines
in manufacturing, mining, and related industries since the 1970s and are now struggling with
opioids
, disability, poor health, and family problems.
The role of the rural vote in Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. Presidential election has received
widespread coverage . But suggesting
that rural frustration with political insiders and years of perceived neglect was in itself enough to
deliver Trump to the White House overlooks other key factors that saw the Republican candidate out-perform in areas ravaged by
decay.
To be sure, Donald Trump received a much larger share of the rural vote than Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Electoral data
shows he won the countryside by 63.2 percent to 31.3 percent, with the vote share increasing in the most rural areas. But this advantage
hardly signals a new trend. Republican candidates have long won larger shares of
the rural vote , particularly in Appalachia, the Great Plains, and parts of the South. In addition, rural voters account for
only about 15 percent of the total U.S. population, and provided a similar share of votes in the 2016 presidential election.
Although Trump's rural edge certainly contributed to his victory, it was not sufficient to swing the election on its own or to
support a theory that a "
rural
revolt " handed him the win. Instead, Trump's combined rural and small city over-performance, and Clinton's under-performance,
particularly in the industrial Midwest, was key to Trump's unanticipated victory. To understand the election outcome it is critical
to understand what drove voters in those areas to cast a ballot for Trump.
Election Results: The Predicable and The Unexpected
Of course, Clinton won the U.S. popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes. Trump not only lost the national popular vote; he also
under-performed relative to Mitt Romney four years earlier, receiving 45.9 percent of votes in 2016 compared to Romney's 47.1 percent
in 2012.
Trump nonetheless won because the U.S.' electoral college system places
more importan ce on some states over others when it comes to the outcome . Small advantages in key
places enabled Trump to accumulate sufficient electors to claim victory. Like Romney in 2012, Trump garnered large vote shares throughout
Appalachia, the rural South, the Great Plains, and Mountain West.
The Republican stronghold in these areas is not new. What was unexpected though, was how well Trump performed, and conversely
how poorly Hillary Clinton performed, in the industrial Midwest. Ultimately, Trump's win came down to a difference of just 77,744
votes spread across three states: Michigan, which he took by 10,704 votes; Pennsylvania, by 44,292; and Wisconsin, with a 22,748
margin.
Trump also garnered substantially larger vote shares than Romney in the other industrial states including Ohio, Illinois and Indiana
– as well as in Appalachia, parts of New England, upstate New York, Minnesota, and Iowa.
Trump won more votes than Romney in these regions; Clinton also received far fewer votes and a smaller share than Obama in these
areas, even in counties and states she won.
Although the industrial Midwest is home to just over 16 percent of U.S. counties, nearly a third of the 206 pivot counties – those
that went for Trump after going for Obama in both 2008 and 2012 – were in the industrial Midwest. In nearly all pivot counties, Obama's
victory margin declined between 2008 and 2012, perhaps foreshadowing their shift to a Republican candidate in 2016. Importantly,
Trump's advantage in the industrial Midwest was not confined to rural counties; it also included small urban counties like Montgomery
County in Ohio and Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and even larger urban counties like Michigan's Macomb County, which is located in
the Detroit metropolitan area.
How Despair Drove Trump Votes
To understand the electoral shift in these and similar places outside of the industrial Midwest, it is important to understand
the economic, social, and health declines that have plagued them over the past three decades. In many of the rural areas and small
cities where Trump performed better than expected or where Clinton performed worse than expected,
economic distress had been building and social conditions
breaking down for decades . The places that experienced the largest voter shifts in 2016 were not all among the poorest places
in America, though Appalachia certainly holds that distinction. But they are places that are generally worse off today than they
were a generation or two ago, with far fewer manufacturing and natural resource industry jobs that once provided reliable, livable
wages and benefits to those without a college degree. Certainly de-industrialization is not a new phenomenon in the U.S., but its
impacts have been unevenly distributed.
Our INET research, published in the
Journal of Rural Studies , used
county-level election data from 2012 and 2016 alongside demographic, economic, and health research from multiple sources to probe
key sources of Trump's support. We found that nationally, and especially in the industrial Midwest, Trump's average over-performance
– defined as the difference between his percentage share of the vote compared to that of Romney four years earlier – was greater
in areas of higher economic, social, and health distress.
Comparing the difference in Trump over-performance between counties in the top and bottom quartiles for economic, demographic,
and health characteristics helps us understand what drove voters in areas including the industrial Midwest to swing to Trump. The
percentage of residents without a four-year college degree had the strongest association with Trump over-performance, but indicators
of despair also helped to explain his success in the industrial Midwest. In particular, economic distress (based on rates of poverty
and unemployment, and the percentage of people collecting disability payments
or lacking health insurance), health distress (determined by rates of disability, obesity, those rating their own health fair
or poor, smoking, and drug-induced, alcohol-induced and suicide mortality), and social distress (accounting for factors like rates
of separation/divorce, single parent families, vacant housing units and persistent population loss), were strong predictors of Trump
over-performance. Notably, Trump's average over-performance was 12% higher in counties with the highest poverty rates compared to
those with the lowest poverty rates. These relationships held even when controlling for metropolitan status.
Of course, this is not an exhaustive list of factors that likely influenced the election, and many of these factors are strongly
correlated, making it difficult to disentangle and rank in terms of influence. We also don't know from the data whether the most
economically distressed residents voted for Trump, or if it was comparatively less distressed residents who, out of anxiety and frustration
with the deprivation they saw around them, went for the Republican nominee.
Ultimately, what these descriptive findings suggest is that Trump performed well within these landscapes of despair – places that
have borne the brunt of declines
in manufacturing, mining, and related industries since the 1970s and are now struggling with
opioids
, disability, poor health, and family problems. Just as decades of declines in secure and livable wage jobs, resource-disinvestment,
and social decay have made some places in the U.S. more vulnerable to the
opioid sco urge , the same forces
made some places more susceptible to Trump's quick-fix populist messages.
Of course, this is not an exhaustive list of factors that likely influenced the election, and many of these factors are strongly
correlated, making it difficult to disentangle and rank in terms of influence. We also don't know from the data whether the most
economically distressed residents voted for Trump, or if it was comparatively less distressed residents who, out of anxiety and frustration
with the deprivation they saw around them, went for the Republican nominee.
Ultimately, what these descriptive findings suggest is that Trump performed well within these landscapes of despair – places that
have borne the brunt of declines
in manufacturing, mining, and related industries since the 1970s and are now struggling with
opioids
, disability, poor health, and family problems. Just as decades of declines in secure and livable wage jobs, resource-disinvestment,
and social decay have made some places in the U.S. more vulnerable to the
opioid sco urge , the same forces
made some places more susceptible to Trump's quick-fix populist messages.
The most important thing that happened last year (2016) was that globalization, vampire though it could be, was exposed and
repudiated, even if it still lives on.
That ought to maintain its own momentum going forward.
When we look at human beings or personalities, it has been obviously one man is just one man. There are other power centers
in DC. Proposed bills coming out of Congress do not have to correlate with the party platform or campaign promises. Then, there
are those who operate in the dark. If there was a Man of the Year for 2016, it would be the despaired ones, the Deplorables, the
previously ignored, etc. It's never about one man.
I see that "not having health insurance" is an indicia person is more likely to vote for Trump. I guess that's another reason
they're so hell-bent to kick folks off even the feeble ACA coverage.
23% of the US population is on Medicaid. The 'insurance expansion' of the ACA was mostly expansion of Medicaid (the private
policies are unaffordable and the insurance companies do not compete with each other, as they continue to exit the 'market').
And ~ 65% of Medicaid is now Managed Medicaid (& growing ), where the govt money goes to 'non-profit' companies such as Superior
Star Plus Medicaid which are actually owned by Fortune 500 companies, Centene in this example. Guess how well that's working out
for funding actual delivery of health care. Obama's original concept included the 'public option' of Medicare, the Insurance lobby
gutted that and rewrote the bill to their benefit, and being a professional politician Obama signed it consistent with the crony
capitalism rulebook whether you're neo-con or neo-liberal.
Many of the Trump voters could 'sense' this as their life experience even without knowing the actual data above. Writing them
off as illogical dullards is not accurate.
I don't believe the voters that gave Trump his Electoral College victory are illogical dullards. But many were likely persuaded
by a Siren call from a politician who had no history (or intent) of meeting their wants/needs. (They still have no new job, health
care, or relief from the opioid epidemic.)
While the economic decline began in these areas in the late 70's (Oil Shock 1973; Japan Auto Market intrusion, etc.), the call
for greater pursuit of more education to survive in a changing world was also clearly stated. Some likely ignored the call and
gambled on a liveable wage/family formation right out of high school. Unfortunately, fortune and the political system didn't serve
their choice well.
While true, many people are not suited for a four college degree because their talents are best outside of a desk, and it has
gotten so bad economically that one needs at least a bachelors, or more probably a masters degree just to stay even financially;
that only works were there are actually jobs.
If you are better as a machinist, or a chef, what use is a college degree. If you do have the talents, and inclination, to
work that requires a four year degree, can you pay for it, and if you can, will you be able to find work? If you are disabled,
or have family to take care of, or are stuck deep in one of those growing both in size and numbers, economic wastelands, being
told that you shoulda, coulda gotten a degree is not good.
I didn't say "four year college". I said more education. Learning to operate a digital lathe (Machinist) takes education/training.
Learning to be an electrician/cable installer takes focused training. These are relatively well-paying jobs versus assembly line
work requiring simply a high school education.
My point is that some folks chose what worked for their parents and started "life" right out of high school. (During a period
when many warned that that may not be good enough in the future.)
The overarching issue is that manipulating the political system for their personal economic advantage is not a broadly acquired
skill set in the US.
I would also blame the elites who praised Obamacare which they never needed/or used themselves, bought all the latest and the
greatest electronic toys (made in China). They kept drinking the Obama Kool Aid and allowed more control by neo-liberal Dims and
Repigs. Now the poor people are truly screwed with gutting of any kind of public assistance, public transportation and low interest
loans (if there were any).
It's time for all of us to work toward ending the two party rule and bring in a stronger third party. It will take time. Until
that time, more crooks like Trump will get in.
The U.S. population in November, 2017, is about 326,290,400 people. On
May 7 , it was about 325,000,000
people. So in August, it was approximately 325,700,000. 74,305,276 divided by 325,700,000 equals about 0.228. In other words,
with a small rounding adjustment, the percentage of the US population on Medicaid is 23%! That's a national embarrassment! I don't
expect sociopathic billionaires to be embarrassed, but there is a surprising number of people who respect or even admire billionaires,
because the billionaires are so "hard working" or "talented" or "creative". Those admirers should be ashamed.
Obama never wanted a public option. That was a foam-rubber velcro-decoy Obama pretended to hold out to distract and confuse
people, raise their enthusiasm and lower their guard.
Trump is no rocket scientist but he can learn from experience
When Bill Clinton passed NAFTA millions of US jobs went to Mexico.
What happened?
Labour is cheaper in Mexico and you can make more profit there, when there are no tariffs and you have the free movement of
capital it is better to move jobs out of the US to Mexico.
Why is labour cheaper in Mexico?
Wages have to cover the cost of living and the cost of living is much lower in Mexico.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food + other costs of living
The repeal of the Corn Laws ushered in the era of Laissez-Faire.
The businessmen wanted lower corn prices, to lower the cost of living, so they could pay lower, internationally competitive
wages.
Remember now?
It's all about the cost of living and the US cost of living is horrendous, they can't compete.
It's what Michael Hudson has been trying to tell people but condensed.
Capitalism – back to basics
It comes down to one equation:
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Workers want more disposable income
Business wants to pay lower wages for higher profits
The rentiers look to push up the cost of living.
The government take taxes.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living PLUS interest payments on debt)
The rentiers look to push up the cost of living TO help make their ever larger interest payments to the banks that harvest
much of their rents as interest.
Don't complain about high rents, complain about the ever larger share of rents that go to banks who lend to more and more uncreditworthy
apartment house owners thanks to low interest rates and financialization.
Hudson't my hero, but it's still godawful complicated to understand what's not meant to be discussed in our society.
Business wants to lower wages to make higher profits . . .
But Henry Ford paid higher wages in what he thought would be a long term road to higher profits for Ford Motor Company. Perhaps
he thought it would lead to long-term higher profits for every thing-making business. I have read that he was considered correct
in his thinking.
If business overall would make higher total profits ( even if less profit per unit thing item produced) in a setting of overall
higher wages, then what explains business's desire to lower wages in order to "raise profits"? Mere short sightedness? Or a sadistic
delight in making workers poor and making poor workers suffer?
But the econometric models of 1992! They mostly said NAFTA would be good for everyone. . . What went wrong?
Most of the CGE models expect the NAFTA to have virtually no impact on U.S. labor markets. With constant returns to scale
in production, and under the best-case assumptions described above, none of the CGE models predicts a long-run increase in
U.S. wages of more than 0.4 percent, in U.S. employment of more than 0.2 percent, and in U.S. output of more than 0.5 percent;
in most cases, the effects are much smaller.u Spread out over the many years of adjustment to free trade that are assumed by
the model, none of these changes would be perceptible.
The academic economists who promoted NAFTA (almost all of them) made the error of faithfully projecting David Ricardo and comparative
advantage theories without considering all the variables. . . That article does a good job of discussing this, however:
.the potential shift of investment expenditure from the U.S. to Mexico is analyzed, with estimates of negative effects on
U.S. employment and wages. This investment shift, of course, will increase employment and wages in Mexico's export-processing
industries. However, the authors also note the possible impact of the liberalization of agricultural trade policy on the Mexican
labor force. If, as seems likely, this forces a portion of Mexico's huge small-scale farming population into urban labor markets,
the negative impact of NAFTA on agricultural employment could outweigh the positive impact on manufacturing jobs, with an overall
decline in Mexican employment and wages. On this basis, the authors fear that a NAFTA could have a negative impact on labor
markets in both countries.
So, a few economists got it right, but even they failed to predict the massive migration of desperate Mexicans across the border
in search of jobs.
NAFTA gave us the three D's : de-industrialization, debt, and despair.
And the economists who prompted Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage without also addressing Ricardo's theory of the Iron
Law of Wages were ignoring an important aspect.
Mexico couldn't compete with the US pre-NAFTA in corn agriculture. Regardless of US cost structure, the shear scale and efficiency
of US operations enabled it to be the lower cost provider. Companies like Archer Daniels Midland was the real winner in the deal.
The problem was the US and Mexican ag worker received none of the upside.
The Mexican ag worker was never meant to receive any upside. The whole point of dumping American corn on Mexico was to bankrupt
millions of Mexican corn farmers and the more millions of Mexicans whom their steady corn-based incomes supported. The reason
for deliberately bankrupting all those Mexicans was to drive them off the land and into the border maquiladoras. That was a key
goal of NAFTA all along.
Roll out a half-baked ideology globally and you the same problem globally, the real estate boom.
The housing boom features all the unknowns in today's thinking, which is why they are global.
This simple equation is unknown.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
You can immediately see how high housing costs have to be covered by wages; business pays the high housing costs for expensive
housing adding to costs and reducing profits. The real estate boom raises costs to business and makes your nation uncompetitive
in a globalised world.
The unproductive lending involved that leads to financial crises.
The economy gets loaded up with unproductive lending as future spending power has been taken to inflate the value of the nation's
housing stock. Housing is more expensive and the future has been impoverished.
" banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the funds out at a higher rate of interest" Paul Krugman, 2015.
He wouldn't know.
Bank lending creates money, which pours into the economy fuelling the boom; it is this money creation that makes the housing
boom feel so good in the general economy. It feels like there is lots of money about because there is.
The housing bust feels so bad because the opposite takes place, and money gets sucked out of the economy as the repayments
overtake new lending. It feels like there isn't much money about because there isn't.
They were known unknowns, the people that knew weren't the policymakers to whom these things were unknown.
need question "neoliberal economics" without historical documentation, found here:
"The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology,
Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's
New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum
as nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably
to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some
very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek
founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially
by millionaires and their foundations.
The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the
American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for
Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities
of Chicago and Virginia.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose
democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains
that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."
"50 percent of our Community College students drop out to go to work to buy a car."
In most of the nation you cannot function without a personal vehicle.
Even professionally in NYC transportation by taxi was necessary whenever the issue of time was non negotiable.
(I was trapped underground in the Subway from Brooklyn's Bergen stop on the Red line to Tribeca. Was then late for the call, and
lost the client.)
The working classes of America literally have as their fortune their time, time on earth, and not much more than that.
There is little way for the working classes to see their experiences over 10 or 20 years of work into viable Certifications
competitive with the all for HR gate out of the University or 4 year colleges anymore.
The prospect for Americans who lived an ethos of "You can work your way up the ladder." is nil.
To those for whom time as slipped away, spent, not so near to the paper mills, but with the experiences that would make them
efficiency kings in most systems, there is the anger at the Greenspan Retraining Edict, used to blame the American Worker.
I am glad I was so incensed I have become a "Creative Economist".
When I say I am a Librarian of Work, it is with a point that I am not the only one.
Incensed by this idea abroad in the mental landscape with no means to move and not even wanting to at some point along with
the house ball & chain trap that has arisen the anger is pushing an entire demographic into shared intellectual and mental landscape
of the pathological.
They helped elect a pathological liar.
As regards the alteration of the American lifestyle & culture that involved a great deal of mobility, when Americans moved
an average of every two years to one of being trapped, tricked & Trapped at every turn there is one book I would write to attack
the sociologically shared pathology of despair & desperation.
That would be the Book of Tests.
It would be a challenge to the doom of debt in ascendency caused by a Human Resources Bureaucracy so married to the discrimination
that all accept blindly against those who did go to the "school of hard knocks". I am a Zappa School Independent Scholar for instance.
In Aviation I have Seen the Mechanics with the Airframe & Powerplant Certification Test to read in the break room till they
can pass the Test. Making this sort of Certification System more general, would lead the US, & its America of Post War GI Bill
leaps into the "best of all world".
Within the Territory, the Geography, the US cannot any longer afford loser geographic territories of such size.
Keynes is the man. & Marx, who saw the banks as of utility.
If Mahan could change the world & start the America that became Rome, then there have been more than the One Book events to change
the world.
I want a world with another name than Rome, that does not degenerate.
It was George HW Bush who signed and sealed NAFTA with Mexico and Canada, prior clinton inauguration, Dec. 17, 1992. Dems disliked
NAFTA, and clinton and majority of dems wouldn't go along till added labor and environmental regulation were in force. Clinton
signed expansion of NAFTA, having added those new regulations to republican legislation. Here's video of George HW Bush signing
NAFTA with Canada and Mexico:
Bullshit. What "Dems" are you talking about? Clinton was a big backer of NAFTA and his labor secretary Robert Reich stumped
for it,
claiming
NAFTA would create jobs . Bush the senior the deal with the heads of three other nations was not a binding commitment. NAFTA
became law when Clinton signed it in 1993.
In 1992, NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to
200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later.
President Bill Clinton signed it into law December 8, 1993. It entered force January 1, 1994. It was a priority of President
Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: "NAFTA Signed Into Law," History.com, December
8, 1993.)
I took the time to read several links, and I would encourage everyone -- irrespective of your political perspective -- to click
on the link to ' opiod
scourge '. It's one of the most insightful, explanatory, compassionate explanations that I've read in the last two years about
what we might call 'the Trump Factor' in the US.
Breathtaking.
A point I have not seen made before is that people who can't pass a drug test may not be counted in the work force, which reduces
the official unemployment rate.
This suggests a new "Misery Index" = unemployment rate + addiction rate
Great post.
Having lived in the heartland of despair of Michigan, in a manufacturing town, here is my 2 cents. I did not vote for trump, but
family members, who were life long democrats, did.
And what people want is something to be done.
Example: I lose my job, but get another with less pay and higher health insurance. I am upset but not mad. Politicians tell me
it will take a little time, but they will fix the cost of health care. So I wait, expecting an uptick. But I lose this job. And
now I am working in retail. I am running out of patience with the current democrats (and all politicians in general). Nothing
is being done, that I see. What I see is bickering and name calling and "gridlock". I want something done. I am now losing my
rationality because my retail job is not paying the bills. I am falling hopelessly behind. And when I hear politicians are fighting
over whatever, I want them all thrown out of office. So along comes trump. He says "F all of them, I will tell them all to go
to hell". He plays as an outsider. He says he will get things done.
Who do you think I am going to choose now? I am sick of waiting. I cannot wait. My children are hungry and need medicine. I am
getting older and need more medical care. Here's someone who says he will get things done, regardless if whether those things
actually benefit me (cuts to Medicare,etc). I see claims that minorities are coming to the country and getting "free stuff". He
says he will kick those freeloaders out. I see millionaire sports players complaining.
Now that he is hired, trump has become just as do-nothing as all the other career politicians. His current tax reform and simplification
is just as watered down and convoluted and confusing as other "reforms". What happened to filing with a postcard?
Wasn't this what happened in Germany in the 1920s? People became desperate. They elected somebody that did "something", even tho
it was bad. I am not comparing trump to that guy. I am comparing the desperation and lack of rational judgement. And that is what
I see and hear from people in my community. That's from both lower class citizens to upper class. And people don't realize it
is a "war" between the 1% and the rest of us. Put people in this desperate situation, tell them they can't afford social security
and Medicare, the people say "this is for the greater good", they cancel those programs, then the money is redirected to the 1%.
Then people are still paying 15.2% of their wages govt. but now, they are paying for a huge wealth transfer in the form of tax
cuts (and defense spending) instead of paying for their health care & retirement when they are old and can't work no more.
I thank Ep3 as well, for they confirm my thesis of generalized mental landscape pathology. They confirm it with the "loss of
the rational" to paraphrase within range.
Actually, it's rational. According to game theory, when you are put in a position where you cannot win whatever you do, the
only rational action is to flip the board over; throw the pieces on the floor; stop playing. Elect Trump or vote Brexit.
Those who are on the always-winning side may fail to understand this. It is in their interests to keep everyone playing the
game. The results could get messy.
Ep3, your description echoes what I see in western New York state and its adjacent corner of Pennsylvania. Despair hangs over
the area. Thank you for bearing witness.
The gutted mills (Jamestown was once the premier manufacturer of wood furniture in the US), the caved-in dairy barns and the
rotting late 19th and early 20th century houses, testify to no jobs or minimum wage work in MacDonald's and Walmart. Add to this
mix the existence of a truly awful, poverty-based, local food culture; meat, mainly fried, and carbs, also fried, and one begins
to understand why the only flourishing enterprises are healthcare related.
A ray of light, there seem to be no homeless people. Not like the growing numbers one sees in Denver, Salt Lake City, or Seattle.
Probably due to the low housing costs and the conversion of the big downtown hotels in SRO's.
I drove through much of northwestern Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio in October 2016, and afterward told everyone who would listen
that I had seen incontrovertible proof that Trump would win in November.
"To understand the electoral shift in these and similar places outside of the industrial Midwest, it is important to understand
the economic, social, and health declines that have plagued them over the past three decades."
I think this also explains why Trump, not Jeb, won the GOP primary.
Desperate people do desperate things. By 2020 the desperate will be at near exponential expansion. The democrat leaders apparently
believe all they should do is sit on their hands. Like the last time!! Some how the desperate have not been impressed by which
restroom people pee in.
Yes there were many Obama-Trump voters especially in the Midwest and they likely won Trump the election. This explodes the
theory that Trump's win was all about racism. I doubt that people who voted for Obama in the past were extreme white identity
voters.
In addition to the despair highlighted in this piece and in the comments I will also point out that many people were disappointed
in Obama. I am from the Midwest and I know people who voted for Obama twice but voted for Trump in 2016. The feeling is that Obama
betrayed them and turned out to be a "phony." They thought that Clinton would be Obama 2.0 so they took a gamble on Trump. Contrary
to the way they are portrayed in the media, many Midwestern working-class white Trump voters were not very enthusiastic about
him. They know Trump is a shady guy but were willing to take a risk on him because from their perspective he talked sense on issues
like trade and seemed to notice that not everything is going well in America.
Trump bucked the "everything is fine" message coming from Clinton and the mainstream media. One of the worst slogans to come
out of the Clinton campaign was "America is Already Great." Yeah maybe for the top 10 percent but for the rest of the country
that is definitely not true. Also, focusing almost exclusively on the Coalition of the Ascendant (non-whites, college-educated
social liberals, gays) sent a message that the Democratic Party feels like they don't need or want white working-class voters.
Chuck Schumer's quote about losing working-class whites but gaining moderate suburban Republicans just solidified that suspicion
on the part of white working-class people.
People did indeed vote out of despair. Same as BREXIT. it does NOT mean things will help them (for instance NC has shown just
how awful BREXIT could be) but when you feel you're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea you see this type of phenomenon.
Profoundly depressing all round.
The BREXIT & Trump voter was a big [family blog] you to the establishment. I didn't vote Trump, but laughed uproariously when
he won, to the dismay of all the fine neoliberals in Seattle.
Question for Seattle voters: how could you vote in Durkan, who failed to prosecute the biggest financial crime of all -- WaMu,
yet reject Hasagawa, who has been rallying for years in the state legislature for a state bank?
I'm still stunned at the stupidity of the Seattle voters to allow Durkan to fail upwards!
BREXIT is a good example to use here; From my admittedly less-than-scientific perusal of internet forums in the immediate aftermath
of that debacle, the general consensus of the British poor/underclass was that it was the only option currently available to stick
a thumb in the 1%'s collective eye. I might also add it was the only legal and non-violent option they had. If things don't finally
start changing in the next decade or so, I suspect events will become considerably less non-violent. As if the world isn't violent
enough right now, I know. But things can always get worse
PW, "neoliberal" does not describe many seattle denizens in my acquaintance when considering historical documentation of "neoliberalism":
"The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology,
Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's
New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum
as nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably
to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some
very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek
founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially
by millionaires and their foundations.
The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the
American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for
Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities
of Chicago and Virginia."
For a similar but more detailed–and maps!–analysis, see Sean Trende's articles
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_–_conclusions_132846.html
on RealClearPolitics. Trende uses a finer-grained analysis of population density. Trende makes the point that Democrats did well
in megacities (urban areas, population > 5 million) and carried large cities (urban area, population 1-5 million) but over the
last two decades have fallen apart everywhere else. Three dozen states have no large or mega cities; a party of large cities is
of no consequence in those states. America only has 11 megacities, a fair number of which are in places like California where
winning more Democratic votes will not effect the Presidential election. Note also Trende's population growth curves.
An aside:
I think that housing prices in the mega cities can be used, at least in part, as a rough proxy for wealth distributions in the
US by geography. People who can move to where they think they'll be able to find decent paying work drive up city size and competition
for housing. The mega wealthy also drive up local real estate prices. So today's mega city can be a proxy for more than persons-per-square-mile
analysis, imo.
Using city size as a reflection of wealth, this chart on housing prices is very interesting.
adding:
I hear endlessly that the Dems will have to make more compromises with the GOP to win back the Great Plains and the upper MidWest.
I think, if anything, the Dems have compromised too much on economic matters with the GOP by adopting neo-liberal economics as
the Dems' very own TINA. Dems can't improve the economic lives of their base voters by adopting the GOP economic programs and
philosophy.
flora obama codifying of bush – cheney international invasions of sovereign nations on basis of fabrications, wars, war crimes,
destabilization of Middle-East (as George HW Bush warned), millions refugees, "Patriot Act", Guantanamo Bay, prosecution of whistleblowers
telling truth, and Wall Street "control accounting frauds", no accountability at all, make your point
The bottom line is hardly complicated: The only effective way to combat the sort of phoney, right wing populism adopted by
creeps like Trump, Boris Johnson, Rob Ford, etc. is to use the real thing. And Hillary couldn't have done that if her life depended
on it.
As the late Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt (who grew up in post-war Germany) said, Americans lack a sense of "social
solidarity ". He favored national health insurance but with private (non-govt empoyed) health providers, as in Germany.
For all the media trying to portray Trump as a failed leader of his own party, it's clear to millions that the Republicans are
pushing for his failure and exit as much as the Democrats.
Unless the Democrats nominate a true moderate progressive with real world track record (like a governor ) -- but who?- rather
than another Global Cap mercenary, Trump will be reelected.
I am a good way through "Nomadland".
Older white CamperForce workers lives of mere survival become State of South Dakota citizens, in one day.
Like Jet Setters who buy passports of convenience are they proving the sociological saw that the poor & the rich think the same.
It is the war for survival and those who can go the furthest the fastest win in war.
I really do not get this. There are plenty of people of all different politics who see clearly the problems, and even agree
significantly on the solution and the oncoming catastrophe, but most of the ones running things either are clueless wonders, or
just want to continue straight into the ground for the money as if that will do them any real good if it gets truly horrible.
It does not require any special amount of brains, experience, or education, just common sense, and not much of that, to see
this. So WTF is going on?
The corporate globalist faction of the democratic party (Clinton) , the minority faction according to the TPA vote, deliberately
blew the election to Trump over the TPP, despite warnings – near riot and walkout when TPP came up at the platform committee –
carried on C-Span.
I really think that folks ought to stop obsessing about why some people voted for Trump. The most important factor was that
nearly half of eligible voters (non-felons aged 18 and over) didn't bother to vote at all . Trump and Clinton were fighting
over the mere 52.8% of eligible voters who cast votes for one of the legacy party candidates.
Nearly 10 million people who voted for Obama in 2008 didn't bother to show up to vote in 2016. Their "Hope" had been changed
to "Despair" by Obama's lies. They watched him hand their health care over to the insurance companies, hand their mortgage relief
over to the banks, hand their jobs out to foreigners, and expand the wars that were killing their children.
They had no intention of turning out to vote for either of two of the most outrageous prevaricators in their recent memory.
Those who did bother to vote did so likely more from force of habit than enthusiasm for either legacy-party candidate, who were
cynically looking for a low-turnout "win" rather than any sort of actual voter mandate.
This is the best up close to it piece I've seen on this subject, from someone in the midst of a despair zone; unlike the usual
East/West Coast Journo/Pundit, or at the computer with the Starbucks in hand data factoid analyzer (emphasis mine):
Here's the thing: from where I live, the world has drifted away. We aren't precarious, we're unnecessary. The money
has gone to the top. The wages have gone to the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what's worst of all, everybody who
matters seems basically pretty okay with that. The new bright sparks, cheerfully referred to as "Young Gods" believe themselves
to be the honest winners in a new invent-or-die economy, and are busily planning to escape into space or acquire superpowers,
and instead of worrying about this, the talking heads on TV tell you its all a good thing- don't worry, the recession's over
and everything's better now, and technology is TOTES AMAZEBALLS!
The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High
If there's no economic plan for the Unnecessariat, there's certainly an abundance for plans to extract value from them.
No-one has the option to just make their own way and be left alone at it. It used to be that people were uninsured and
if they got seriously sick they'd declare bankruptcy and lose the farm, but now they have a (mandatory) $1k/month plan with
a $5k deductible: they'll still declare bankruptcy and lose the farm if they get sick, but in the meantime they pay a shit-ton
to the shareholders of United Healthcare, or Aetna, or whoever. This, like shifting the chronically jobless from "unemployed"
to "disabled" is seen as a major improvement in status, at least on television.
Every four years some political ingenue decides that the solution to "poverty" is "retraining": for the information economy,
except that tech companies only hire Stanford grads , or for health care, except that an abundance of sick people doesn't
translate into good jobs for nurses' aides, or nowadays for "the trades" as if the world suffered a shortage of plumbers. The
retraining programs come and go, often mandated for recipients of EBT, but the accumulated tuition debt remains behind, payable
to the banks that wouldn't even look twice at a graduate's resume. There is now a booming market in debtor's prisons for unpaid
bills, and as we saw in Ferguson the threat of jail is a great way to extract cash from the otherwise broke (thought it can
backfire too). Eventually all those homes in Oklahoma, in Ohio, in Wyoming, will be lost in bankruptcy and made available for
vacation homes, doomsteads, or hobby farms for the "real" Americans, the ones for whom the ads and special sections in the
New York Times are relevant, and their current occupants know this. They are denizens, to use Standing's term, in their own
hometowns.
This is the world highlighted in those maps, brought to the fore by drug deaths and bullets to the brain- a world in which
a significant part of the population has been rendered unnecessary, superfluous, a bit of a pain but not likely to last long.
Utopians on the coasts occasionally feel obliged to dream up some scheme whereby the unnecessariat become useful again, but
its crap and nobody ever holds them to it. If you even think about it for a minute, it becomes obvious: what if Sanders (or
your political savior of choice) had won? Would that fix the Ohio river valley? Would it bring back Youngstown Sheet and Tube,
or something comparable that could pay off a mortgage? Would it end the drug game in Appalachia, New England, and the Great
Plains? Would it call back the economic viability of small farms in Illinois, of ranching in Oklahoma and Kansas? Would it
make a hardware store viable again in Iowa, or a bookstore in Nevada? Who even bothers to pretend anymore?
Well, I suppose you might. You're probably reading this thinking: "I wouldn't live like that." Maybe you're thinking
"I wouldn't overdose" or "I wouldn't try heroin," or maybe "I wouldn't let my vicodin get so out of control I couldn't afford
it anymore" or "I wouldn't accept opioid pain killers for my crushed arm." Maybe you're thinking "I wouldn't have tried to
clear the baler myself" or "I wouldn't be pulling a 40-year-old baler with a cracked bearing so the tie-arm wobbles and jams"
or "I wouldn't accept a job that had a risk profile like that" or "I wouldn't have been unemployed for six months" or basically
something else that means "I wouldn't ever let things change and get so that I was no longer in total control of my life."
And maybe you haven't. Yet.
This isn't the first time someone's felt this way about the dying. In fact, many of the unnecessariat agree with you
and blame themselves – that's why they're shooting drugs and not dynamiting the Google Barge. The bottom line, repeated
just below the surface of every speech, is this: those people are in the way, and its all their fault. The world of self-driving
cars and global outsourcing doesn't want or need them. Someday it won't want you either. They can either self-rescue with
unicorns and rainbows or they can sell us their land and wait for death in an apartment somewhere. You'll get there too.
In Sum, Despair is the Collapse of Forever into the Strain of Now
If I still don't have your attention, consider this: county by county, where life expectancy is dropping survivors are voting
for Trump.
What does it mean, to see the world's narrative retreat into the distance? To know that nothing more is expected of you,
or your children, or of your children's children, than to fade away quietly and let some other heroes take their place? One
thing it means is: if someone says something about it publicly, you're sure as hell going to perk up and listen.
Guy Standing believed that the Precariat heralded a new age of xenophobic nationalism and reaction, but at the same time
hoped that something like Occupy, that brought the precariat together as a self-conscious community, would lead to social and
economic changes needed to ameliorate their plight. Actively. The gay community didn't just roll over and ask nicely for recognition,
they had their shit together enough that they could fight their way, literally, into the studios of one of the top news shows
in America, into the US capitol, the UK parliament, into the streets of every major city at rush hour. AIDS galvanized them,
but it was their mutual recognition as friends, allies, comrades-in-arms from years of fighting for urban space to hook up
in that made that galvanic surge possible. The disease blew a hole in an entire generation and the survivors kept fighting.
HAART attenuated the death rate, and the survivors kept fighting.
So far, the quiet misery of the unnecessariat has yet to spark its own characteristic explosion, but is it so hard to see
the germ of it in Trump's rallies? In the LaVoy Finicum memorials? Are we, and I don't mean this rhetorically, on the verge
of something as earth-shaking as ACT-UP?
On primary election day, I wrote the following to a professor friend (edited):
"I am despising myself for a coward today. I stopped for gas on the way to the polls, and noticed a hole in the frame
of the car that you could push a parrot through. Dammit, I can't afford a new car, and I don't know if I can afford a welded
patch- I don't even know what would be involved, since so much has to be stripped off before you can bring a torch near
a car body. I was in a pretty bad state when I got to the polls.
Let me explain my conundrum: all democratic primaries are proportional, among candidates who get 15% or more of the votes.
The republicans have a whole slew of delegate procedures, but ours is winner take all. [I could contribute one fraction
of a fraction of a fraction of a delegate to Sanders, or help push Trump over the top.]
What's the outcome here? Sanders isn't going to win. He doesn't have the delegates- hell, he doesn't have the votes.
Doesn't have the support. Clinton is the democratic nominee, and frankly she's favored to win in the general election, even
though in a head-to-head she gets trounced by Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio. Right now she polls ahead of Trump, but Trump is the
one factor in this race that could completely kick the whole thing over. What happens if Clinton wins? For me, nothing-
nothing good anyway. I still can't afford car repairs, I still have to buy medication in cash raised by selling hay bales.
No, I didn't bale them, I trucked them across the county. If you bale them yourself, you make money at it, but I just had
some extras to unload. That'll still be the shape of things in a Clinton presidency.
Lets be honest- Clinton doesn't give a shit about me. When Clinton talks about people hurt by the economy, she means
you: elite-educated white-collar people with obvious career tracks who are having trouble with their bills and their 401k
plans. That's who boomed under the last president Clinton, especially the 401ks. Me, or the three guys fighting two nights
ago over the Township mowing contract, we're nothing. Clinton doesn't have an economic plan for us. Nobody has an economic
plan for us. There is no economic plan for us, ever. We keep driving trucks around and keep the margins above gas money
and maybe take an odd job here or there, but essentially, we're history and nobody seems to mind saying so.
And let me be honest again- Trump doesn't have an economic plan for me either. What Trump's boys have for me is a
noose- but that's the choice I'm facing, a lifetime of grueling poverty, or apocalypse. Yeah I know, not fun and games-
the shouts, the smashing glass, the headlights on the lawn, but what am I supposed to do, raise my kid to stay one step
ahead of the inspectors and don't, for the love of god, don't ever miss a payment on your speeding ticket? A noose is something
I know how to fight. A hole in the frame of my car is not. A lifetime of feeling that sense, that "ohhhh, shiiiiiit " of
recognition that another year will go by without any major change in the way of things, little misfortunes upon misfortunes
a lifetime of paying a grand a month to the same financial industry busily padding the 401k plans of cyclists in spandex,
who declare a new era of prosperity in America? Who can find clarity, a sense of self, any kind of redemption in that world?
Fuck it. Give me the fascists, I'll know where I stand
But I went ahead and took a democratic ballot regardless. And voted for Sanders. And as long as chumps like me keep
doing that, we'll keep getting the Clintons we deserve.
.
I would add that there are ever increasing East/West Coast despair zones not being discussed, other than tagging those populations
as Uneducated ™, which apparently equates to a non tech background, or just being over 35, despite current education. I
suspect the large Blue Turnout for California, had far more to do with an enormous anti-Trump immigrant population, traditional
Dem voters opting out of either candidate, and vote counting malfeasance, than anything else; as California has the highest Poverty
rate in the Nation, yet is predominantly overseen by Democrats who may as well be Republicans for the damage they've wrought.
I was at a hostel and an interesting perspective put forth from one of the guests was that at the first debate with Clinton
when he was largely unresponsive, looked terrible and obviously coked up, during the second debate he did much better. He said
that he had believed Trump believed he was going to go in and fundentally fix things but after the primaries he had gotten talked
to about the reality of what was going to be allowed and his first debate reflected the shock of the reality of things to him.
Just an interesting perspective.
witters,
yeah dear, if anyone able to read claims they don't understand what she wrote, they're clearly not telling the truth.
*****************
Addending my above comment, a perfect example of the West Coast despair is the Silicon Valley, California despair (and Silicon
Valley, and its borders, have been overseen by 99.99 Democrats who may as well be REPUBLICANS for the austerity they've presided
over).
Using suicide via Commuter Train – by an approximately fifty mile stretch (which mostly encompasses Silicon™ Valley
™), between San Jose and San Francisco, of Caltrain commuter track – as an example, there were a record 20 Caltrain track deaths
in 2015. At least nineteen of those deaths were declared as, or definitely appeared to be suicides. The 20th death (emphasis mine):
One person was hit and killed late Monday afternoon by a Caltrain in Santa Clara, roughly 30 minutes after police pulled
a trespasser from the tracks in Mountain View, officials confirmed.
The death marked the agency's 20th fatality of the year, spokeswoman Tasha Bartholomew confirmed, matching a record-high
set back in 1995.
The fatal collision happened shortly before 5:40 p.m. just north of the Santa Clara Caltrain station, agency spokeswoman
Tasha Bartholomew said. The train that hit the pedestrian was heading northbound at the time of the collision.
Less than 30 minutes before that incident, another person was detained by police near the San Antonio station in Mountain
View after they were caught on the tracks and nearly hit by a passing train.
Bartholomew said the person was not hit, but a bag they were carrying was grazed. That person has not been identified.
Commuters can expect delays.
Check back for updates.
Those record 2015 deaths –predominantly adults, and two 15 year old males from affluent neighborhoods– were never highlighted
by local, or National, news. The adults were usually noted as Trespassing on the Tracks ™; a normal 'coding,' unless it's
a youth, or someone considered Meritocratic (see: 03/12/12
Eric Salvatierra
Killed By Caltrain: How Did PayPal Executive Die? ; my decades long in silicon valley educated guess: Peter Thiel/Elon Musk
Founded, eBay acquired, PayPal , was a ghastly and inhuman place to work at).
In that same year, for their December 2015 issue , and after that above noted November 16, 2015, RECORD 20th Caltrain
human tragedy , The Atlantic ™ published a piece by East Coast DC'er Pundit™, Hanna Rosin, titled, The Silicon Valley
Suicides -Why are so many kids with bright prospects killing themselves , regarding prior year Teen Suicides on
those same Caltrain Tracks , Teens from Affluent Families, mostly in Palo Alto, which neighbors Stanford University and its
Hoover institute.
It is wonderful that those teen tragedies from affluent families were highlighted, as they should have been. But then, neither
Hanna Rosin, or anyone from the The Atlantic ™ wrote a follow-up piece regarding those record 20 Caltrain – mostly ADULT
suicides – deaths in 2015, which, if Hanna was doing her homework regarding Caltrain suicides she had to have been aware of.
Those Caltrain deaths have decreased in the last two years (the last I noticed was an eighth death, on October 19th: Caltrain
strikes, kills trespasser in San Francisco , reported by kron4 ™), especially since there is now a worldwide spotlight
on the Homogenous Ivy League Male Billionaires of Silicon Valley and the obscene poverty their Publicly Subsidized Private
Sandbox encompasses. I.e. rarely reported on, untold suicide attempts, and: versus easing up the ability to economically survive,
The State of California has instead focused on making sure no one kills themselves before they are sucked dry of all possible
currency, by guarding those tracks (along with Amtrak & Bart tracks, and the Golden Gate Bridge) 24/7.
"... The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. ..."
"... A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time). ..."
"... That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election is mentioned, so let's look at it: ..."
"... Second, the DNC itself does not ..."
"... But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. ..."
"... It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC 1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to disclose. ..."
"... The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20 million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right? ..."
"... My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the lack of money. ..."
"... "Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial about the true nature and scope of the problem "Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a functioning democracy." ..."
Long-time Democratic[1] operative Donna Brazile, interim chair of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was defenestrated[2], has, like two otherparticipants in
the 2016 Presidential election and at least one set of
observers , written a book, Hacked , and published a long excerpt from it four
days ago, in Politico
. Here is the key passage, in which Brazile paraphrases and quotes a conversation with Gary
Gensler, former of Goldman Sachs and the CFTC, and then the chief financial officer of the
Clinton campaign:
[Gensler] described the party as fully under the control of Hillary's campaign
, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life
support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using
the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a
maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for
contributions to state parties and a party's national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write
an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure
represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund
agreement -- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states
first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states
usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the
DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
Yes, you read that right. Although the Hillary Victory Fund was billed as aiding the states,
in fact the states were simply pass-throughs, and the money went to the Clinton campaign. (This
is not news;
Politico covered the Victory Fun in 2016 : "The Democratic front-runner says she's raising
big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60
million raised.")
"Wait," I said. "That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the
state party races. You're telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she
got the nomination?"
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
"That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie," he explained, referring to campaign
manager Robby Mook. "It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from
September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election."
After some research, Brazile finds a document ("the agreement") that spells out what "fully
under the control of Hillary's campaign" meant operationally:
The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a
copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing
in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and
it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult
with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it
by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
(Importantly, Gensler has not disputed this account, of which, assuming he's not vacationing
Antarctica, he must have been aware of, given the media uproar. We can therefore assume its
accurate). Note two aspects of this passage, which I'm quoting at such length to ensure we know
what Brazile actually charged. I've helpfully underlined them: (1) Brazile leads with the
money; that is, the Clinton Victory Fund, and (2) Brazile describes the DNC as "fully under the
control" of the Clinton campaign.
Predictably, an enormous controversy erupted, much of it over the weekend just passed, but
I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow of the talking points. (Glenn Greenwald provides an
excellent media critique in
"Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False
"; all four have to do with this controversy[3].) I think the following three quotes are key,
the first two being oft-repeated talking points by Clinton loyalists:
"The joint fundraising agreements were the same for each campaign except for
the treasurer, and our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential
campaigns the opportunity to set up a JFA and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those
funds were used to best prepare for the general election."
Question: Were the agreements "the same" for each campaign? (Perez focuses only on the JFA,
but that omits a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DNC and the Clinton
campaign, as we shall see below.)
Second, from 2005-9 DNC chair Howard Dean:
Question: Did the agreement apply only to the general election, and not the primary? (Dean
says "this memo," but he also omits the distinction between the MOU and the JFA.)
"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile
that the Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by
entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said,
continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including
strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months
before Clinton won the nomination .
Tapper then asked, "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?" And
Warren responded simply: "Yes."
Question: Can we say that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged? (Tapper uses the word
"rigged," and Warren adopts it, but a careful reading of Brazile's article shows that although
she uses the word, she does not actually make the claim.[4])
In this post, I'm going to answer each of these three questions by looking at the documents,
plural, in question (Spoiler: My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes," respectively.) Here is a
timeline of the documents:
8/27/2015 (
reported ): The Clinton-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement (JFA).
Available for download at
WikiLeaks, hilariously enough.
8/26/2015 (signed): The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, or "memo").
Available for
download at MSNBC. The MOU
characterized by NBC as a "side deal," specifies how the JFA is to be implemented. Hence,
"the agreement" comprises both documents; the JFA cannot be understood without the MOU, and
vice versa.
11/5/2105 (
reported
): The Sanders-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement. I can't find a copy online, but it's
described by ABC here . If there is an MOU that accompanies the Sanders JFA, it has not
come to light, and presumably, by this point, it would have.
In summary, the Clinton JFA set up the Hillary Victory Fund scam , the MOU gave
Clinton control of (much of) the DNC apparatus, and (
according to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver ) the Sanders JFA bought their campaign
access to the DNC voter list, and was never used for fundraising because the DNC never asked
the campaign to do any. So to answer the our first question, we'll look at the JFA. To answer
the second, we'll look at the MOU. And to answer the third, we'll see how all the evidence
balances out.
Were the Agreements "the Same" for Each Campaign?
Perez is wrong. The agreements were not at all the same, either formally or
substantively.
Formally, the agreements were not the same because the Clinton JFA had an MOU (the "side
deal") and the Sanders JFA did not.
ABC :
[T]he Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC
and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their
funding agreement . [R]epresentatives from Sanders' former campaign say they only signed a
basic, formulaic fundraising agreement that did not include any additional language about
joint messaging or staffing decision-making [as does the MOU].
Substantively, the agreements weren't the same either. The substance of the JFA was a scheme
enable the Hillary Victory Fund to collect "big checks" (as Politico puts it), supposedly
behalf of the state parties, but in reality treating them as conduits to the coffers of the
Clinton campaign. Page 3:
From time to time and in compliance with FECA, after expenses have been deducted from the
gross proceeds, the Victory Fund will transfer the net proceeds to the Committees according
to the Allocation Formula, as modified by any reallocation required.
"[T]he Committees" being the state party political committees, into whose accounts the
contributions were deposited, only to be immediately removed and transferred to the Clinton
campaign (at least for the states that signed entered into the agreement; a few did not).
However, the Sanders campaign wasn't in the business of collecting "big checks," being
small-donor driven. Hence the substance of the agreement could not have been the same.
ABC once more :
Former Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told ABC News Friday night that the campaign
entered the agreement with the party in November 2015 to facilitate the campaign's access to
the party's voter rolls. Weaver claims the DNC offered to credit any fundraising the senator
did for the party against the costs of access to the party's data costs, priced at $250,000.
But, Weaver continued, the party did not follow up about fundraising appearances for the
independent senator.
Instead, the Sanders campaign raised the $250,000 from small donors.
WaPo :
Weaver said the Sanders campaign decided early on to ignore the joint fundraising program
and raise small dollars on its own to pay for access to the voter file. "Who are the wealthy
people Bernie was going to bring to a fundraiser?" Weaver asked. "We had to buy the voter
file right before the primaries."
A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her
campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had
maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for
$353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by
contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could
give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time).
Suppose you were comparing two mortgages on different houses: One mortgage has a side deal
attached, the other does not. One is for a lavish facility and demands a complex financing
arrangement involving a third party. The other is for a fixer-upper and a lump sum is paid in
cash. Would you say those two mortgages are "the same," or not? Even if they both had the word
"Mortage" at the top of page one?
Did the Agreement Apply Only to the General Election, and not the Primary?
We now turn our attention to the MOU. Howard Dean,
sadly , is wrong. The MOU contains two key passages; the first describes the relationship
between Hillary for America (HFA; the Clinton campaign) and the DNC (Brazile: "fully under the
control of Hillary's campaign"), and the second is language on the general election. Let's take
each in turn. On control, pages 1 and 2:
With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director , the DNC agrees
that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously
identified as acceptable to HFA.
2. With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications,
technology, and research departments , in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain
the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA. 3.
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election
related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA
advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate . This does not include any communications
related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC
will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature .
That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign
has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the
communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton
campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as
interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the
notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point
messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election
is mentioned, so let's look at it:
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general
election[-]related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.
At the most generous reading, the Clinton campaign has "joint authority" with the DNC over
"strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures." At the narrowest reading, given
that the "general-election[-]related qualifier applies only to "communications," the joint
authority applies to "strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and data,
technology, analytics, and research." And given that the Clinton campaign is writing the checks
that keep the DNC afloat, who do you think will have the whip hand in that "joint authority"
relationship?
Now to the clause that supposedly says the agreement (JFA + MOU) applies only to the general
election. Here it is, from page 3:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of
impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed
under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and
not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with
other candidates
(Pause for hollow laughter, given Wasserman Schultz's defenestration, Brazile passing debate
questions to the Clinton campaign, etc.). First, even though Hoho seems to think it's
exculpatory, the clause is an obvious fig leaf.
Glenn Greenwald explains :
DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying
lawyer language claiming that it is "focused exclusively on preparations for the General,"
but
as Fischer noted that passage "is contradicted by the rest of the agreement." This would
be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official ("A will pay Politician B
to vote YES on Bill X"), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that
"nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe," and then have journalists cite
that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face
explicitly says the opposite.
Second, the DNC itself does not believe that it has any "obligation of impartiality
and neutrality" whatever. From Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corporation, D/B/A Democratic
National Committee and Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman Schultz (as cited
in Naked Capitalism here ), the DNC's lawyer, Mr. Spiva:
MR. SPIVA: [W}here you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our
standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are
voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look,
we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that
way . That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also
been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party
politics to answer those questions.
Third, look at the institutional realities from point one on control. The Clinton campaign
had control over the Communications Director slot and major strategic decisions from
the moment the agreement was signed. Are we really to believe that they were behaving as
neutral parties? (One obvious way to have shown that would have been to release the MOU either
when it was signed.)
Can We Say that the 2016 Democratic Primary Was Rigged?
I found no evidence, none whatsoever. 'The only thing I found, which I said, I've found
the cancer but I'm not killing the patient,' was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from
running its own operation," Brazile added
I think Brazile is either overly charitable, or overly legalistic (perhaps confusing
"rigged" with "fixed," where only in the latter case is the outcome absolutely determined). I
also think she's wrong. The
dictionary definition of rigged is:
to manipulate fraudulently
There's ample evidence of rigging in both the JFA and the MOU. The JFA enabled the Hillary
Victory Fund, which was a fraudulent scheme to allow big donors to contribute to the Clinton
campaign by using the states as passthroughs. And the MOU enabled to Clinton campaign to
fraudulently manipulate the public and the press into the belief that the DNC was an
independent entity, when in fact it was a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Clinton
campaign.
Conclusion
I know
we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign ; we're supposed to look forward and
not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is closed; as Brazile
shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to render judgment. So,
when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself who and what silence
serves. And perhaps this post will provide a basis for further discussion. 119
comments
Likewise, confirms my decision to wash my hands of the party. If, by some miracle, a
candidate acceptable to my priorities is nominated, I will still vote for him/her, but the
party isn't getting any default support or any $.
People need to stop conflating the DNC with the Democratic Party. I realized I was doing
so and stopped.
The DNC is an organization for raising money to support Democratic Party candidates for US
President; its subsidiaries are, of course, the DCCC and the DSCC. The only reason they have
power to dictate to the actual party is because they hold the purse strings. That
Bernie and others have run successful campaigns, to one degree or another, without their
"help" is one of the reasons they're fighting so hard to maintain the status quo. If they're
shown to be redundant, the power of those who currently run it evaporates.
Saying "I'll never vote Democrat again" is, as my sainted mother used to say, cutting off
your nose to spite your face. Right now, if we're going to at least slow down the rocketing
juggernaut that is GOP/plutocratic ownership of our governments, we need to elect progressive
candidates. There's no time to create a third party that can compete, so we need to vote for
the candidates who are advancing a non-neoliberal/neocon agenda whatever party they run
under. It's mostly Democrats, at the moment, but a social media acquaintance spoke of a
clearly progressive candidate running for a local office as a Republican because that's how
she's registered.
One of the ways the GOP was so successful in conning the working people and small business
owners and others into buying their hogwash was by demonizing "the Democrats." Now, their
message that "Democrats" are nothing but crazy-headed hippies who want to take their money
and give it to other people is so deeply ingrained it's a hard row to how convincing them
just how big a lie it is. Indeed, I suspect I shocked a raging right-winger the other day
when I told him we agreed about Obama and Clinton, because his Fox-muddled mind firmly
believes a Democrat thinks Obama rules the heavens.
If we don't "vote Democrat" in the upcoming primaries, then the establishment local and
state parties are going to throw more New Democrats against the GOP and lose. That can't
happen.
Yes, thank you! People need to vote for the progressive candidates in the Democratic
primaries. If they don't, then the establishment candidates will easily win, and the national
government will continue to be dominated by both Republican and Democratic lap dogs of the
billionaires. And if there are a few progressive Republicans out there, sure, vote for them,
too.
I often wonder whether some of the people who admonish us to stop voting for Democrats are
really employed by one of the many Koch brothers organizations. Not all of them, of course,
and I'm not making an accusation against anyone who is commenting here. But if people don't
vote for progressive Democrats, the billionaires and the corporate advocates of
financialization will win.
Of course, appearances can be deceptive: Obama ran as a progressive candidate .
As a quick ready-reckoner -- the more a candidate bloviates on Identity issues, the less
likely they are (should they be elected) to be "progressive" on issues of substance: the
economy, tax, war/imperialism
Right! Where are these progressive democrats? I would love to support one other than
Bernie Sanders (yes I know he is not perfect and he is too old). But they don't seem to exist
at the national level. There seem to be mayoral and other municipal candidates on the right
track – just have no idea how to move those ideas onto the state or national level.
Maybe I am just cranky and pessimistic right now.
TYT did several interviews of "Justice Democrats", newbies running on a progressive
platform. Some of the interviews you could see Cenk Uynger almost cringing, and the usually
voluble Jimmy Dore very quiet as the candidates lacked public speaking skills, and
demonstrating a probable lack of political smarts necessary to maneuver any bureaucracy.
Without trial by fire at lower levels, learning how to run a government and get results,
then there is no way to judge the candidates.
Unless candidates like Roza Calderon a faster learn that is
apparent at this point, they the Justice Democrats can only win when "anyone but him/her"
applies ,
So it was our apathy that did it. It was our moral failure. "Really," says Algernon, in The Importance of Being Earnest, "if the lower orders don't
set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have
absolutely no sense of moral responsibility."
There's an important difference between being and voting Democrat. Actually, we already
have a defacto 3rd party, Independents/Unaffiliated, a larger block of voters than either
Republicans or Democrats.
With even greater numbers of Independents/Unaffiliated, we could be a force to be reckoned
with. Actually, we should recognize and own our power right now because we could decimate the
ranks of the Duopoly and make room for an actual third party. We can still vote for Democrats
of course, but they'll realize that they can't continue to take our votes for granted.
There's actually no good reason to remain a registered Democrat. You can still vote for
Democrats as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter. It's only for some presidential primaries and
caucuses that party registration is a limitation. If you live in one of those states, you can
temporarily register as a Democrat to vote, then revert to independent/unaffiliated
afterwards. Other than that, all other elections are open without regard to affiliation.
The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey, and we're the prey
only because we haven't yet learned to fly to escape their talons. If we start owning our
power as free agents/Independent voters, that can change. While deep pocketed donors may have
the power to make the wheels turn for the Duopoly, those wheels can't go anywhere without our
votes. Since we don't have the power of money, we can at least exercise our political power
to stay out of their talons.
Independence is the way to fly. It's not just leverage, it's also the only way to clear
more space and demand for official third parties. Since the Duopoly refuses to change their
ways and repair the rigged system they created to keep only themselves in power, we can and
should abandon them in droves.
In order to vote in the New York State Democrat party primary you must be a registered
Democrat. In NY the primary is where most seats are won and lost. Being registered as a
Democrat is a necessary evil in some cases.
It has never been clear to me why a hostile takeover of the Democrats, followed by a
management purge and seizure of its assets, should be framed as "saving" the Democrat Party.
I think that's what a lot of Sanders people would like to do. It's also not clear to me why
people think the Democrats can simply be by-passed , and don't need to be assaulted,
and if from the inside, all the better.
As readers know, my experience with the Greens was poor (as it has been with others I have
talked to). This is especially sad since the GP in Maine had seemed to be viable. So, my fear
of the Greens is not fear of the un known, but fear of the known ; I worked
at dysfunctional non-profits before, and I don't need to do it again. Others, especially CP
activists, may differ in their experience, but that's mine. (Note that I was reinforced in my
priors by Stein's lawyer adopting the "Russian hacking" meme in Stein's post-election
lawsuits.)
if Bernie's primary campaign and support had been transferred to the Green Party, he
would have been a very serious contender,
I agree. But Sanders couldn't join the Green ticket, because he made a promise to support
the Democratic candidate, and unlike some politicians, he tries to keep his promises. So what did the Greens do? Instead of actively trying to gain the support of Sanders
primary voters, they nominated ideological purist Ajamu Baraka as their Vice Presidential
candidate, and he would not back down from unrealistic insulting criticism of Sanders. In
effect, the Greens chose to fail.
I am not interested in keeping the two party system. Either the country breaks apart, or we will have regional parties that can compete with
the Democrats and the Republicans.
How many clowns can dance on the head of a pin? Debating whether it feels better to have a
donkey or an elephant standing on your neck is a fools errand. Neither the Democrat or
Republican party is democratic or representative of any more than a handful of families from
the Billionaires Club. While they may favor different individuals in the ruling class,
neither faux-party has the slightest interest in the rabble who don't line their pockets and
provide protection against electoral defeat.
Elections are a stage managed charade in our kleptocracy. Expecting them to change
anything that matters, or alter the course of the Warfare State is pure delusion. First we
must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe in.
"First we must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe
in."
You are right -- although hopefully mere "crisis" will be sufficient for radical change
rather than complete collapse & chaos . Collapse & chaos may void any chance of
organised positive change. Having said that the signs are not good: see https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/the-ecosystem-is-breaking-down/
for the less than cheery news on ecosystem breakdown.
Both parties must be revealed unambiguously to the whole public as the completely morally
bankrupt, treasonous & vicious entities that socialists & progressives have known
them to be for decades.
The big problem with the Democrats is that they just kicked all the Progressives out and
actively oppose them. Voting for blue dogs doesn't get us anywhere.
You are correct about Carter. Zbigniew Brzezinski was a creature of the Rockefellers, and
he was Carter's Special Assistant for National Security. Prior to becoming President, Carter
was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
The rigging was obvious from the start. When nearly all the super delegates declared for
Clinton before a single primary was held, I read numerous reports that said the reason was
quid pro quo. The super delegates were to be given campaign money in exchange for their
support. The agreement proves it.
That, and what the DNC did to Bernie supporters during the convention, made me swear I'd
never give them a penny. I have only donated to specific candidates directly. Meanwhile, the
Dem establishment stubbornly remains clueless as to why it cannot regain the House and
Senate.
I have seen portions of the agreement (not sure if JFA or MOU) characterized as a "slush
fund" for consultants. Naturally, of course, but one might also wonder if that slush fund was
used to purchase any superdelegate votes. Pure speculation I didn't have time to run down, so
I left it on the cutting room floor.
G, a lot happened to Sanders supporters at the convention, too much to recap but you can
probably find stories about it. Many walked out but their seats were filled by paid
seat-fillers so the hall didn't look empty, also from what I understand paid seat-fillers
sometimes didn't let them take their seats. Signs were blocked, white noise was used to
muffle boos, etc.
Before the convention, many of the primaries had a lot of funny business (not all, I know
of no problems here in Texas). But California, Arizona, New York, Puerto Rico, Nevada and
others all had SERIOUS problems with things such as efforts to prevent Sanders supporters
from voting, questionable vote counting (such as at Nevada caucuses), efforts to make voting
difficult by having few poll places, etc., etc.
I think there were irregularities in Illinois, too. I recall that 6 counties did not have
enough Democratic ballots, and the Democratic Attorney General, a Clinton supporter, sued to
prevent voters in those counties from voting after election day. In Massachusetts, Bill Clinton illegally electioneered near or in a polling place. But the
authorities let him get away with it.
Great article Lambert. TheGreenwald article was helpful but yours is the icing on the
cake. Hopefully many will read this so that they do not get confused with all of the
Clintonista response to Brazile. Howard Dean must be suffering from early Alzheimer's to
write such a lie. But he has done it before.
It's hard for me to believe anyone can, with a straight face, suggest the 2 agreements are
equal.How can you have more than one agreement giving "the authority to make the final decision
" ??!!
Final means last, no? #corruptlosers
I know we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign; we're supposed to look
forward and not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is
closed; as Brazile shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to
render judgment. So, when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself
who and what silence serves.
Well said. Regular contact with the centrist MSM recently is like being subjected to
hypnotism routines from 50s movies. "You are thinking forward, forward, forward. When I snap
my fingers you will feel fresh, eager to believe in the promises of the party of Franklin
Roosevelt and Barack Obama."
and yet FDR stood by while his own "Senator Sanders" – Henry Wallace was sidetracked
from his vice-presidency and legacy as FDR's successor (to the chagrin of Eleanor, among
many) by corporate dems James Byrnes, stooge for big oil and U.S. steel, who replaced Wallace
with Truman at 1944 dem convention
However, there certainly is no comparison, as you note, between obama's complete lack of
"transparency, oversight, accountability" regarding bush-cheney war crimes, Wall Street
frauds, destabilization of entire Middle-East, leading to republican trump administration,
and FDR
Most authors-historicans I have encountered believe FDR had no real idea how ill he
was
A while ago, I read a story about the DNC's misuse of unpaid interns. The story itself was
barfy enough, but what really shocked me was an aside asserting that even official elected
DNC members were barred from viewing the DNC's budget. ( http://paydayreport.com/unpaidinternsatdnc/
)
"Surely that can't be true," I said to myself. But it is! I looked up the DNC's charter
and bylaws and the standing budget committee is specifically exempted from article 9 section
12, which says that all official meetings of the DNC and its committees must be open to the
public and cannot involve voting by secret ballot. http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf
"WTF kind of an organization is this?!" I thought. How on earth is that even legal?
Well, after the Brazile disclosure of the Clinton MOU, I went back to look at the DNC
charter/bylaws. You'll note on the first page the date the current version was
adopted–2 days after the MOU was signed!
Anyone wanna take a bet that the budget committee carveout was one of things that was
changed?
jsba, suggest you use the Wayback machine or another internet archive and look at prior
historical copies of DNC charter/bylaws, to identify the changes. Could be very illuminating
as to (possible) criminal intent?
I was wrong about the budget committee carveout–it's in this version as well (still
completely insane!).
The fact that it was amended 2 days after the MOU is, obviously, still extremely
suspicious. I don't have time to, but the 2009 version would be useful to identify possible
changes.
As much as I'd like to switch parties (hah) so as to add to the greater numbers of fleeing
formerly party faithful, I'm in one of those 'closed primary' states. My vote is already
nearly worthless (though I exercise my right every chance I get); to switch to a third party
would make sure I'm both excluded from the more interesting local party contests AND drowned
out in national contests. Lose/lose. Maybe if something like Maine's (currently under attack)
Ranked Choice Voting existed all over, I'd be less sour about the whole thing.
Yeah, you need people like Lambert willing to do the work. It is exhausting keeping up
with the truths, half truths and lies promulgated in the press and trying to figure out what
is true and what isn't.
I find it interesting that the agreement involved control of the IT/data infrastructure of
the DNC. Doesn't the DNC administer the democratic party registry? And with that observation,
wasn't there a lot of illegal party switching that caused a problem for some Democrats voting
in party restricted primaries that had their registration switched, so that they couldn't
take part in the primaries. Wouldn't it be interesting if the switched parties were on the
DNC record as donating to Bernie's campaign? Fixed, indeed.
Manipulations of the deplorable superdelegate system, with its covert quid pro quo payoffs
after the Clintons take power, was part of a seamless fix. Premature coronation by media and
party wigs after primary victories in red states no Democrat would win in the general
election helped ice it.
Perhaps revelations will turn up on mainstream media, from the Sabbath Gasbags to NPR,
knifing Bernie with Hillary talking points at every opportunity, when he wasn't being
ignored. Thomas Frank wrote persuasively on WaPo's bias in Swat Team in Harper's, and there
have been tidbits on off-record Clinton media cocktail parties and such. But I'd like to know
how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. Certainly Jeff
Bezos has a Washington wish list. I marveled at how many journalists suddenly sounded like
breathless valley girl propagandists. And still do. What faster way to tank journalism's
credibility than that perception?
I guess that's why after catching headlines more of my reading time shifts to alternative
offerings such as those presented here.
But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was
achieved.
I worked as a journalist in America for over a decade. I cannot stress enough how
unnecessary such a literal fix would be. (Though doubtless words were and are exchanged
between concerned parties when needed.)
The hive-mind position of most U.S. journalists -- and especially of editors, who tend to
be the most compliant with the power-structure and often the stupidest people in the room --
was (and is) an automatical default to unquestioning support -- even worship -- of the
Democratic Party, its elite, and Clintonite neoliberalism.
I once wrote a long feature that got a crush-letter from Joe Lieberman's office. The
editors at the magazine in question were ecstatic and printed that letter as its own separate
feature in the next issue. Personally, I thought Leiberman was scum, but kept my qualms to
myself and was glad I used a byline.
It seems to me that the HRC campaign's JFA was expressly designed to -- and succeeded in
its design -- circumvent the statutory $2700 limit on direct campaign contributions. Yet I
have not seen commentary that suggests any laws were violated. What am I missing?
To me, it seemed that the Democratic Party had already decided for clinton before the
primaries, as at my local caucus the party had planted each neighborhood group with a party
faithful, not from the neighborhood, who would argue for clinton and fear monger about Trump.
I know this because I talked to the plant in my group, asked her where she lived, and
discovered it was not in my neighborhood; it was a different town. Others reported the
same.
Also, a Dem party leader came up to me and said "Sanders is not going to be the nominee"
and "When this is over (meaning the primary), then you'll be supporting Hillary, right?" I
told her to never assume anything.
So, thanks to Brazile, no matter her motivation, for providing proof of what we already
knew.
I think you don't see that skill set very much in party leaders because they so rarely
need for the party to win elections. They do need to be able to maintain control
over their parties, so they're great at being cutthroat and cheating. But apart from certain
important individual elections, the success of the party as a whole isn't a big priority for
them. There are spoils to divide either way.
I worked on the Sanders primary campaign in my city. I watched as the state/regional
leadership consistently tanked the gotv and other Sanders ground outreach while a few local
leaders working in smaller areas worked their hearts out on the ground. Surprisingly (or not)
the state/ regional leadership bailed to work on the HRC campaign within hours of closing the
primary office.
I swear, in one of her interviews on the past weekend, Brazile made a quick, underbreath,
reference to 'poor Seth Rich' in recounting the death threats aimed at her. Glad someone has
not forgotten that connection.
It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the
agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an
agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the
state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial
fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate
phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic
transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC
1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban
outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to
disclose.
Considering the importance of voter file access, it is impossible to imagine that your
chief competitor having joint authority over hiring the people who handle all your customer
service and monitor your compliance with voter file contract is not a material fact. If,
under DC contract law or FTC commerical regulations, these kinds of conflicts of interest are
mandatorily disclosable (I do not practice in DC but I doubt DC applies caveat emptor to that
degree), then 18 USC 1343 was broken and Jeff Sessions could indict everyone involved.
It is even worse for the state parties agreement. The DNC arguably has a duty of loyalty
to its state affiliates which makes agreeing to encourage them all to sign up even though it
is concealing its knowledge that the money will be allocated in a way that will be bad for at
least some of them seem utterly inconsistent with the honest services provisions of 1346. All
in all, it is probably a good thing for the DNC that the Sessions aides I went to law school
with paid less attention in criminal law that I did.
It seemed to me that the nondisclosure of material facts and of conflicts of interest
might, arguably, constitute some type of criminal activity and that Donna Brazile's
characterization of the agreement as "not a criminal act" was, perhaps, a bit too facile but
I did not know the specific statutes or claims that might be involved. I really appreciate
your detailed observations here.
"Not a dime's worth of difference."
When it comes to politics, it isn't Russians we need to worry about, it's Americans. That's
where the collusion is – between the parties.
It was the Republicans' turn, period. Jeff Sessions doubtless knows that.
Just want to point out that the state-party=>DNC pass-through is not at all new. Has
been active in some form and proportion in every presidential campaign since 1992 (mainly, or
at least nominally due to changes in FEC regulation), but really ramped up in and after
2008.
Pushback by states has decreased over time, as state party executive directors are now
almost always (even in off-cycle years) routed in from DC, instead of staffing from the local
pool of operatives.
One of the important impacts is on state legislatures. Gutted of necessary funding, and
discouraged (and sometimes contractually inhibited) from soliciting further funds on the
national level, state parties have little left in their coffers to support their legislative
candidates and committees (and forget about the bottom of the ticket).
So this kind of money hoovering is a significant factor in the national net loss of Dem
seats in state houses in non-"battleground" states.
During oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC three years ago, Justice Samuel Alito
dismissed the Campaign Legal Center's
analysis showing how, absent limits on the total amount that donors could give to
multiple political committees, candidates could use joint fundraising schemes to raise
huge, potentially corrupting contributions.
These scenarios, Justice Alito claimed, are "wild hypotheticals that are not obviously
plausible." Hillary Clinton, though, is proving that the Campaign Legal Center was right all
along.
I'm not at all a campaign finance expert. Perhaps readers will weigh in?
Yes, the amounts are new. Just saying this was the direction things were going for a while
already. Good will between DNC and state parties already at a low ebb, DWS a big part of
that.
As we know, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision allows corporations, individuals
and labor unions to make unlimited contributions to independent organizations that use the
money to support or defeat a candidate. Rules prohibit coordination between a candidate committee and an individual or
organization making "independent expenditures."
Clearly this was not the arrangement between the HVF, State Democratic Central Committees
participating in the PAC and the DNC. Hillary was pulling the strings at the DNC. But I'm just now appreciating that the Hillary Victory Fund is not a Super PAC.
Joint fundraising is fundraising conducted jointly by a political committee and one or
more other political committees or unregistered organizations. Joint fundraising rules
apply to:
Party committees;
Party organizations not registered as political committees;
Federal and/or nonfederal candidate committees;
Nonparty, unauthorized political committees (nonconnected PACs); and
Unregistered nonparty organizations. 11 CFR 102.17(a)(1)(i) and (2).
The HVF was the first joint fundraising committee between a presidential candidate and the
Democratic party since the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v FEC. A horrible
precedent at that!
McCutcheon declared a total limit on how much an individual can give federal candidates
and parties in a two-year cycle unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts opined, "The existing
aggregate limits may in fact encourage the movement of money away from entities subject to
disclosure."
Right!
The HVF demonstrates how rechanneling dark money from super PACs toward candidates and
parties doesn't stop unethical and undemocratic processes.
That the HVF was needed to balance the Obama debt is one thing. That the HVF can pass
through money from State committees to the DNC and then coordinate activities there while
passing off as a joint fundraising committee is another thing.
The rechanneling of hundreds of millions of dollars donated by rich D elites to bypass
individual contribution limits was a brilliant financial engineering feat–one that the
Rs will surely emulate.
Before conducting a joint fundraiser, all participants must enter into a written
agreement that identifies the JFR and states the allocation formula -- the amount or
percentage that the participants agree to use for allocating proceeds and expenses. 11 CFR
102.17(c)(1).
What was the allocation formula of the joint fundraising committee?
As the HVF fairy tale plays out, Clinton is the witch who lures Hansel and Gretel to the
forest with a castle of confections, with the intention to eat them.
Are Democrats capable of outsmarting the witches that want to cannibalize the party?
Thanks Lambert for this. As usual, you have seen around corners and cleared the mud from
the water. Thank God you like crawling through this sh*t, so that I at least don't have
to.
Our local radio host Warren Olney, on KCRW who started his show "To The Point" (which is
syndicated nationally on Public Radio International) during the 2000 Bush v Gore Supreme
Court crowning of Bush fiasco is doing a week long retrospective of the disintegration of
Americans' faith in "our" institutions (ha!) before he goes to a once a week podcast.
I have listened to him for 17 years and I don't know how he could stomach covering U.S.
society, politics, and culture during those years of non-ending sh*t show. He was fair to all
guests including some right wing loonies, but you never got the feeling he was going for
"balance." He always seemed to get the truth. Gonna sorely miss him.
So glad you are still on the case, and loving it. You have my gratitude, and soon, a
contribution.
How much of the $250,000 the Sanders campaign paid for the DNC voter list went to the
Clinton campaign? I am still wondering if this kind of thing has occurred in other elections?
As far as relitigating the primary goes, we should've had that fight back, if not in 2000,
then definitely in 2004. After Team Clinton, people who justified their sellouts and perfidy
with 'we must never have another McGovern or Carter', gave the GOP a gift of a unified
government that should have been the permanent end of their credibility. Because while
McGovern, Carter, and Mondale went down in flames they didn't so thoroughly destroy the
anti-reactionary institutions as badly as the Third Way did.
The endless 2016 primary is our punishment for giving these centrist vipers a second
chance.
I appreciate Lambert going through these documents and laying out the timeline. One of the
things that this read sparked for me was the realization the Joe Biden was elbowed out just
as much as Bernie Sanders. I didn't follow the Biden decision-making process at the time but
checking back on the timeline it seems like Clinton pre-empted any attempt by dear old Joe to
actually decide to run. Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may well be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#2016_presidential_race
It doesn't take much elbowing to oust someone who was polling in single digits in his home
state. I donated to O'Malley's campaign before Bernie got in, and, regrettably, am still on
his mailing list.
The bottom line is that the political system is owned by the ruling oligarchy and that the
Democratic Establishment is in bed with them. If a serious candidate from the left poses a
challenge, they will rig the Primary against that candidate.
The Democratic Establishment is pretty much paid to lose and to make the consultant class
rich. Equally as importantly, they exist to co-opt the left.
Sure there are a few voices talking that make sense like Tulsi Gabbard. They are the
exception to a very corrupt party.
A big part of why the middle class has declined is because of the total betrayal of the
Democratic Party from the ideas behind the New Deal.
The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20
million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC
had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for
consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of
his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right?
My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put
the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they
had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any
comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him
out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the
lack of money.
"Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial
about the true nature and scope of the problem
"Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party
is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a
functioning democracy."
Thanks. This was plain and simple money laundering to get around the Federal Election
Commission rules and regulations. That no one has been brought to justice shows how corrupt
the American political process is. It would great if you could post how you would reform it.
I would start with paper ballots counted in public and halt corporations from buying
elections.
If I understand the law correctly, this really wasn't money laundering, since laundered
money becomes dirty by virtue of its being the result of a crime (like drug dealers
depositing cash at HSBC (IIRC)). Handling money in a complex and obfuscated way is not, in itself, money laundering. I'm
not sure what the word is, though.
Violating campaign laws is a crime. Circumventing can often be shown to be violating. Need
a prosecutor willing to prosecute white collar crime, a rare breed for at least the last
decade.
But trump has been attacked by Clintons, and he has DOJ but nothing is happening.
Some very good points are made here. Carping about the inequities of the Democrat Party
establishment isn't going to change their behaviour. Too much lucre. One needs to change the
people running the party. From the ground up and with concrete regulatory features. Full
stop.
However, one might look to the UK Labour party to see how it reacted when J. Corbyn, a
lifelong member and activist, became leader of the party through grandee miscalculation. The
Thatcherist Blairites went ballastic and basically decided to destroy the party rather than
let a fairly mild democratic socialist offer an alternative to their beloved neoliberal
economic policies. Too much lucre. They almost destroyed Labour in Scotland and were intent
on defenestrating Labour in England, whilst retaining some feeble structure as a mock
substitute, so that the Tories would, in fact, become the one and only alternative.
The forces aligned against the democratic tendencies of ordinary citizens are formidable
and reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. They have the money, technological reach
and hence the power of capital and its persuasive abilities.
i dont think a campaign had owned the dnc like that before. i think it had nothing to do
with hilary being a good team player, and everything to do with money and juicy
consulting/lobbying jobs. and pointing this out is not "sulking". know your enemy, and don't
excuse their crimes and predations by an argument that "that's just the way things are".
I am a Bernie supporter. He was pushed to the side by the Dem's – a party to which I
belonged for forty years – in a total panic when it was shown to the Dem's that Bernie
was able to reach disaffected party members as myself by raising a large amount of money
through individual small donors.
That Bernie accomplished this feat was a huge factor, IMO, in why and how my former party
felt it necessary to malign and derail Bernie and his supporters before, during and after the
Democratic -meh – Nominating Convention.
The Dem's should have just named the Hillary for America Fund the Hillary for Hillary
Fund.
Hillary cares only for and about Hillary. She's the reason Trump is POTUS today.
My family has been Democrat for many generations. Most of my family members have,
unfortunately, BTFD on this one. I used to find them to be reasonable folk. Trump derangement
syndrome has infected them all. This is a common complaint these days.
Forgot to thank Lambert for all of his great care and hard work in putting this together
for us. Thank you, Lambert.
In Brazile's account I do believe I remember reading that my home state, CA, did not sign off
on the agreement with regard to the HFV fund. But I seem to remember that Naked Capitalism,
or perhaps in the commentariat here, did state that the Dem's here in CA were in an uproar
over Hillary Victory Fund taking all of the state party monies. Am I having a flashback or
did I actually remember this wrong? Anyone know?
I thought the most interesting thing about Brazile's comments to date was that Obama left
the DNC indebted and therefore more vulnerable to the highest bidder. Not easy to bail that
out on $27 donations. So typical of these Goldmanite administrations, this use of finance as
a political weapon.
Presstitutes from guardian have no shame. Look, for example, at the following statement "The former
Clinton staffers – among them high-profile figures such as Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri and campaign
manager Robby Mook, the target of stringent criticism from Brazile – wrote: "It is particularly troubling
and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians
and
our opponent , about our candidate's health."
It is widely suspected that Hillary Clinton has second stage
of Parkinson or some other serious neurological diseases?
It is telling that Guardian is afraid to open comments on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party. ..."
She also said she "got sick and tired of people trying to tell me how to spend money" as DNC chair,
when she "wasn't getting a salary. I was basically volunteering my time".
"I'm not Patsey the slave," Brazile said, referring to a character in the Oscar-winning film 12
Years a Slave.
In her book, Brazile writes that she did not ultimately try to make the change of candidate because:
"I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her.
I could not do this to them."
On ABC, she admitted she had not had the power to make the change but said: "I had to put in on
the the table because I was under tremendous pressure after Secretary Clinton fainted to have a quote-unquote
plan B. I didn't want a plan B. Plan A was great for me. I supported Hillary and I wanted her to
win. But we were under pressure."
Brazile writes that on 12 September 2016, Biden's chief of staff called saying the vice-president
wanted to speak with her. Her thought, she writes, was: "Gee, I wonder what he wanted to talk to
me about?"
On ABC, she said she did not mention the possible switch. "I mean, look, everybody was called
in to see, do you know anything? How is she doing? And of course my job at the time was to reassure
people, not just the vice-president but also reassure the Democratic party, the members of the party,
that Hillary was doing fine and that she would resume her campaign the following week."
It is unclear if Biden was ever willing to step into the race. The former vice-president, who
many believe could a run for the presidency in 2020, made no immediate comment.
Asked if she still thinks a Biden-Booker ticket could have won, Brazile equivocated, saying: "Well,
you know, I had a lot of other combinations. This was something you play out in your mind."
Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong
challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the
DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party.
"... the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's financial help. ..."
"... At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC. That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. ..."
"... Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process. ..."
"... In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 ..."
"... Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical sense, because it is controlled by Clinton. ..."
"... Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish the name "Awan". ..."
"... she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now, beginning with leaving the DNC in protest over its unethical practices ..."
In
this Real
News Network interview , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) responds to former interim chair
Donna Brazile's revelation that the Clinton campaign had effective control of the DNC. Gabbard
was a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she
resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary.
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. During the 2016 Democratic
primary, supporters of Bernie Sanders complained that the Democratic National Committee was
plagued by internal corruption, and rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Well today, the
former interim chair of the DNC has come out to say exactly that. Writing for Politico, Donna
Brazile details a scheme wherein the Clinton campaign effectively took over the DNC. Facing a
major funding shortfall, the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's
finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's
financial help.
But, this did not happen after Clinton became the nominee. In fact, this agreement was made
in August 2015, months before a single primary vote was cast. Among many things, this meant
that the DNC was able to act as a money laundering operation for the Clinton campaign. Tens of
millions of dollars in donations to state democrats across the country ultimately was kicked
back to Clinton headquarters in Brooklyn, well, earlier I spoke to someone who has been a
prominent vocal critic of the DNC process from the start. Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard
represents Hawaii's second congressional district. She was vice chair of the DNC until February
2016 when she resigned to endorse senator Bernie Sanders. I spoke to her about Donna Brazil's
revelations. Congressmember Gabbard, welcome. Your response, what we've heard from Donna
Brazile today.
TULSI GABBARD: I was not surprised to read what she was detailing in what was printed today.
This was something that when I was vice chair of the DNC I didn't have knowledge of the
details, but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time
AARON MATÉ: I want to quote more from Donna Brazile. She writes "If the fight had
been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which
one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the
party's integrity." She's referring especially to this financial arrangement in which the
Clinton camp gives the DNC money but in exchange, the DNC hands over control of basically every
single decision. Your thoughts on that? Were you surprised by her revelation?
TULSI GABBARD: Again, this is not something I wasn't privy to the inner workings of how
these decisions were made, because at that time the decisions were really ultimately coming
from the chair of the DNC. But I had heard some concerns from folks from different state
parties actually. Executive directors and chairs and people who were involved in the grassroots
organizing and trying to again increase involvement in the process. Their concerns around this
joint fundraising agreement that Donna Brazile talked about in her article and her book was
that the funds that were being raised through this agreement were not actually benefiting the
party, but they were kind of being used as a pass through for lack of a better word. Their
concerns again were about getting more support for the work that parties do on the ground and
grassroots organizing. Turning out the vote, going and knocking on doors. Doing all the things
that happened on the ground in states all across the country. Again, this was not something
that I was terribly surprised by in reading that Donna detailed, but it's something that hasn't
been laid out in the way that she has in this way.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah. She provides a figure when it comes to the money element. She says
that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%, half of 1% got
to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the Clinton campaign.
What kind of difference do you think that made on the election outcome when it comes to
democratic efforts at the state level?
TULSI GABBARD: It's hard to say. I can't exactly quantify that. But I do know that some of
the state party officials who I had spoken to at different times during the campaign had
actually expressed these concerns and decided not to sign onto this joint fundraising agreement
for that specific reason. They saw at that point, look we're not going to be used by anyone's
campaign. If you want to talk about how to help strengthen local parties, let's have that
conversation, but this was clearly not an effort in that direction.
AARON MATÉ: You recently spoke out about some more decisions by the DNC at the
national level, in terms of their staffing of key committees. Can you comment there on what you
were most upset by, and your thoughts on what should be done?
TULSI GABBARD: At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the
Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party
officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC.
That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they
had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported
Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. If the message
is that we're going to get rid of people who may have dissenting opinions, or may be calling
for different kinds of reform or retaliating for positions that they've taken this is not the
direction that the democratic party should be going in. The democratic party should be going in
the direction of openness, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, which is why I've been
calling for two major but very basic kinds of reform. Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure
the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the
doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Great dot-connecting. Incredible irony that HRC's diversion of funds from swing states to
her high-spending campaign was one of the proximate causes of her losing the electoral
college.
Yep. Here in Maine, where the state party was part of the Victory Fund kick-back scheme,
Trump ended up winning one of the state's electoral votes (Maine allows splitting by
congressional district) -- the first time a Republican took a Maine electoral vote since
1988.
The link at the FEC was dated 9/16/15 and shows only 32 states and the Democratic Party of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added), with each participating state a "beneficiary" of
around $3M. Nada to the Democratic Party of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537
These $3M expenditures pale to Hillary for America ($120,822,326), DNC Services Corp
($55,639,930), Bully Pulpit Interactive ($40,881,995), and Chapman, Cubine et al
($25,432,057).
Incidentally, I was not able to track these funds at the Oregon Secretary of State with
Orestar, the online tool to search campaign finances. As I looked closely at the filings, it
appears the FEC requires expenditures by (not contributions to) the Democratic Party of
Oregon to federal political committees be recorded. I only see ~$275K contributed back
(aggregated expenditures) to "Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account" and "Democratic
Party of Oregon Forward Oregon Transfer Down Acct." in the 2015 and 2016 calendar years
(though an additional $123,404.48 has gone to Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account in
2017).
"Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added) "
Oh, so that's why the KS Dem party officials claimed they couldn't afford $20k for
a mailer for Thompson in the KS-04 special election race this spring . A race he almost won,
without that help!
So for Wisconsin at least, it is not true that the state party made anything (even half of
1 percent) from the "joint" fundraising. Clinton took all but $4700 of the proceeds AND took
another $282,000 from the state party.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Just like Charles Koch, she just wanted her fair share; all of it.
Tell me please, how is this different from republican efforts to exterminate Obama Care by
de-funding every bit of its supporting infrastructure?
Whether it was Hilary's intent to exterminate the Democratic party or not, the effect
seems quite similar.
At first, I didn't think that he was anything more than your classic identity politician.
Then I needed constituent service. Matter of fact, I needed it a couple of times. Let me tell
you, his staff aced it. They were that good.
As far as I am concerned, Raul has my vote for as long as he wants to stay in office.
Finally one shoe has dropped. The second one about to drop is that the DNC emails were not
hacked by Russia in any capacity, directly or indirectly by the Kremlin, whatever. They were
most probably leaked. HRC started the Russia hysteria when she called President Trump a
pupped of Putin in one of the debates. This is only one small example of her manipulative
arrogance.
Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or
worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the
combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies
that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical
sense, because it is controlled by Clinton.
The establishment Democrats accuse
Sanders of not working for down-ballot Democrats while the DNC is siphoning money from the
states to help Clinton's campaign. "Maintaining ties to Wall Street makes economic
sense for Democrats and keeps their coffers full," one "pollster and senior political adviser
to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000" helpfully assures us two weeks ago in the NYT , except when it
doesn't, such as when Donna Brazile discovers, to her horror, that the party is, fact, broke,
probably due, in no small part, to paying consultants -- like the one writing in the
Times -- whose expertise has led the
decimation of the party. (And, on top of all that, the DNC, professing "unity," purges
long-time members who supported Bernie Sander or Keith Ellison and appoints anti-minimum wage
lobbyist Dan Halpern to the Finance Committee.)
Every part of the story turns out to be a colossal train wreck -- and all this
from establishment/élite types who spent the entire campaign season reminding everyone
else that they knew what was realistic, pragmatic, achievable, so on and so forth.
It's unreal, really.
" but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time"
===================================
Why does this remind me of Harvey Weinstein?
its like deja vu or something
I think we have to go back and find out who 'endorsed' Harvey. How many? And we go back, research and publish the names of those who knew, and yet still endorsed
Hillary.
To be fair to Rep. Gabbard, the excerpt published by Ms. Brazile clearly indicates that
Rep. Wasserman-Shulz (DWS) was not keeping the rest of the DNC leadership fully informed of
relevant business and financial arrangements.
If Brazile's account is accurate, the question arises, why did the DNC board tolerate that
situation for so long, given their legal responsibilities? Given the anomalous behavior by
DWS, you have to wonder how the DNC board could have been comfortable in their roles, and why
action wasn't taken against DWS earlier. That leads one to a suspicion is that there was an
outside force supporting (controlling?) DWS and intimidating the others.
Ah yes, but Brazile's account is a self-serving CYA attempt to get ahead of a story that
was obvious as it was happening to anyone paying attention 18 months ago. Notice no mention
of passing debate questions from CNN to Clinton ahead of time. It undercuts your "bombshell"
if you have to say "it was rigged and I helped"
Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish
the name "Awan".
Nearly a year after the Nov 2016 general election, this issue is finally beginning to be
elevated. Senator Elizabeth Warren also responded affirmatively to a question about whether
some primary elections were rigged against Sanders on PBS Newshour yesterday evening.
Somewhat related in terms of the scramble to get ahead of the Den estab breakdown: In an interesting coincidence the recent meeting of the AFL-CIO saw labor leaders say it's
time to stop automatically giving Dems support.
"The time has passed when we can passively settle for the lesser of two evils," reads
the main political resolution passed Tuesday by delegates. Lee Saunders, chair of the
AFL-CIO's political committee and president of AFSCME (link is external), and Randi
Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (link is external), introduced
the resolution. They lead the labor federation's two largest unions. Convention managers
yoked the resolution to another measure it also approved discussing a labor party, though not
by name. "
Many AFT members were very unhappy (understatement) when Weingarten announced support for
Hillary without first polling members. AFT lost a lot of members over that. I'm not sure this
isn't a PR scramble by labor leaders to keep their jobs, instead of any real change in
outlook. But it's an interesting data point about the current state-of-play.
AFT member here. I was livid about the sham endorsement "process" that happened; it was
rushed through, months before the first contest, with absolutely no consultation from the
rank and file. Weingarten's infamous text messages about the National Nurses Union basically solidified
for me that she's nothing but pond scum. She's not a teacher, she's an attorney. And clearly,
not a very clever one, at that. I am obligated to be an AFT member, and if I were only to
become a "partial" member I'd still be paying about 88% of the dues anyway. I still support
my AFT local.
The national AFT and its pathetic misleadership can go to hell.
If it's any consolation, your situation appears to be the norm with the long-established
unions. Their clearly-stated bias aside, the World Socialist Web Site covers labor disputes
and has shown over and over that the mainstream unions have sold their rank-and-file out.
Ironically, just this week I read where an activist group has done some major housecleaning
at the Teamsters -- and it only took them 41 years.
During the primary, the outrage among SEIU members when their Fearless Leader not only
announced for HRC but tried to pretend it was "what our people want" by posting to Facebook
photos of a half-dozen blue-shirted members heading out to knock on doors. It didn't go over
well.
Did Senator Warren admit that her refusal to endorse Bernie was bought by the Hillary
Victory Fund? In other words, does this indicate that the great fighter against Wall Street
corruption was bought off by Wall Street?
Was Massachusetts one of the participating states? She wouldn't have made any friends
there exposing the money-laundering, if so. And had Clinton beaten the odds and won, she
would have been toast, especially given she has a huge target on her back painted by the GOP.
The Clintons notoriously hold grudges, and have long memories.
The Margot Kidder piece in Counterpunch linked to in Montanamaven's
comment lists 31 of the 33 participating states. Massachusetts is one of them. (It's not
clear which are the other two states or why they aren't listed.)
I remember reading these things back then, and trying to forward them to HillBots I knew.
Without exception I was poo-poo'ed as a
tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorist-berniebro-whiner-misogynist-right-wing-conspiracy-member.
I'd love to say 'I told you so' to those peeps, but most of them are now fully occupied
looking under their beds for Russkis. :/
Not that I know Joseph Cannon, but check out his Cannonfire site .hysteric hysteria, deny,
RUSSKIS!, Brazile is a liar!!!, deny again, MORE RUUUUSSSKKKIIIIS!!!
to me it seems to be the 'I'm With Her' version of a Trumpsters pizzagate rantings .I
dunno, maybe I am missing something and my brain has already been washed and taken over by
Cyrillic Control Mechanisms
I read about this on Politico yesterday. Donna Brazile? This is the lady who leaked debate
topics to Clinton and was fired from CNN, right? It makes you wonder why she is writing about
this now. Opportunism in order to sell books? Revenge on Clinton? Or does she sense the wind
changing direction in the Democratic party?
Personally I think Donna Brazile, via her story and book, is trying get her version out as
she probably knows the Clinton Mafia will throw her under the bus as this story is finally
getting legs..with or without Donna Brazile's revelations.
As I've noted before her name is Mud with CNN, noone wants her to be a talking head. And
Clinton can no longer shelter her. What does she have left but airing the dirty laundry and
hoping for a payout?
Donna Brazile is wrong that this was not illegal, but only unethical. The Hillary Victory
Fund was set up to evade the campaign financing laws. There is a legal limit on how much an
individual can give to a candidate. Hillary's big donors had reached those limits. She
directed her donors who had exceeded the legal limits on direct contributions to her to give
to the DNC and state parties with the agreement that those entities would funnel the money
back to her.
That would seem to me to be evidence of intent to violate the law.
RICO? Would seem the big donors had to know what they were doing as well. But then I
recall the recent lawsuit where the party claimed it could do anything and the judge
agreed.
There is just no good reason for a party to operate in such a manner. Complete financial
transparency in real time whilst functioning in a democratic process among binding terms with
real membership seems to be the least people should expect.
All of which is why I am a member/participant of no party and find the process
illegitimate across the board. It really does come back to it's not just if you win or lose,
but how it's played.
" If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before
the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act
." -- Donna Brazile
I, too, beg to differ. Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as
criminal.
But the basic principle behind campaign finance laws is transparency. Both the D and R
parties receive extensive direct and in-kind government financing, such as the free primary
elections which states run on their behalf. Consequently they are obliged to provide an
accurate accounting of funds received and paid.
Does anyone think Robert "Torquemada" Mueller couldn't indict both Hillary and Donna
Brazile on a whole laundry list of federal offenses, if he were actually looking for gross
electoral wrongdoing?
Re "Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as criminal."
Remember Brazile is famous for complaining that people were trying to "criminalize
behavior that is normal", when they complained about the blatant pay-to-play behavior
revealed during the election.
Slightly off topic: The neolib Dem estab has just discovered – much to their
surprise, no doubt – that's it's one thing to run the neoliberal economic playbook on
the deplorables, but quite another thing to run the neoliberal playbook on their own
establishment's finances and organization, each for their own personal benefit.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit because federal court wasn't, in his opinion, the proper
channel for seeking redress, not because he agreed with the DNC's assertion it wasn't
required to abide by its charter.
"But not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC's charter or heard the statements
they now claim are false before making their donations. And not one of them alleges that they
took action in reliance on the DNC's charter or the statements identified in the First
Amended Complaint (DE 8). Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing."
People who knew and did not speak, would they be accessories?
From Wikipedia:
Knowledge of the crime[edit]
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had
actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there
must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the
criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses
a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory
offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.
I believe you are most correct & thanks for altering the direction of the
comments.
The support for Sanders was a resonate echo of
support many of us felt for President Jimmy Carter.
How far we have traveled is well acknowledged when you see that Sanders lost.
For the purposes of the Naked Capitalism readers, who are studying how real money is
captured & used by the Jet Setter Classes, here we have a Politico so entrenched
her Unit used coercion & tricks to take for themselves all of the main tool, money,
required to make the Democratic Party a real Party.
(I refuse to see Hillary Clinton as the First Woman Nominated for the Presidency, &
consider her & her husband Bill, the Clinton Unit.)
I do chalk it up to the Clinton Unit's long & destructive influence as law makers &
breakers. What the Unit is about is clear when you look at their history in Haiti. We are to
get the leadership & economy same as the Haitians get.
The leak that in many cases there was no sincere link at all between what Clinton Unit II
said, and what she really believed & intended, meant we were to get another cipher.
"Look out kid/They keep it all hid. -Bob Dylan, comes to mind.
After Obama it is clear that the Democratic Party is and will be in the pocket of the
pirate parasites of the US Financial System.
The revolution has to take place below the jet setter classes stranglehold on who writes
the checks for what. (I'd be interested in knowing how much of whose money paid for the
Clinton Unit's Boeing.)
In the end we as a bunch of honest people who like justice in that form it takes in the
day to day demonstration of good ethical moorings, liked how Sanders got the money for his
campaign.
The Clinton Unit by taking money from down ballot candidates crippled the necessary
revolution being attempted by those actually fighting to strengthen the nation.
Is there a large and notable set of organized people who vote, lining up behind Tulsi
Gabbard as the next Great Hope of the Mope (GHOTM)? Able and willing to go to the mat for
her? Trusting that she is not just another screen on which people can project their
images?
Got to have leaders, don't we? Because most of us just go along, go along, go along But
leaders are just other flawed humans, so easy to corrupt and failing that, to remove from the
game board by other means Too bad the Occupy model, whatever that actually was/is, seems not
to work effectively, especially against the organized on the other side of the crowd-control
technologies
I don't think people learned/practiced an occupy model for the most part. Folk were
expected to bite off more than they could chew in due haste. Remember the media immediately
asking what are your demands before people could figure out wtf was going on beyond we are
the 99 percent? Establishing a new practice was of course difficult to do while wondering if
you would be busted for just being there. Like the problems with parties people just keep
rolling with what they know (top-down), hammering their familiar square peg in a round hole
– rather than attempt/establish new process.
We really have no idea what a democratic process looks like.
Trusting that she is not just another screen on which people can project their
images?
Always a valid concern, but she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now,
beginning with leaving the DNC in protest over its unethical practices.
And also, it's not up to her, is it? That screen thing is not about what she is, it's
about what people do. On a practical level, that move that Gabbard decries -- killing off
local party organizations -- is truly a step the wrong way. Real citizens have more to do
than just project their images.
she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now, beginning with leaving
the DNC in protest over its unethical practices
That isn't why Tulsi Gabbard resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.
She resigned because the person in that position is supposed to remain neutral in
presidential primaries, and she decided she wanted to publicly endorse Sanders.
In other words, she was following the party rules. This separates her from all those DNC
officers who stayed on board while putting their thumbs on the scale for Clinton.
In order to survive, you have to trust SOMEBODY! Whom do you trust JT? I get what you are
saying and agree 100%, but what next? I think that is the meaning of accountability. You have
to trust someone and make that trust the basis for your life. Screw me over and you are out.
Mopes are mopes because they keep placing their trust in the wrong place or for whatever
social reason, don't have an option.
The twisted logic of Margaret Thatchers now famous line-" there is no society", is a case
in point. The entire quote is,"I think we've been through a period where too many people have
been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with
it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.'
They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything
except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too
much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone
has first met an obligation."
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the champions of Neoliberalism and the recasting of
the Divine right of Kings as a means of ordering society. The Market is Supreme, the Noble
Families (Corporations and Insiders, the 10%, are in direct communion with the divine, and
the rest of us need to worship and obey. We have no power because we have not earned it. It
is a recasting of the Feudal order. But what she fails to articulate is the obligation of the
system to the people? In her ideology, there is no reciprocal obligation. The systems owes
nothing. It is a system where the powerful hold control and the subjects are held in check by
blind faith.
Thatcher is right for the wrong reasons. Trust starts with the family and successful,
healthy families have a better chance of surviving over time due to the natural support they
provide. But she takes for granted, or is totally blinded by her own history. The Feudal
order failed for a reason. It breeds war and corruption. It thrived on ignorance and
violence. Offer a different vision, and the power center shifts.
Leadership is important as everyone knows. With proper leadership, much is possible.
Leadership is achieved when guided by some vision or goal. Is it any wonder why individuals
that can communicate a vision of brotherhood and solidarity are killed or marginalized by
Authoritarians? Where collectivism is shunned at every turn. How the meaning of family values
is cynically turned on its head.
Obligation is right. What is screwed up is how obligations have been distorted, and
continue to be distorted in a capitalist system. If you believe in social evolution, then the
strength of the family unit can serve as the fundamental immortal unit that provides the
basis for continued human existence. It is a buffer against the excesses of the capitalist
system. It is the source from which positive change will come. Support the family unit by
guaranteeing affordable housing, healthcare, and work. A basic income firmly grounded in
social contribution. What institutions are left that have not been corrupted by the
Neoliberal disease?
The problem making inroads is that the current political power still thinks this is a
game. It is not. The first duty for people who desire a better world for themselves, their
families, and their future generations need to see the obligation to protect the commons,
their families being the basic unit connected to a larger whole.
By destroying the middle class, capitalists have sown the seeds of their own destruction.
How many people are willingly going to walk into bondage? The promise of Neoliberalism is
failing and the mopes/masses know it- they live it. They just don't know where to turn. It is
a slow motion grinding into dust.
Communities are begging for relief. The organizations that need to be constructed are ones
that allow people to extend themselves out into the world and take risks, at the same time,
providing them with the assurance and concrete reality that if they fail, there is a place or
institution that will not let them perish. Capitalists buy loyalty. Individuals in their club
always fail upwards. No one is EVER left behind.
There is nothing to prevent other groups from achieving that same sense of solidarity
except fear.
The same is true of the Republican party -- nationally it's owned by the Koch brothers and
other billionaires, and locally, pretty much the same. Neither organization is going away in
the near future.
The most powerful aspect of the last election cycle is the eye opening role that money
plays in politics. Everyone knows the fundamental influence money has, but the false
narrative that has been acting for decades was finally turned on its head. Namely, that large
sums of money are needed to compete in the political process and only by funneling that
capital flow into the pockets of corporate entities can anything get done. Sanders campaign
proved without a doubt that self financing is possible and money alone is not enough to carry
victory. Its who controls that money, and what can be done with it, are the important
factors. Money didn't win the election for Trump, corruption did.
The lies and crookedness of the existing power structure has been laid bare and only the
completely uninformed still believe it or are directly paid off by the process. No wonder
silence and an outside forces- RUSSIA- must be deployed. There is nothing left to mask the
class warfare. This process reminds me of rats fleeing a sinking ship, and good riddance-
they all need to drown or just scatter away into obscurity.
But until those money flows can be directed towards the commons, the corruption will not
be driven out of our society. Democracy will die.
The silence and obfuscation on these important developments just highlight the crisis
capitalism, as a system, is facing and how the existing political structure is incapable of
dealing with the problem. The level of corruption is the problem, along with the extent lies
and misinformation are needed to maintain control. It is dysfunctional.
Once again, the rallying cry is for a social guarantee. A guarantee for work, healthcare,
housing, and a basic standard of living. Neoliberalism says no to all the above. Their
worldview is that there are no guarantees. Only competition where the strong prevail and the
weak perish. Boiled down once again to the fight between socialism and capitalism. Third way
politics is no longer functional. Hard choices must be made.
But what is the source of that power? Physical strength? Intellect? Mind control- the
ability to convince others? All of the above? The mind returns to social evolution. Forces
trying to maintain the status quo and counter forces seeking to alter the system. The
constant tension of forces exerting pressure until something gives. The faults and cracks are
everywhere. What holds it together is the peoples willingness to exert pressure where they
are directed to by their leadership. There is a crisis of leadership.
Finally, people are waking up to the notion that following crooks and thieves does not
make their lives better or secure. The nation needs leaders who are not cynical opportunists,
here in America and around the world. As the Trump administration makes painfully obvious,
America's standing in the world diminishes in proportion to its level of naked corruption. We
have become that which we professed we were against. The next true Revolution must be that
Scoundrels cannot run the world. Yea, I know Utopia. But if you can't dream about Utopia what
do humans have? All that comes to mind is a capitalist nightmare. ( As seen from the
Bottom)
Just as the Soviet Union collapsed in a breathtaking short time, the Rube Goldberg
construction that is todays capitalist system might meet the same speedy end. Just as the old
guard soviet apparatchiks held on for dear life, supporting a known failed experiment due to
their privileged position, if feels like the capitalist system is headed for a similar fate.
A quick, catastrophic failure instead of a slow, incremental adjustment. A failure brought
about form outside forces and the system not being able to deal or cope.
Donna Brazile can now make money revealing how she and the Democratic party screwed over
working people in this country and lied to the constituency she was supposed to serve. If
this helps people understand how they are fundamentally mislead, if only indirectly and
unintended, all the better. Its NOT about the money alone, it shows what the cynical
manipulation of money makes you become.
Re "Once again, the rallying cry is for a social guarantee. A guarantee for work,
healthcare, housing, and a basic standard of living. Neoliberalism says no to all the above.
Their worldview is that there are no guarantees. Only competition where the strong prevail
and the weak perish."
One cannot get a government controlled by special interests and large corporations to
provide social guarantees that are worth a damn and won't be corrupted. Indeed, the heart of
the problem is that the New Deal guarantees and post-Depression regulations (e.g.
Glass-Steagall), or even the earlier antitrust laws, have all been eroded.
There is a historical American worldview, not neoliberal, but also not "Third Way", in
which there are no Big Brother guarantees, yet there is strong social protection of those in
need. It contains a greater level of self-reliance, in the sense that one does not place
one's hope in corruptible governments as the solution. And yet not self-reliance, because it
trusted in neighbors to help neighbors. And it also renounces personal greed as a prime
motivator. The pioneers had this worldview – self reliance with a recognition of a
common interest, and thus a moral duty, leading to a willingness to help others, building an
entire nation, one barn raising party at a time, so that their children would have a better
life.
I am no historian, but gut experience informs me that what you are talking about is a true
American sentiment. The desire for individual freedom struggling simultaneously to forge a
lasting social bond with your fellow countrymen. At its heart, our nation was formed in the
embrace of a contradiction. The promise of freedom connected to the chains of bondage. The
age old dilemma of the rights of the rulers over the ruled. Freedom was sought above all else
and the historical opportunity presented itself for a great experiment. Open land available
for occupation, far from a ruling power, devoid of a powerful local social force.
The delusion, and betrayal, is the fact that reconciling this contradiction is no longer
the driving force of American politics. Neoliberal ideology has short circuited the political
system- on should we say, perfected it in that the ruling elite in America never intended to
share power with the unwashed masses. With the destruction of a functioning two party system,
even the pretense cannot be upheld any longer. Without a viable opposition party, the power
of private property can do as it pleases- and is doing it.
In America, we just had lots of space to spread out into and put off the day of reckoning.
Well, that day has arrived.
You mention barn raising, but that is an Amish tradition, to my limited understanding, the
Amish rejected American culture and wished to separate themselves from the broader culture to
ensure that their values could be preserved. It is an honest attempt to live christian
values. They are a-political and want to be left alone. I can't say much for other christian
denominations other than they are connected at the hip to capitalist values. That is not
working out so well on a cognitive dissonance level.
The cooperation that you speak of is more along socialist lines. And once again on an
intuitive level, most sane and healthy human beings, this is their normal state. The default
desire is to aid a person in need or to take satisfaction from assisting your neighbor
instead of abusing them. This natural human desire is prevented from becoming embodied in a
political force because that would spell the end to individual opulence, and we can't have
that. Charity is acceptable, a natural state of care and social equality is unacceptable.
The question is can you have a secular society that is dedicated to human care? Or a
theocratic society that does not become bogged down in religious dogma. American Democracy
seemed to point in that direction but appears to have stalled out due to resistance and lack
of trying.
Big Brother guarantees is code language for destroying the social responsibilities
embodied in New Deal legislation. Functioning Democracy is supposed to protect from
corruption by being able to vote the crooks out. This becomes impossible when the crooks take
control of the government and citizens are convinced that their government itself is the
problem. You have the revolving door policy that we see today. National government captured
by special interests.
Until a two-pronged attack can be instituted on a large scale- communities taking care of
one another along with demand for honest representation by the government, only small scale
resistance will be possible. Evil and hardship will prevail.
As far as a greater level of self-reliance and not placing all one's hopes in corruptible
governments I definitely think that's what the radical labor movement aimed at, a lot of
bottom up left movements do, just have limited power these days. This is fighting back to
reclaim the wealth the 1% (or 1% of the 1%) have captured.
Charity likely doesn't even work with such inequality for several reasons: Although you
can always give a dollar to a homeless person, charity fails to do that much good when almost
all of the wealth in a society is controlled by fewer and fewer people to a greater and
greater degree. A bunch of paupers can only do so much in helping each other (except in
trying to fight to reclaim the wealth from the 1% of the 1%). They can't do much else when
the very few control the businesses, the agriculture, own most of the property and use their
charity (Bill Gate's charity as it were) as a means of control (whatever little good it may
or may not also do).
Has this happened in other elections? Is this a first? The counterpart of this story is
the nuts and bolts of how the U.S. press is controlled by various interests.
This is a story which should not disappear down the memory hole.
" This was something that when I was vice chair of the DNC I didn't have knowledge of the
details, but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time"
Boy, is there a big question mark hanging over THAT. Apparently she didn't respond to the
rumors by asking impertinent questions. And if the vice-chair didn't know who really owned
the joint, it was a purely ornamental office. Rather like Ellison's now.
Brazile said in her Politico article that even she had a hard time finding out what was
going on. She said she couldn't even issue a press release without an okay from Brooklyn.
I knew the cat was in the bag the moment nearly all of the super delegates publicly
supported Hillary Clinton before a single primary was held. (Are you listening, Sen. Shumer?)
I also knew it had to be a quid pro quo because it was obvious they were doing it for
campaign money for their re-elections. A lot of this appeared in print long before Donna
Brazile "discovered" the affirming document. This, and the way Bernie supporters were treated
at the convention, is why I will never give the DNC a penny.
Tulsi seemed a bit tongue tied on some questions in her position and not knowing what was
going on? Not credible to me.
She gets credit for quitting and endorsing Bernie, and big credit for anti war, but she does
not have history as a progressive, though moving in that direction.
Similarly Liz is no progressive irrespective of anti bank position, though similarly inching
in that direction.
Both want to move up, seem to be sensing changing winds.
If Bernie runs, who would he pick? Both usefully female, but neither brings any ev's he won't
get anyway. Tulsi brings looks and youth and she endorsed Liz better at treasury, and she
might be happy there.
I think Liz would be a great Treasury Secretary. As for Bernie's VP pick, I think that
Tulsi would, ahem, appeal to a certain portion of our male electorate.
I also think that he could also do well by choosing Nina Turner as his VP. Unlike Tulsi,
whose oratorical style puts me to sleep, Nina knows how to sign, seal, and DELIVER a
speech.
Gabbard is a co-sponsor of all 4, and Jayapal is a co-sponsor of all but HR1587. I believe
you that Gabbard isn't always progressive, but she does pretty well most of the time, and
(for now) she's better than Jayapal on the very dangerous issue of antibiotic overuse.
I don't know people taking positions on things that aren't likely to pass isn't all that.
Ok if enough Dems were on board and they controlled congress or some Reps were AND they had a
president who wouldn't veto then maybe Medicare for All etc. Even getting enough Dems on
board to pass it even if they had the majority is a long way from where we are now.
However a constitutional amendment is in a whole other category of unlikely than that as
the requirement to get one passed are super majorities we are never going to see. So some of
the former may be difficult and mostly grandstanding at this point, but I really regard the
last as impossible.
Another way to take a public position is to refuse to co-sponsor high profile bills such
as these. People in the PACs notice if a member of Congress co-sponsors something that they
don't like, or if the member chooses to avoid co-sponsoring it.
Of course none of these bills will pass in the current Congress. However, it is important
to get some momentum for them so that they will have a greater chance in future Congresses,
and co-sponsorship is a way to generate some of that momentum.
HR676 has been introduced in every Congress since 2003, and this is the first Congress in
which it has gained more than 100 co-sponsors. HR1587 has also been introduced since 2003,
although it has always had a different bill number. Its number of co-sponsors has gone up and
down.
Perhaps too many people are paying too much attention to Trump's twitter account, and not
enough attention to the wonkish reality of how bills can become laws. People need to push
their Representatives to support these bills.
DNC has long stood for Democratic National CLUB not Committee. Under Perez, I see little
evidence of movement toward a "democratic" "committee." This is not about Anti-Sanders it is
apparently about maintaining Clintonism when the electorate wants more progressivism. DNC is
pushing many of us to vote for a qualified Republican over a Clintonite Democrat. That is
very stupid – very sad.
Good laws make a good society, bad laws make a bad society. Good people make better laws
than bad people.
All people are good, but some do more bad, sure, go ahead and think of it that way.
I only get to vote for people.
"The Democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to
talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with
economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." Steve Bannon
It's not often your opponent does you the favor of telling you why you are losing. I
pissed away some money on the Democrats last election (not because I liked Hillary; I just
despise Trump). What I got for my money was four or five emails a day asking for more money.
That and the ignominious, gut-wrenching loss. Many of the emails were from Donna Brazile and
almost all of them were about identity politics issues, usually tsk-tsk'ing some nasty thing
Trump said about one group or another. I remember thinking how dumb this was. They already
had the identity politics voters and getting them to turn out was going to be a ground game
play. While they sang to their choir, Trump and Bannon were out energizing an aggrieved white
middle and working class, which could have been Hillary's. Non-stop ads with Trump's ugly
face on the screens of Pennsylvania and Ohio saying "you're fired" would have been good.
Every time the Democrats waxed indignant about an identity issue, they lost some more
aggrieved white voters, who took the message as further confirmation that the Dems really
didn't care about them and their problems. Trump walked right in. Comey's timing, the
Russians, etc all mattered, but net net the Democrats gave Trump the win. The top of their
organization is full of people who seem to be better at identity politics than anything else,
except maybe backstabbing. They're crap at strategy.
I strongly encourage those who have Democratic friends and relatives to be sure that those
friends and relatives have seen the article by Donna Brazile. Don't be afraid to be a pest
(although I do recommend politeness). Many of those friends and relatives will be voting in
primaries next year, and they need to know what is happening in the Democratic party.
It doesn't just indict Hillary, although that is what gets the focus, it is a condemnation
of Obama as well for leaving the Dem party in so much debt. So Obama as well sacrificed the
Dem party for his own campaign. By slightly different means (running up debt rather than
funneling money) but to the same end. What a self-seeking bunch, to the destruction of even
their own party, the Dem top ticket has been (yea cheeto is no better, but that's it's own
thing).
DNC Bylaws state that the Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national
officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and
evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.
Since that obviously didn't happen, I would assert that Hillary being the Democrat nominee
is null and void.
When they rig an election, everyone participates in the election (voting or running) is a
victim.
Even people watching it become victimized (like the quiz shows in the 1950s, TV viewers
were victims).
(So, you, me and all the other guys had the primary election stolen.)
And if Donna Brazile tells you it's rigged, it's not up to you, but up to all of us, to
absorb the insider information (you can't withhold all those secret details) and to decide on
the verdict.
"The victory fund agreement was signed in August 2015 and widely reported during the
course of the campaign, amplifying the friction between Sanders and the DNC that had already
been fueled by disagreements over the primary debate schedule and access to the party's voter
database."
oh well then nothing to see here, let's just go back to bashing russia.
Wasn't Brazile the one who said that while the DNC is supposed to be neutral, she was
working on behalf of Clinton over Bernie? So as we all knew, then and now, grifters gotta
grift and Brazile is no better than anyone else at the DNC who keeps failing upwards and
being rewarded for her part in the grift.
Portside article about NAFTA, unions, and Canadian unions: Here is a paragraph from the
underlying article at New York Magazine about the three sponsors:
On Wednesday, Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Kirsten Gillibrand
announced their agreement -- and introduced legislation to ban "right-to-work" laws
throughout the United States.
[NY Mag article is dated 20 Sept 2017]
The sooner we collectively kill off the feudal idea of "right to work," the better. Right
now, though, we're only what -- sixty, seventy–years too late?
Why didn't Democrats pass legislation in 2009 to eliminate it?
It was one of the few policies that I could think of what would actually, you know, help
the win elections. But then I realized the the purpose of the DNC isn't actually to win
elections, it's to raise money from Wall Street, Hollywood and Silcon Valley to pay for
consultants.
Why didn't Democrats pass legislation in 2009 to eliminate it?
Yeah, Captain Hope'N-Change failed to deliver labor any meaningful legislation during his
eight years in office.
Labor was essentially told "We put some friendly faces on the NLRB and in the judiciary.
Be thankful, and forget about card check or right to work preemption."
And it's a bad look anyway. With the basically insurmountable barriers to organizing under
the Wagner Act these days, a focus on making sure the money keeps flowing, much of it ending
up in the Ds campaign coffers. How about repealing Taft-Hartley?
Maybe unions would be better off with less bureaucracy and more member participation. Do
it like the Wobs: you come to the meeting, you pay your dues, you voice your opinion and you
vote.
The Closed Shop
Jurisdictional Strikes
Secondary Boycotts
Common Situs Picketing
A Ban on Right-to-Work
A Ban on presidential interventions in strikes
Supervisor's Unions
Employer Nuetrality
Hopefully this happens before I die. I would absolutely love to see the yacht and learjet
owning class in tears!
They not only write themselves they've already been written and burned into the brain.
True or not, there they are. So what are you risking?
The thing is the D-time is well past the point (no House, no Senate, no Pres, vanishing
amount of Govs, vanishing amount of State leges..) where saying "That's not true!!" can be
considered a winning strategy, even if you could show me what you've won by saying it.
How about "hell yeah that's how we feel, America rocked (when we had strong labor)". Stand
up to the bully for once, again whaddya got to lose now. I often wonder what Steve Gilliard
would say at this point, he always made sure that us white people realized that something was
better than nothing when you were looking at absolutely nothing at all . but things have sunk
so low would he still feel that what has become nothing more than an orderly, but continuous
retreat should be sustained? Or is it time to dig in and really declare full throated
opposition?
(like the rest of your post, just think the time to avoid things is past)
Henry Moon Pie: So? Let's repeal the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley. And let's not pre-defeat
ourselves.
Just as Lambert keeps reminding us, Who would have though five years ago that the momentum
is now toward single-payer health insurance even if the current couple of bills don't pass?
For years, John Conyers carried on the fight almost single-handedly. And now we have
influential physicians stumping for single-payer.
"... With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer." ..."
"... I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet. ..."
"... Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500." ..."
"... In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate." ..."
"... Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not. ..."
"... The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection. ..."
"... But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised. ..."
"... This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true. ..."
"... And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." ..."
"... That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic. ..."
"... Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence . ..."
"... In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink. ..."
Exclusive: As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd,
almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine
Internet into a "sewer," reports Robert Parry.
With the U.S. government offering tens of
millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not
surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital
Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have
"basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer."
I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet
has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly
personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think
of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook
(compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of
Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing
through the Internet.
Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world's
population didn't need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational "sewer." But, of
course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today's Russia-gate frenzy.
After all, your "non-governmental organization" or your scholarly "think tank" is not likely
to get a piece of
the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily
Russian "propaganda and disinformation" if you explain that the Russians are at most
responsible for a tiny trickle of "sewage" compared to the vast rivers of "sewage" coming from
many other sources.
If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your
"research"
cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some
links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few
of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and
shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion
monthly users.)
Albright's full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms
on the Internet was: "They've gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a
sewer."
But let's look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected "Russian-linked" accounts
purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook's annual revenue of about $27
billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having
little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin's goal was to help elect
Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.
Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of
thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential
campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions,
debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual
electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500."
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in
politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a
carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver
meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate."
Puppies and Pokemon
And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these
"Russian-linked" Facebook groups was dedicated to
photos of "adorable puppies." Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister
motive behind the "puppies" page.
Similarly, CNN went wild over its own
"discovery" that one of the "Russian-linked" pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who
found "Pokémon Go" sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men -- if you would
name the Pokémon after the victims.
"It's unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have
been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had
happened and to upset or anger them," CNN mused, adding:
"CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the
contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded -- or,
indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the
prizes."
So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting "adorable puppies" and want to "remind people"
about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American
democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald
Trump.
A New York Times article
on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more
perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.
It turns out that some of the mainstream media's favorite "fact-checking" organizations are
home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to
resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.
"None of the stories were true," the Times reported. "Yet as recently as late last week,
they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes,
fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods."
There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off "fake news" by taking money
for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news
articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish
Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.
The Truth About Fake News
Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last
November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the
Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran
a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times
tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student
using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or
not.
The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push
stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing
anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found
no Russian connection.
The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of Google ads placed on
mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus
advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly
profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim
here of Russian "links." It was all about good ole American greed.
But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure
readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a
story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.
This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story
plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to
Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be
true.
But there are no lucrative grants going to "researchers" who would put the trickle of
alleged Russian "sewage" into the context of the vast flow of Internet "sewage" that is even
flowing through the esteemed "fact-checking" sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.
There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps
turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential
or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over
Sen. Jeff Sessions's brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor
changes in the Republican platform).
Saying 'False' Is 'True'
And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to
defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in
referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our
election."
That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence
agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments
of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this
topic.
Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence
community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as
"hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency,
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment"
blaming the Russians while acknowledging
a lack of actual evidence .
In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence
that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In
"stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments
without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the
groupthink.
So, in many ways, Clinton's statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016
and later in 2017 when she repeated
it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it
would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the
fact-checking organization wouldn't budge -- even after The New York Times and The Associated
Press ran corrections.
In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence –
testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the
17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton's false
statement from being described for what it was: false.
Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an
arbiter of truth with its position on Google's First Draft coalition, a collection of
mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and
what is not true -- for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what's deemed
"false."
So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it's false – it becomes
"true." Thus, it's perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google
ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
David G , October 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I bet the Russians are responsible for all the naked lady internet pictures as well. Damn
you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for polluting our purity.
TS , October 19, 2017 at 5:43 am
Two-thirds of a century ago, Arthur C. Clarke, who besides being a famous SF author,
conceived the concept of the communications satellite, published a short story in which the
Chinese use satellite broadcasting to flood the USA with porn in order spread moral
degeneracy. Wadya think?
Mr. Mueller! Mr. Mueller! Investigate who the owners of YouPorn are!
It's all a Chinese plot, not a Russian one!
Broompilot , October 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm
I second the motion!
Antiwar7 , October 19, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and
only pure-grain alcohol?"
richard vajs , October 20, 2017 at 7:50 am
And Vladimir keeps tempting me with offers of money that he found abandoned in Nigerian
banks and mysteriously bequeathed to me.
This sounds eerily similar to newspeak described by George Orwell "1984" in
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm
The failure of Russia bashers to rank all nations on FB ads and accounts, proves that they
know they are lying. Random Russians (about 2% of the world population) may have spent 100K
on mostly apolitical ads on FB (about 0.0004%) and may have 470 accounts on FB (about
0.000025%). So Russians have far fewer FB ads and accounts per capita than the average
nation. Probably most developed nations have a higher per capita usage of FB, and many
individuals and companies may have a higher total usage of FB.
The fact that 160 million is spent to dig up phony evidence of Russian influence (totaling
about 0.13% of the investigation cost), proves that such "researchers" are paid liars; they
are the ones who should be prosecuted for subversion of democracy for personal gain.
The fact that all views may be found on internet does not make it a "sewer" because one
can view only what is useful. The Dems and Repubs regard the People as a sewer, because they
believe that power=virtue=money no matter how unethically they get it, to rationalize
oligarchy. They keep the most abusive and implausible ads out of mass media only because no
advertiser wants them, but of course they don't want the truth either.
JWalters , October 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Add MSNBC to the sources of sewage on the internet. I checked out MSNBC today, and they
are full-throttle on any kind of Russia-phobia. For those who read somewhat widely, it is
obvious they are not even trying to present a balanced picture of the actual evidence. It is
completely one-sided, and includes the trashiest trash of that one side. Their absolute lack
of integrity matches Fox on its worst days.
As someone who formerly watched MSNBC regularly, I am sickened at the obvious capituation
to the criminal Zionists who own the network. Have these people no decency? Apparently not.
Historians will judge them harshly.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am
JWalters –
Yes. I completely agree with you. I am beginning to wonder if these people who are
spitting out this trashiest trash at MSNBC from their mouths every day for over a year now
are really sane people. I believe that along with politicians like Adam Schiff, these talk
show hosts have slid into complete madness. The way it is going now, I am afraid that If
these people are not removed, there is a danger of the whole country sliding into some form
of madness.
anonymous , October 20, 2017 at 2:12 pm
"Historians will judge them harshly."
The western civilisation galloped to worldly success on the twin horses of Greed and
Psychopathy. This also provided them the opportunity to write history as they wished.
Are historians judging them harshly now? They are themselves whores to whichever society
they belong to.
Anna , October 19, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Jonathan Albright, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism,
[email protected] . https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/
Mr. Albright is preparing for himself a feathered nest among other presstitutes swarming the
many ziocons' "think tanks," like the viciously russophobic (and unprofessional) Atlantic
Council that employs the ignoramus Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies' underwear and
college dropout) and Dmitry Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame, a Russophobe and threat to the
US national security
One can be sure that Jonathan Albright knows already all the answers (similar to Judy Miller)
and he is not interested in any proven expertise like the one provided by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
.
Can anyone out there please supply me with a couple of Russian hit pieces that crippled
Hillary´s campaigne. Just askin, because I have never seen one.
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
You obviously haven't looked hard enough. I just finished the book "Shattered" and she had
no problem blaming the Russians when the emails of Podesta came out in the summer. It took
her a day or 2 to figure out that she couldn't blame the Arabs so the Russians were next up.
How could you have missed it?
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm
He is likely asking for ads from Russia that actually could have served as "hit pieces"
against Clinton, versus her accusations.
I fear we must set aside our sarcasm and understand that this entire Russian narrative has
the ultimate goal of silencing any oppositional news sources to the corporate media. When we
hear that Facebook is seeking to hire people with national security clearances, which is made
to sound as if it's a good, responsible reaction to the "Russian ads" and is cheered on by
people who should know better, we need to get our tongues out of our cheeks and stay
alert.
A good friend, who is an activist battling the fracking industry in Colorado and blogging
about it, was urging people this week to sign petitions demanding more censorship on Facebook
to "prevent Russian propaganda." When I pointed out that, based on the Jan. 6 "report," which
condemned RT America for "criticizing the fracking industry" as proof it was a propaganda
organ, her blog is Russian propaganda. Did that change her mind? Nope. Her response was in
the category of "Better safe."
So, it appears Russia is not replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the "great danger" our
beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat. And people
who can't seem to get it through their heads the government is NOT their friend are marching
in lock-step to agree because it never occurs to them they, too, are a target.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
Yes, the purpose of Russia bashing is to distract from the revelations of DNC corruption
by oligarchy (top ten Clinton donors all zionists), attack leakers as opponents of oligarchy,
and attack Russia in hope of benefits to the zionists in the Mideast.
Perhaps you meant to say that "Russia is [not] replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the 'great
danger' our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat."
Or perhaps you meant that the Russia-gate gambit is not working.
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm
American psychologist Gustave Gilbert interviewed high-ranking Nazi leaders during the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1947, Gilbert published part of his diary,
consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, "eavesdropping" and
conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary.
Hermann Goering, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, was founder of the
Gestapo and Head of the Luftwaffe.
From an 18 April 1946 interview with Gilbert in Goering's jail cell:
Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars."
Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 12:44 am
Abe –
Good post. Yes, from all the wars initiated during the last half century what Hermann
Goring said is very true of U.S. The opposition to the Vietnam War later on was largely
because of the draft.
Bertrand Russell in his autobiography describes in length how they prepared the U.K.
public with outrageously false propaganda for War – World War I – against Germany
in 1914. Bertrand Russell was vehemently against the War with Germany and spent some time in
Jail for his activities to oppose the war.
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 3:58 am
Based on what I have read about him, in his own words,on EIR, he was probably opposed to
war with Germany because he was already looking ahead to a revival of the "Imperial Rome"
situation we have in the Trans-Atlantic Community today, with its near-global Empire
(enforced by America), working on breaking up the last holdout:the Eurasian Quarter with
Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:21 am
Yes Brad, Bertrand Russell did love England and was very proud of English Civilization and
it's contributions to the World. Considering his very aristocratic background, his
contributions to mathematics and Philosophy are laudable. And he was very much involved in
World peace and nuclear disarmament movements.
(Goering quote) ahh yes, sometimes it takes a cynical scoundrel to tell the truth!
T.Walsh , October 20, 2017 at 11:09 am
the major war criminals' trial ended in 1946, with the execution of the 10 major war
criminals taking place on October 16, 1946.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm
Elizabeth for the mere fact you are on this site may possibly be your reason for your
escape from the MSM as it is a propaganda tool, to be used by the Shadow Government to guide
your thought processes. (See YouTube Kevin Shipp for explanation for Shadow Government and
Deep State) other than that I think it safe to say we are living in an Orwellian predicted
state of mass communications, and for sure we are now living in a police state to accompany
our censored news. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm
Here is something I feel may ring your bell when it comes to our maintaining a free press.
Read this .
"From the PR perspective, releasing one anti-Russia story after another helps cement a
narrative far better than an all-at-once approach to controlling the news cycle. The public
is now getting maximum effect from what I believe is a singular and cohesive effort to lay
the groundwork for global legislation to eradicate any dissent and particular dissent that is
pro-Russia or pro-Putin. The way the news cycle works, a campaign is best leveled across two
weeks, a month, or more, so that the desired audience is thoroughly indoctrinated with an
idea or a product. In this case, the product is an Orwellian eradication of freedom of speech
across the swath of the world's most used social media platforms. This is a direct result of
traditional media and the deep state having failed to defeat independents across these
platforms. People unwilling to bow to the CNN, BBC and the controlled media message, more or
less beat the globalist scheme online. So, the only choice and chance for the anti-Russia
message to succeed is with the complete takeover of ALL channels. As further proof of a
collective effort, listen to this Bloomberg interview the other day with Microsoft CEO Brad
Smith on the same "legislation" issues. Smith's rhetoric, syntax, and the flow of his
narrative mirror almost precisely the other social CEOs, the US legislators, and especially
the UK Government dialogue. All these technocrats feign concern over privacy protection and
free speech/free press issues, but their real agenda is the main story."
Here is the link for the rest of the essay to Phil Butler's important news story ..
When you read this keep in mind that the Russians weren't doing any backroom illegal
deals, because the Russians thought that they were dealing on the upside with the Obama White
House State Department. Where you may question this, is where our Obama State Department side
stepped the law to make money for those couple of Americans who fronted this deal. This is
the epitome of hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Disclaimer; please Clinton and Trump supporters try and attempt to see this scandal for
what it is. This fudging of the law to make a path for questionable donations is not a party
platform issue. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. Yes Trump is the worst, but after
you dig into the above link I provided, please don't come back at me screaming partisan
politics. This scandal doesn't deserve a two sided political debate, as much as it deserves
our attention, and what we do all should do about it.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Joe Tedesky –
Reading about this Russian Bribery case in buying interest in "Uranium One" reminds me
that Russians came a century or two late into this Capitalist Game. And they must be novices
and rather crude in this business of bribing. This Russia bribery case is just a puddle in
this vast Sea of Corruption to sell weapons, fighter jets, commercial airplanes, and other
things by U.S., U.K., French, Swedes or other Western Nations to the Third World countries
like India, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. To make a sale of three or four
billion dollars they would bribe the ministers and other officials in those countries
probably with a 100 million dollars easily. Those of us who belong to the two worlds know it
much better. The Indian Newspapers used to be always full of it, whenever I visited.
And the bribe money stays in the Western banks with which those ministers and officials
sons and daughters buy extensive properties in these countries. In fact, these kind of issues
are the topic of conversation at these Ethnic parties of rather prosperous people to which we
do get invited once in a year or so – which minister or official bought what property
and where with this kind or other type of corruption money. There used to be stories about
Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak's sons playing around in U.S. having bought extensive
properties with the bribe money. For Indian Ministers and Officials U.S., Canada, Australia,
U.K., and New Zealand are the preferred destinations to buy the properties.
And as we know with the corruption money, rich Russians are buying all these homes and
other properties in Spain, U.S., U.K. and other Western Countries. It seems like Putin and
his team have stopped most of big time corruption but it is very hard to stop the other
corruption in this globalized free market economy, especially in countries where corruption
is the norm.
Same is true of these IMF loans to those Third World Countries. Most of the money ends up
in these Western Countries. The working class of those countries end up in paying back the
high interest loans.
This is the World we are trying to defend with these endless wars and Russia-Gate.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm
Dave I concur that even the Russians are not beyond corruption, but we are not talking
about the bad habits of the Russians, no we are talking about U.S. officials possibly
breaking the law. I'll bet Dave if I had taken you on a vandalizing spree when we were young
bad ass little hoodlums, and we got caught, that your father wouldn't have come after me, as
much as he would come after you, as he would have given you a well deserved good spanking for
your bad actions. So with that frame of mind I am keeping my focus with this Clinton escapade
right here at home.
I like that you did point out to how the Russians maybe new to this capitalistic new world
they suddenly find themselves in, but I would not doubt that even an old Soviet Commissar
would have reached under the table for a kickback of somekind to enrich himself, if the
occasion had arisen to do so. You know this Dave, that bribery has no political philosophy,
nor does it have a democratic or communist ideology to prevent the corrupted from being
corrupt.
I am not getting my hopes up that justice will be served with this FBI investigation into
Hillary and Bill's uranium finagling. Although I'm surmising this whole thing will get turned
around as a Sessions Trump attack upon the Clintons, and with that this episode of selling
off American assets for personal wealth benefits, will instead fade away from our news cycles
altogether. Just like the torture stuff went missing, and where did that go?
Dave I always look forward to hearing from you, because I think that you and I often have
many a good conversation. Joe
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:07 am
Yes Joe. I agree with you. The reason I wrote my comments was to make a point that Russian
businessmen are not the only one who are in the bribery business, the businessmen of other
Western Nations are doing the same thing. Yesterday on the Fox News the "Uranium One" bribery
case was the main News. Shawn Hannity was twisting his words to make it look like that it is
Putin who did it, and that it is Putin who gave all this 140 million as bribery to Clinton
Foundation. Actually , I think the 140 millions was given to the Clinton Foundation by the
trustees of the Company in Canada. And Russian officials probably greased the hands of a few
of them too.
Of course Clintons are directly involved in this case. Considering how Hillary Clinton has
been perpetuating this Russia-Gate hysteria, I hope some truth comes out to show that she may
be the real center of this Russia-Gate affair. But way the things in Washington are now,
probably they are going to whitewash the Hillary Clinton's role in this bribery scandal.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm
While my one comment i wanted for you to read is being moderated, and it is an important
comment, read how the Israeli's handle unwanted news broadcasting. When you read this think
of the Kristallnacht episode, and then wonder why the Israeli's would do such a terrible
thing similar to what they had encountered under Hitler's reign.
Be sure to see my comment I left above, which is being moderated. In the meantime go to
NEO New Eastern Outlook and read Phil Butler's shocking story, 'Globalist Counterpunch: Going
for the Media Knockout'.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 3:41 am
Joe Tedesky – the Zionists had been working (long before Hitler) on getting the Jews
into Palestine. Read up on the Balfour Declaration. Hitler was helping them get out to
Palestine. During World War II, one of the top German officials (can't remember which one
right now) went to Palestine to have discussions with the Zionists. The Zionists basically
said to him: "Look, you're sending us lazy Jews. These guys aren't interested in
construction. Can't you raise more hell so that the harder-working Jews will want to leave
Germany and come to Palestine?"
I think if we ever find out the truth about what happened, we will be shocked.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am
Edmund de Rothschild who was a big financier of Zionism in 1934 on the subject of
Palestine had said, "the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its
result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."
I personally can't see the legality of the 'Balfour Declaration', but before Zionist
trolls attack me, I must admit I'm no legal scholar.
I'll need to research that episode you speak of about the Germans meeting the Zionist.
It's not an easy part of the Zionist history to study. Unless, you backwardsevolution can
provide some references that would help to learn more about this fuzzy history.
Good to see you posting, for awhile your absence gave me concern that you are doing okay.
Joe
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:38 am
Thanks for the links Joe. Both great articles.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:14 am
Your welcome Skip I'll apologize for my posting all these links, but I kind of went nuts
getting into the subject we are all talking about here, and more. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm
Although this article by the Saker talks about the U.S. being prepared for war against
Iran it speaks to the bigger problem of who is America's puppet master.
Joe start with a book called The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm
I put it on my next book to read. Thanks Tannerhouser appreciate your recommendation.
Joe
dfc , October 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm
Elizabeth: Tell your good friend that once they get rid of the Russian propaganda
on Facebook they will coming after those that oppose the Fracking Industry next:
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Sorry, but how naive or deeply in the bubble can one be? lol :(
Beverly Voelkelt , October 19, 2017 at 2:50 am
I agree Elizabeth. The ultimate objective is censorship and control, using the pretext of
keeping America safe from external meddling just like they enacted the Patroit Act to protect
us from the terrists they created.
Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:04 am
Thank you Elizabeth. Shutting down alternative voices is clearly the end game here.
David G , October 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
I'm not crazy about Robert Parry's phrase, "the mistaken judgments of President George W.
Bush's administration".
The lying, murdering bastards were lying. It's their parents that made the mistake.
But I'll let it slide.
Tayo , October 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I suggest Mueller focuses on Tinder too. I'm
betting there's something on there. Russians have been known to use honey pot plots.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Ah, but who is better at it -- Russia or the US? (And dare we even consider the power of
China to infiltrate political powers and the media?)
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
So do Martians and every other national, religious, and ethnic group on the planet, with
the US out in front. You will not trick more careful thinkers by attacking the target du
jour.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Yes, and over the past week or two, it appears that work is being redirected into holding
the vast military behemoth (?), Israel, accountable for our own political/policy choices.
Either way, the US is clearly in its post-reality era.
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm
zio-alert
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm
The naked gun of post-reality Hasbara propaganda:
When Israeli influence on US foreign policy choices may be discussed, Hasbara troll "D.H.
Fabian" pops up to insist:
And what do you want to discuss Abe? That there is undue influence from Israel on the US
government? Maybe, but you could say the same thing about the pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big
oil and the bankers, just to begin the list.
If you and others wish to focus in on a single culprit (defined as anyone fighting for
their own self interests), fine. But there are opposing views that believe the picture is
bigger than the one you would like to paint.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 1:26 am
WC, I don't want to speak for Abe, but I am wondering about your use of the word "maybe".
Since the last count of US politicians was 13 Senators, and 27 House Reps who are dual
citizens of Israel, does that not imply a conflict of interest just in those stats alone?
Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system as it is a security risk, so
why do we? I will wait for your reply.
WC , October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am
Curious.
I can't speak for the legalities that led to allowing dual citizenship in the House and
Senate, nor why Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system. Like a lot
of laws it is probably serving someone's best interests. ;)
As for the word "maybe" and how it relates to your overall question. Just because there
are dual citizen reps in government, does that automatically say they all vote in the
interests of Israel exclusively? And even if that were the case what makes them any different
from the rep sold out to the MIC, big oil, pharmaceuticals, bankers, etc., or combination of?
We'd then need to do a study of all of the sold-out politicians and chart the percentage of
each to the various interests they sold out to. At what percentage does Israel come into the
big picture?
No one is denying Israel has a certain influence on the US government, but given all of
the vested interests involved, the US also has a big stake in what happens in the region. I
also don't know what the overall game plan is, not just for the middle east but all of the
sordid shit going on everywhere. If old George is right about "The Big Club", I'm assuming
some group or combination of groups have some master plan for us all, so I am not ready to
label any group, country or entity good or bad at this stage of the game. If this somehow
leaves out the moral question, I am not idealistic enough to believe morality and
Geo-politics often work hand in hand. :)
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 4:41 am
WCs point is valid and correct. The picture is MUCH bigger than a tiny desert country of a
few million Semites ruling the World. The actual picture is the outgrowth of the several,
world-wide, European Empires having united into one, gigantic "Roman Empire" (under
Synarchist directorship) and CAPTURED America, post WWII, to be its enforcer, working to
break the last holdout: the Eurasian Quarter including Iran, into a truly global Empire.
Israel was a strategy of the British Empire to preclude any revival of a Muslim Empire,
threatening its MENA holdings. The enemy is still the British Empire of the 1%er oligarchs in
City-of-London and Wall Street. The fact that NOBODY pays attention to this situation, and
obsesses over Israel, guarantees the success of the Plan.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:29 am
No, the problem of Mideast policy and oligarchy control of mass media is entirely due to
zionist influence, including all top ten donors to Clinton 2016. Ukraine and the entire
problem of surrounding and opposing Russia is due primarily to zionist influence, due to
their intervention in the Mideast, although the MIC is happy to join the corruption for war
anywhere. The others on your list "pharmaceuticals, big oil and the bankers" are involved in
other problems.
WC seeks to divert discussion from zionist influence by changing the subject.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:33 am
Brad, you will have a hard time explaining why US wars in the Mideast and surrounding
Russia are always for the benefit of Israel, if you think that ancient Venetians and British
aristocracy are running the show. Looks like a diversionary attack to me.
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 2:05 am
The naked solo of "D.H. Fabian" has surged into a Hasbara chorus. Where to begin.
Let's start with "Curious", who definitely does not speak for me.
The "dual citizens" canard is a stellar example of Inverted Hasbara (false flag
"anti-Israel", "anti-Zionist", frequently "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic") propaganda that
gets ramped up whenever needed, but particularly Israel rains bombs on the neighborhood.
Like Conventional Hasbara (overtly pro-Israel or pro-Zionist) propaganda, the primary
purpose of Inverted Hasbara false flag propaganda is to divert attention from Israeli
military and government actions, and to provide cover for Israel Lobby activities
The Inverted Hasbara canard inserted by "Curious" came into prominence after the
Israel-initiated war Lebanon in 2006. Israel's shaky military performance, flooding of south
Lebanon cluster munitions, use of white phosphorus in civilian areas brought censure. Further
Israeli attacks on Gaza brought increasing pressure on the neocon-infested Bush
administration for its backing of Israel.
A Facebook post titled, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," started
circulating. The post mentioned "U.S. government appointees who hold powerful positions and
who are dual American-Israeli citizens."
With the change of US administration in 2008, new versions of the post appeared with
headlines such as "Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration."
Common versions included 22 officials currently or previously with the Obama administration,
27 House members and 13 senators.
The posts were false for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the
misrepresentation of Israeli nationality law. Israel does allow its citizens to hold dual (or
multiple) citizenship. A dual national is considered an Israeli citizen for all purposes, and
is entitled to enter Israel without a visa, stay in Israel according to his own desire,
engage in any profession and work with any employer according to Israeli law. An exception is
that under an additional law added to the Basic Law: the Knesset (Article 16A) according to
which Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance unless their foreign citizenship has been
revoked, if possible, under the laws of that country.
The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic
Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to
grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and
the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a
religion other than Judaism willingly. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews
or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism are not
entitled to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the Law of
Return, irrespective of their status under halacha (Jewish religious law).
Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their
descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel's nationality law, which formally grants
Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli
citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in
Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of
Return if the applicant so desires.
A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval
to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but
not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious
disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Within three months of arriving
in Israel under the Law of Return, immigrants automatically receive Israeli citizenship
unless they explicitly request not to.
In short, knowingly or not, "Curious" is spouting Inverted Hasbara propaganda.
Conventional Hasbara (pro-Israel, pro-Zionist) propagandists constantly attempt to portray
Israeli military threats against its neighbors, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian
territory, Zionist claims of an "unconditional land grant covenant" for Israel, or the
manipulations of the Israel Lobby, as somehow all based on "the way the world really
works".
"WC" has repeatedly promoted a loony "realism" in the CN comments, claiming for example
that "The Jews aren't doing anything different than the rest have done since the beginning of
time."
The Conventional Hasbara troll refrain is that whatever Israel does "ain't no big
thing".
"D.H. Fabian", "WC" and others are not Hasbara trolls because we somehow "disagree". They
are Hasbara trolls because they promote propaganda for Israel.
Fellow travellers round out the Hasbara chorus.
Commenter anon discourses in absolutes such as "entirely due to zionist influence" and
"always for the benefit of Israel".
Commenter Brad Owen just can't understand why everyone "obsesses" over that "tiny desert
country" when "the Plan" outlined by LaRouche is sooo much more interesting.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 11:55 am
Abe – An excellent analysis – very penetrating. Yes, I understand it very
clearly.
I am one of those who does not have the background in this area. However, reading the
largely British view oriented newspapers since I was fourteen , in a different land where at
that time during 1950's and early 60's, all viewpoints were discussed including the communist
Russian/Soviet side, and the Communist Chinese side too, one develops a balanced outlook on
the World events.
Reading your comments on Israel's citizenship laws, is very eye opening for me. Israel is
a very Racist State, which is kind of the opposite of what Jewish Writers write books in this
country about America being the melting pot. Some of us have already melted here. I sometimes
wonder, Jewish writers are writing all these books, but why don't they melt! Are they special
chosen people?
WC , October 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Let me first dispel the notion that I am trying to change the subject, as "anon" would
like to imply. What I am after is a proper perspective as opposed to something blown out of
proportion.
When it comes to the subject of Israel, Jews and Zionism, Abe would appear to be well
versed on the subject. He certainly cleared up "Curious"s question on dual citizenship!
With Abe and others on this site, Zionism is the big daddy culprit in the world today. I,
on the other hand, see it as simply one part of a bigger picture, which I am still trying to
get my head around, but I am quite certain it goes far beyond just a regional issue. In
reading what Abe has to say on this subject over the past few months, he may very well be
right about Zionist influence and a take no prisoners-type of resolve in pursuing their aims
(whatever that may be). But none of this has yet to convince me they are entirely wrong
either.
Which brings us to the subject of morality. Take a second look at what Abe has chosen to
cherry pick from what he sees as the "Hasbara chorus" – all pointing to "trolls" who
(he thinks) are in support of an all powerful and heartless sect. This is what is known as
being overly dramatic and speaks volumes about what Abe (and others on this site) view as the
most objectionable of all – the moral wrongs being committed. For the sake of
clarification "morality" is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right
and wrong or good and bad behavior". Most of us who are not suffering from a mental disorder
can agree on what constitutes right and wrong at its purist level, but thrown into a world
filled with crime, corruption, greed, graft, hate, lust, sociopaths and psychopaths vying for
power, sectarian violence, a collapsing economy, inner city decay, and all of the vested
special interests jockeying to save their piece of the pie, what is right and wrong becomes
far more convoluted and mired in mud. Simply throwing perfect world idealism at the problem
will not fix it. In fact, it will get you as far as the miles of crucified Christians that
lined the road to Rome. Which is a hell of a way to prove you are so right in a world filled
with so much wrong.
Since the day I "slithered in" here, I have asked the same question over and over –
what are your REAL world solutions to REAL world problems? So far, the chorus of the Church
Of The Perfect World has offered up nothing. :)
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Making the same statements over and over again, "WC" is clearly "after" a Hasbara "proper
perspective" on Israel.
For example, in the CN comments on How Syria's Victory Reshapes Mideast (September 30,
2017), "WC" advanced three key Hasbara propaganda talking points concerning the illegal
50-year military occupation of Palestinian territory seized by Israel during the 1967
War:
– Spurious claims about "what realistically (not idealistically) can be done"
– Insistence that "Israel is not going to go back to the 1948 borders"
– Claims that the US "depends on a strong Israeli presence"
A leading canard of Hasbara propaganda and the Israeli right wing Neo-Zionist settlement
movement is the notion of an "unconditional land grant covenant" entitlement for Israel.
Land ownership was far more widespread than depicted in the fictions of Israeli
propaganda. In reality, the Israeli government knowingly confiscated privately owned
Palestinian land and construct a network of outposts and settlements.
Israel's many illegal activities in occupied Palestinian territory encompass Neo-Zionist
settlements, so-called "outposts" and declared "state land".
The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of
settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which provides
humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone).
The 1967 "border" of Israel refers to the Green Line or 1949 Armistice demarcation line set
out in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria after the
1948 Arab–Israeli War.
The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949
Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent
borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice
Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the
Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."
Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The
Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international
border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the
Israel–Lebanon border.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and statements by many international bodies
refer to the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" of Israel and neighboring
countries.
According to international humanitarian law, the establishment of Israeli communities
inside the occupied Palestinian territories – settlements and outposts alike – is
forbidden. Despite this prohibition, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank
almost immediately following its occupation of the area in 1967.
Defenders of Israel's settlement policies, like David Friedman, the current United States
Ambassador to Israel, argue that the controversy over Israeli settlements in occupied
Palestinian territory is overblown.
The Israeli government and Israel Lobby advocates like Ambassador Friedman claim the
built-up area of settlements comprises only around 2% of the West Bank.
This Hasbara "2%" argument is at best ignorant, and at worst deliberately
disingenuous.
The "2%" figure is misleading because it refers restrictively to the amount of land
Israeli settlers have built on, but does not account for the multiple ways these settlements
create a massive, paralytic footprint in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the
West Bank.
Since 1967, Israel has taken control of around 50% of the land of the West Bank. And
almost all of that land has been given to the settlers or used for their benefit. Israel has
given almost 10% of the West Bank to settlers – by including it in the "municipal area"
of settlements. And it has given almost 34% of the West Bank to settlers – by placing
it under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils."
In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build
infrastructure to serve the settlements, including a network of roads that crisscross the
entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and towns from each other, and imposing various
barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.
Israel has used various means to do this, included by declaring much of the West Bank to
be "state land," taking over additional land for security purposes, and making it nearly
impossible for Palestinians to register claims of ownership to their own land.
The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly used the term "belligerent occupation" to
describe Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that
the question of a previous sovereign claim to the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to whether
international laws relating to occupied territories should apply there.
Rather, the proper question – according to Israel's highest court – is one of
effective military control. In the words of the Supreme Court decision, "as long as the
military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (see:
HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank).
The Palestinian territories were conquered by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war.
Whether Israel claims that the war was forced upon it is irrelevant. The Palestinian
territory has been controlled and governed by the Israeli military ever since.
Who claimed the territories before they were occupied is immaterial. What is material is
that before 1967, Israel did not claim the territories.
Ariel Sharon, one of the principal architects of Israel's settlement building policy in
the West Bank and Gaza, recognized this reality. On May 26, 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon told fellow Likud Party members: "You may not like the word, but what's happening is
occupation [using the Hebrew word "kibush," which is only used to mean "occupation"]. Holding
3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and
for the Israeli economy."
Whether one believes that these territories are legally occupied or not does not change
the basic facts: Israel is ruling over a population of millions of Palestinians who are not
Israeli citizens. Demographic projections indicate that Jews will soon be a minority in the
land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Real world solutions:
An end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
An end to apartheid government and the beginning of real democracy in Israel.
What can be done now?
United States government sanctions against Israel for its 50-year military occupation of
Palestine, its apartheid social regime, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The United States can require Israel to withdraw its forces to the 1967 line, and honor
the right of return to Palestinians who fled their homeland as a result of Israel's multiple
ethnic cleansing operations.
In addition, the United States can demand that immediately surrender its destabilizing
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons arsenal or face severe U.S. action.
Hasbara trolls will keep trying to change the subject, continue muttering about "opposing
views" and some "bigger picture" picture", and repeatedly insist that an Israel armed with
weapons of mass destruction routinely attacking its neighbors "ain't no big thing".
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 10:30 am
Most of the ones in control of "pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers" are
Israel firsters as well. Round and round we go eh?
This is probably as good a place as any to point out that it isn't just Russophobia at
work; Congress is hard at work to protect Israel's abominable human rights record from public
criticism as well. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is squarely aimed at criminalizing advocates
of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and has 50 co-sponsors in the
Senate. See
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22israel+anti-boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=2
wapo says Hamas disarm because us and israel want them to.israel won't disarm
though.Boy.
Curious , October 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Thank you Mr Parry for actually taking the time to read the NYT or WaPo for your readers,
so we don't have to. There is only so much disinformation one can cram into our 'cranium soft
drives' regarding journalists with no ethics nor moral rudders.
It reminds me of watching Jon Stewarts Daily Show to check out the perverse drivel on Fox
News since to watch Fox myself would have damaged me beyond repair. Many of my friends are
already Humpty-Dumptied by the volume of fragmented info leeching into their bloodstreams by
140 character news.
Thank you for your fortitude in trying to debunk the news and 'outing' those editors who feel
they are insulated from critical analysis.
dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
jon stewart?WTF?
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 8:56 pm
Well dahoit,
Just chalk it up to a historical reference as that is around the time I stopped watching TV,
having worked in the biz for some 30 years. I don't miss it either. Jon gave us a lot of
humor and a lot of clever, surreptitious info, and the way they captured the talking points
of the politicians by the use of their fast cuts was remarkable. There was a lot of political
content in a show meant to just be humorous. Sorry you feel otherwise.
fudmier , October 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm
EITHER OR, INC. (EOI) a secret subsidiary of Deep Sewer Election Manipulators, Inc
(DSEMI), a fraudulent make believe Russia company, that changes election outcomes, in foreign
countries, to conform the leadership of the foreign country with Russia foreign policy,
studied the most recent USA candidates and concluded Russia could not have found persons more
suited to Russian foreign policy than the candidates the USA had selected for its American
governed, to vote on. The case is not yet closed, EOI is still trying to decide if there is
or was a difference between the candidates..
Charles Misfeldt , October 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Our election process is so completely corrupted I doubt that a few thousand dollars of
Facebook ads that no one pays any attention to could sway the vote, I am much more concerned
about bribery, Israel, American Zionists, racists, corporations, evangelicals, dominionists,
white nationalists, anarchist's, conservatives, war profiteers, gerrymanders, vote purges,
vote repressors, voting machine hackers, seems like Russian's are pretty far down the
list.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Now you talking, let's get to the real stuff. Good one Charles. Joe
Peter Loeb , October 19, 2017 at 6:08 am
I don't have "FACEBOOK". Or any other "social media (whatever that may be.)
I don't "tweet" and the technology which we were once told would save
the world, has left me behind. I don't text. I have no smart phone
or cell.
I no longer have a TV of any description. Or cable with millions of things
you don't want to see anyway.
Only my mind is left. For some more years.
(J.M. Keynes: " in the long run we will all be dead."
Perhaps one has to have "social media" to be born in
this generation. Do you need it to exit?
Please accept my thoughts with my "asocial" [media]
appologies.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
My "tweet"/message is only my fear that the NY Yankees
will be in the World Series where I can hate them with complete
impunity. (I was created a fan of the Washington Senators,
morphed into a Brooklyn Dodgers fan so the usually failing
Boston Red Sox fits me well. Being for that so-called "dodgers"
team on the west coast is a forced marriage at best.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:27 am
Peter screw Facebook and all the rest of that High Tech Big Brother Inc industry, and the
garbage they are promoting.
Also Peter do you have a little Walter Francis O'Malley voodoo doll to stick pins in it? I
also haven't followed baseball since Roberto Clemente died.
We kids use to skip school to go watch Clemente play. In fact in 1957 a young ball player
who the Pirates had acquired in somekind of trade with the Brooklyn Dodgers chased my seven
year old little butt out of right field when I wandered all confused onto the field. That
young rookie who chased my loss little being off the field, was none other than the great
number 21 Roberto Clemente.
Actually the only thing you left out Peter was the Braves moving to Atlanta. Take care
Peter, and let's play more ball in the daylight, and let's make it more affordable game to
watch again. Play ball & BDS. Joe
Thomas Phillips , October 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm
I'm envious now Joe. Roberto Clemente was one of my favorite baseball players. My no. 1
favorite, though, was Willie Mays. And speaking of the Braves moving to Atlanta, my father
took my brother and I there the first year the team was in Atlanta. The Giants were there for
a series with the Braves, and I got to see Mays play (my first and only time). I would have
loved to have been able to skip school and watch Clemente play.
On the subject of concern here, The Hill has a couple of stories on the zerohedge.com
story you referenced above. From what I read, it appears to me that if this is still an open
case with the FBI, Ms. Clinton (and Obama?) could possibly face criminal charges in this
matter. We can only hope. To Peter – I do have an old 1992 console TV, but no cable; so
I have no television to speak of. I have a VHS and DVD player though and watch old movies and
such on the old TV.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm
Thomas how cool. My buddies and I would purchase the left field bleacher seats for I think
fifty cents or maybe it was a dollar. Then around the third inning we would boogie on over
into the right field stands overlooking the great Roberto, and yell 'hey Roberto'. From right
field we kids would eye up the empty box seats off of third base. Somewhere about the sixth
or seventh inning we would sneakily slide into those empty box seats along third base side,
where you could see into the Pirate dugout along first. Now the Pirate dugout is along third.
The box seat ushers would back then justbsimply tell us kids to be good, and that they got a
pat on the back from management for filling up those empty box seats, because the television
cameras would pick that up. The best part was, we little hooky players did all of this on our
school lunch money.
About that FBI thing with Hillary I'm hoping this doesn't get written off as just another
Trump attack, and that this doesn't turn into another entertaining Benghazi hearing for
Hillary to elevate her status among her identity groupies. Joe
mark , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
All this nonsense will soon die an evidence-free natural death, but rather than admit to
the lies the MSM will divert the Deplorables with some convenient scandal like the Weinstein
affair.
The effect of all this will be to hammer the final nails in the coffin of the political
establishment and its servile MSM. This process began with the Iraqi WMD lies, and now 6% of
the population believes what it sees in the MSM.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:47 am
mark-
I wish you were right, but with all the money being thrown around, and scumbag Mueller in
the mix, how this will end is anybody's guess. I'm also curious where you got the 6% figure.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Great take Mr Parry
Smoke and mirrors to distract we the sheeple of this dying paradigm. Fascism alive and well
in the land of the free. The sheeple r now entering the critical stage, they have hit 20
percent. Dangerous times for the western masters of the universe. Get ready for more false
flags to keep the sheeple blinded from reality. The recent events globally with regards to
Iran, Syria and the DPRK are all their for distractions add the Russians ate my homework and
viola distraction heaven. But like I said more and more people in the US and the west are
turning off 1/5 to be exact and that spells trouble for the masters. They want war at all
costs 600 percent debt is not a sustainable economic system . IMF warning just the other day
that all it will take is one major European bank to crash and viola. So dangerous and
interesting times we r living. Is it by design in order to get their way.?I would say yes to
that.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
Good notes. Incidentally you may intend the French "voila" rather than the musical
instrument "viola."
Skip Scott , October 20, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Voila, viola. Didn't Curly of the three stooges do a bit on that?
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Should I say it? Shocker. NYT and HIllary are a potent team. Add on Google and CNN and you
have a formidable propaganda organization that is going to influence millions of American.
Plus Face Book and you have most of America covered without a dissenting voice. I used to be
one of their customers, reading and believing everything they put out until Judith Miller was
exposed with W and Scooter. I confess to a jaundiced eye since then. Unfortunately there
isn't a whole lot out there if you like to read good writers of relevant material. We have a
problem, Houston.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm
If it is possible to consider Russia helped throw the 2016 presidential election with 100k
spent over a three year period, then why not suspect and investigate the American MSM, who
gave Donald Trump 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage? Surely you all may recall
the wall to wall commercial free cable network coverage Trump used to receive during the way
too long of a presidential campaign? Now we are being led to believe that a few haphazard
placed Russian adbuys on FB stool the election from 'it's my turn now boys' Hillary. Here I
must admit that as much as I would love to have a woman President, I would choose almost any
qualified women other than Hillary. But yeah, this Russia-gate nonsense is a creation of the
Shadow Government, who wants so badly to see Putin get thrown out of office, that they would
risk starting WWIII doing it.
Larry Gates , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
A single person started all this nonsense: Hillary Clinton.
No need for America to be influenced to turn the internet into a sewer, America is doing
just fine on that with no help at all. The Russians are just mocking us over there, which is
perfectly understandable. In fact, from what I read, Russians are actually more religious and
concerned about immorality than Americans.
This whole thing is a joke, we know it, it's an attempt to control people, and I for one
am pretty sick of it and don't mind telling anyone just that. Let them sputter, stomp their
feet, or whatever. Keep it up, United States, and you'll be playing in the schoolyard all by
yourself!
Was the article below in corporate media? Link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -
Thousands of govt docs found on laptop of sex offender married to top Clinton adviser
Published time: 18 Oct, 2017 16:45Edited time: 18 Oct, 2017 18:37 https://www.rt.com/usa/407120-fbi-found-3k-docs-weiner/
It's amazing how the "mainstream media" has pushed this Russian collusion nonsense. What's
more amazing is how every time an article is published my these outlets claiming some new
evidence of Russian collusion, within 24 hours there's evidence to the contrary. I think the
whole Pokemon and Facebook claims are the lowest point in this Russian collusion nonsense.
The worst part is we won't see it end anytime soon
Sam F , October 19, 2017 at 7:38 am
Good points, Sam. There are many named "Sam" so please distinguish your pen name from
mine, perhaps with an initial. Thanks!
Drew Hunkins , October 19, 2017 at 12:46 am
Absolutely crucial and outstanding piece by Mr. Parry. His well thought out dissection of
Politifact is invigorating.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 12:52 am
Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash", has been talking about the biggest Russian
bribe of all, the one no one wants to talk about – Uranium One. This deal may have been
the reason why $145 million ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, all while Hillary Clinton
was Secretary of State.
Here is Peter Schweizer today on Tucker Carlson's program talking about it:
Her emails showed that HRC's internal polling proved her greatest vulnerability with her
supporters was when they were told the details of her uranium deal.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 9:03 am
Thanks for the link. Great interview. The real Russia-gate!
Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more
quality items.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 1:33 am
Joe – I never had interest in conspiracy type stories and narratives like that.
However, after reading the zerohedge article in the link in your post, I am beginning to
seriously doubt the Seth Rich murder investigation findings by the Washington DC police
– I had some misgivings before about it too. I think there was not any significant
involvement by FBI in the case. And the Justice department under Loretta Lynch did not pursue
the investigation.
Knowing all kind of stories in the news about Clintons friend Vince Foster's death during
1990's , and many other episodes in Bill and Hillary Clinton's political life, I wonder about
the power and reach of this couple. And now this article and no investigation of this bribery
and corruption scandal during Obama's presidency. It all smells fishy.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 1:58 am
Dave not only as what you had mentioned, but the Seth Rich story seems to have become
taboo in our news. I realize what the Rich family requested, but when did ever a request from
the family ever get honored by the big media ever before? I'm not suggesting anything more,
than why is the Seth Rich murder appearing to be off limits, and further more with Seth's
death being in question and implicated to the Wikileaks 'Hillary Exposures' being Seth one of
those 'leakers', then take responsibility DNC and ask the same questions, or at least answer
the questions asked. I hope that made sense, because somehow it made sense to me.
The suggestion of any alternative to the establish narrative gets tossed to the wind. I
think this drip, drip, flood, of Russia collusion into the gears of American Government is a
way of America's Establishment, who is now in charge, way of going out with a bang. The world
is starting to realize it doesn't need the U.S., and the U.S. is doing everything in it's
power to help further that multi-polar world's growing realization that it doesn't.
Okay Dave. Joe
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:57 am
Joe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to initiate investigations into these
cases. However, it seems to me that the Ruling Elite/Deep State does not want to wash the
dirty linen in front of the whole World. It would be very embarrassing; it will show the true
picture of this whole sewage/swamp it is. Jeff Sessions or others in high places, have no
independence at all, even if they want to pursue their own course – which they rarely
do.
It seems like that all these investigations are a kind of smoke screen to hide the real
issues. During 1950's or 60's , people in this country mostly trusted the leaders and elected
officials. And majority of the leaders, whatever their policies or sides they took on issues,
had some integrity, depth, solidity and dignity about them. But it seems to me that these
days politicians do not have any of it. The same is true of the Media. This constant mindless
Russia-Gate hysteria being perpetuated by the elected leaders, Media, and pundits without any
thought or decorum is not worthy of a civilized country. Also, it is not good for the Country
or the World.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
Yes Dave the quality of accountability and responsibility in DC is sorely lacking of
concern to be honest, and do the right thing by its citizens. This is another reason why it's
good to talk these things over with you, and many of the others who post comments here.
Joe
Joe,Dave, glad you bring it up Russiagate seems to be providing a full eclipse of any
investigation into the Seth Rich murder and just whatever happened to his laptop?
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 10:45 am
I think Bob the Rich investigation got filed under 'conspiracy theory do not touch' file.
Joe
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 1:39 am
Hours ago:
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant
Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's
investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company
that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa
has learned.
In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer
representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary
informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he
provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players
from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014. [ ]
FBI officials told Circa the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One,
which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law. The deal which required
approval by CFIUS, an inter-agency committee who reviews transactions that leads to a change
of control of a U.S. business to a foreign person or entity that may have an impact on the
national security of the United States. At the time of the Uranium One deal the panel was
chaired by then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and included then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder."
This FBI informant was apparently gagged from speaking to Congress by either Loretta Lynch
or Eric Holder (I've heard both names). Why would they have done this?
Sven , October 19, 2017 at 1:44 am
Very well written article
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 2:41 am
The whole Russia-Gate brouhaha has become a monumental bore. How anyone with a modicum of
intelligence and moral integrity can believe this garbage is beyond me. I salute Mr Parry for
his fortitude in clearing the Augean stables of this filth; it reminds of the old Bonnie
Raitt song, to wit – 'It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it." personally I can't
be bothered reading it anymore.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 2:51 am
Stefan Molyneux does a great job in this 25-minute video where he outlines the absolute
corruption going on in the Banana Republic of Americastan on both the left and right.
He ends up by saying that all of the same actors (Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, Comey,
Lynch, Clinton) who were part of covering up Hillary's unsecured servers and Uranium One are
the very same people who are involved with going after Trump and his supposed collusion with
Russia. Same people. And the media seem to find no end of things to say about the latter,
while virtually ignoring the former.
Yes, Media ignores the other scandal while beating up 24/7 on Russian inference/collusion
in the Presidential Election. It is the same with the Foreign News. There was this more than
10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday. The pictures in the Sputnik News
of these neo-Nazis in the march were very threatening. I think that most of the Russians have
probably left West Ukraine. There was not even a mention of this March in the Los Angeles
Times.
However, a week before Alexander Navalny had this protest – 500 figure as given the
Western media – in Moscow. The picture was splashed across the entire page of Los
Angeles Times with a half page article, mostly beating up on Putin.
I rarely watch TV shows. However, this Tuesday, because of the some work going on our
house, I was home most of the day. My wife was watching TV starting in the afternoon well
into the evening – MSNBC, CNN, PBS newshour; Wolg Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Don
Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and others with all these so called experts invited to the shows. Just
about most of it was about beating up on Trump and Russia as if it is the only news in the
Country and in the World to report. It was really pathetic to hear all these nonsensical lies
and garbage coming out the mouths of these talk show hosts and experts. It is becoming Banana
Republic of Americanistan as you wrote.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 4:04 am
Hi, Dave P. Yeah, I swear they have things on the shelf that are ready-to-go stories
whenever there's a lull in the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense. This last week they pulled
Harvey Weinstein off the shelf and crucified the guy (not that he shouldn't have been). If
this Uranium One deal gets legs, watch for some huge false flag to coincidentally appear to
take our minds off of it.
The biggest thing separating a "first world" country from a "third world" country is the
rule of law. Without it, you might as well hoist up a flag with a big yellow banana on it and
call it a day. Bananastan has a nice ring to it.
Cheers, Dave.
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 8:10 am
"There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday." It
never happened, well according to the Washington Post (aka Pravda on the Potomac) or New York
Times (aka The Manhattan Beobachter) who, like the rest of the establishment media lie by
omission. Other things that didn't happen – the Odessa fire where 42 anti-Maidan
demonstrators were incinerated by the Banderist mob who actually applauded as the Union
Building went up like a torch with those unfortunate people not only trapped inside with the
entrances barricaded, but those who jumped out of windows to escape the flames (a bit like
9/11 in New York) were clubbed to death as they lie injured on the ground. The film is on
youtube if you can bear to watch it, I could only bear to watch it once. According to the
website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national
history." A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa . Let the Devils burn in
hell." These people are our allies, along of course with Jihadis in the middle east.
In his the British playwright Harold Pinter's last valediction nailed the propaganda
methodology of the western media with the phrase, 'even while it was happening it wasn't
happening.'
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:31 am
Lee Francis –
yes. The words : 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.' It is from his Nobel
lecture. I read the text of Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter at that time – very
passionate lecture. Pinter had terminal throat cancer, he could not go to Sweden. I think he
sent his video of the Nobel lecture to be played.
It will be interesting to see how the so-called left leaning media like MSNBC and CNN spin
the Uranium One/Obama-Clinton State Department story. The right, especially Hannity on Fox,
are on it, also Tucker Carlson who is moderate mostly. When these pundits say "Russia", they
seem to imply "Putin" but that may not be the case. And they always want to imply the US is
beyond corrupt business deals, which is a joke. It's about time the Clinton case is cracked,
but with corruption rampant, who knows?
JeffS , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
The targeting of Pokemon Go users was especially nefarious because aren't about half of
those people below voting age? But when they finally are old enough to vote we can say that
they were influenced by Russia! And this is always reported in a serious tone and with a
straight face. I find the aftermath of the 2016 election to be 'Hillary'ous. The obviously
phony from the get-go Russia story was invented out of whole cloth to allow stunned Democrat
voters to engage in some sort extended online group therapy session. After a year many are
still working through the various stages of the grieving process, and some may actually reach
the final stage -- Acceptance (of the 2016 Election results)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Good one!
Jamila Malluf , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Excellent Report! Consortium needs a video outlet somebody to give these reports. There
are many places other than YouTube you could use and I could become one of your Amateur video
editor :)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:10 pm
The Rulers fear the internet.
Liam , October 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm
#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The
Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed
I was glad to see that when H Clinton was in England, the RT ads all around were making
fun of the blame game. Someone needs to lighten up and stop the ludicrous nonsensical
year-long concentration on blaming Russia for the deep defects in almost all aspects of US
presence in our world. Observe Pres. Putin and nearly every other real leader getting on with
negotiations, agreements, constructive trade deals, ignoring the sinking ship led by the
Trumpet and the Republican Party, while the Dems slide down with them.
Realist , October 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm
I think the "Powers that be" in America actually believed it when Karl Rove announced to
the world that the U.S. government had the godlike power to create any reality of its own
choosing, the facts be damned, and the entire world would come to accept it and live by it,
like it or not. They've been incessantly trying to pound this square peg of a governing
philosophy into holes of a wide spectrum of geometric shapes ever since, believing that mere
proclamation made it so. Russia, China, Iran and any other country that does business with
this troika are evil. Moreover, any country that does not kowtow to Israel, or objects to its
extermination campaign against the Palestinian people, is evil. Even simply pursuing an
independent foreign policy not approved by Washington, as Iraq, Libya and Syria felt entitled
to do, is evil. Why? Because we say so. That should suffice for a reason. Disagree with us at
your peril. We have slaughtered millions of "evil-doers" in Middle Eastern Islamic states who
dared to disagree, and we have economically strapped our own "allies" in Europe to put the
screws to Russia. The key to escape from this predicament is how much more blowback, in terms
of displaced peoples, violated human rights, abridged sovereignty and shattered economies, is
Europe willing to tolerate in the wake of Washington's megalomaniacal dictates before it
stands up to the bully and stops supporting the madness. When does Macron, Merkel and May
(assuming they are the leaders whom others will follow in Europe) say "enough" and start
making demands on Washington, and not just on Washington's declared "enemies?"
And, if the internet has indeed become the world's "cloaca maxima," I'd say first look to
its inventors, founders, chief administrators and major users of the service, all of which
reside in the United States. In terms of volume, Russia is but a small-time user of the
service. If the object is to re-create a society such as described in the novel "1984," it is
certainly possible to censor the damned thing to the point where its just a tool of tyranny.
The "distinguished" men and corporations basically running the internet planetwide have
already conferred such authority to the Chinese government. Anything they don't want their
people to see is filtered out, compliments of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the other heavy
hitters. Just looking at trends, rhetoric and the fact that the infrastructure is mostly
privately-owned, I can see the same thing coming to the West, unless the users demand
otherwise, vociferously and en masse.
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm
Trump is running point on the distraction op currently being run, to distract from the
actual crimes committed by the Blue section of the ruling political party. So far he played
his part brilliantly, knowingly or unknowingly, matters not.
Readers of Consortium News come from around the world, from very small towns with
populations in the few 1,000's to major cities with populations in the millions, and
everything size category in between. In each of those categories of population size, the
power is controlled by those possessing the greatest wealth inside that particular
population, whether small town, medium, semi-large or major city. One can describe each
category of population center as pyramidal in power structure, with those at the top of the
pyramid the wealthiest few who "pull the strings" of societies, and, as relates to war and
peace, the people who literally fire the first shots.
Identify those at the top of the world category pyramid, call them out for their war
crimes, and then humanity has a fighting chance for peace.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 7:56 pm
For WC,
Thank you for your answer to my question. The 'reply' tab is gone on the thread so I will
reply here.
I believe I was trying to figure out the difference between "lawmakers" and the corporate
entities you mentioned. Obviously the lawmakers are heavily influenced by the money and the
lobbyists from the large corps which muddies the waters and makes it even more difficult to
find clarity between politicians and the big money players. When the US sends our military
into sovereign countries against international law, it's fair to ask whether it is at the
behest of corporate interests, or even Israels' geopolitical agenda, especially in the Middle
East.
The large corps you mentioned don't have the legal authority to send our military to foreign
lands and perform duties that have nothing to do with US defense (or do they?) and that is
why I try to understand the distinction between 40 dual citizens of Israel within the
'lawmakers' of our country and large corporations. When Israels 'allowance' from US tax
payers goes remarkably up in value, one has to wonder how and why that occurs when our own
country is suffering. That's all I wonder about. I won't distract any more from Mr. Parrys'
article.
GM , October 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm
If I recall correctly, Politifact is owned by the majority owners of the St Petersburg
times, which family is a major big Clinton donor.
Kevin Beck , October 20, 2017 at 9:01 am
I am curious whether Russia is really able to employ all these "marketing geniuses" to
affect elections throughout the world. If so, then America's greatest ad agencies need to
look to Moscow for new recruits, instead of within our business schools.
Maybe Politifact declares it? stance is based on an alternative fact?
But greetings from Finland. In here is in full swing a MSM war against so called fake
media, never mind the fact that many are the stories in fake media that have turned out to be
the truth -- or that we are supposed to be a civilized country with free speech.
Our government with the support of the MSM is using a term hatespeech to silence all
tongues telling a different tale; some convictions have been given even though our law does
not recognise hatespeech as a crime. The police nor the courts can not define exactly what
hatespeech is -- so it is what they want it to be.
Bastard neoliberalism by Trump (and Bannon) are inconsistent. You can't be half pregnant -- to be
a neoliberal (promote deregulation, regressive taxes) and be anti-immigration and anti-globalist. In
this sense words Trump is doomed: neoliberal are determined to get rid of him.
Reagan was a former governor of California before becoming the President. hardly a complete outsider.
Trump was an outsider more similar to Barak Obama in a sense that he has no political record and can
ride on backlash against neoliberal globalization, especially outsourcing and offshoring and unlimited
immigration, as well as ride anti-globalism sentiments and popular protest against foreign wars. Only
quickly betraying those promised afterward. Much like king of "bait and switch" Obama .
Notable quotes:
"... Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first. ..."
"... Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot. ..."
"... He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more. ..."
"... Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military. ..."
"... Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. ..."
"... Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time. ..."
"... As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s. ..."
"... Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill. ..."
"... And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics." ..."
"... It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class. ..."
"... Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment. ..."
"... There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive. ..."
"... Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently. ..."
"... As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves. ..."
"... Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup. ..."
"... Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. ..."
"... you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process. ..."
Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a
Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.
Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials
were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican
establishment of their day, and humiliated it.
Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy
designed to prosper Americans first.
Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because
of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though
a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.
He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally,
but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a
country any more.
Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like
Ike, both built up the military.
Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget
through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's
day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt.
"An amiable dunce" said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.
The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide
in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America.
Trump's sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation.
However, as the Great Depression, New Deal and World War II represented a continental divide in
history between what came before and what came after, so, too, did the end of the Cold War and the
Reagan era.
As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the
1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and
"America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s.
Which bring us to the present, with our billionaire president, indeed, at the barricades.
The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a
landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned
him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers
48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest
tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.
Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united
Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative
accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen
senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war
with GOP leaders on the Hill.
And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes
on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job
of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly.
Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics."
It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number
of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class.
The only parts of the economy it helps are the builders of luxury mansions, antique and pricey
art dealers, and the makers of luxury autos and private jets.
when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral
process
Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree
to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political
establishment.
Two pieces here at Unz you ought to read, and fully take on board the implications of, if you
want to even begin the process of grasping reality, rather than living in the manufactured fantasy
you appear to inhabit at the moment:
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in
Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the
grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to
the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance
was often as much a pretext as a real motive.
Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the
US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its
manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live
differently.
As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical
this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and
as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive
to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies
that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests
of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves.
Here's the German government being unusually blunt yesterday about the stupidity of the Trump
regime's seeming plans in this regard:
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday said that any move by US President Donald
Trump's administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal would drive a wedge between Europe
and the US.
"It's imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue," Gabriel told Germany's RND
newspaper group. "We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue
will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA."
It's difficult to know whether the likes of Gabriel actually believe all the boilerplate nonsense
they talk about a supposed Iranian nuclear program – the real reason the European nations want
the deal to continue is that it stopped them having to pretend to believe all the outright lies
the US told about Iran, and having to kowtow t0 costly and counterproductive sanctions against
Iran that did immense general harm for the benefit only of Israel and Saudi Arabia and their US
stooges.
The US pulling out of the deal would at least bring that issue of US dishonesty on Iran and
past European appeasement of it to a head, I suppose.
Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective
leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he
did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete
fuckup.
Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence.
Assuming they won't kill Pence with the same bomb.
I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety.
Often I feel like it'd be better if Hillary did the same insane policies. It's always worse
when our guy does something wrong, and better when the hated enemy does it.
Hillary was a danger that she would start WW3 in Syria, but I don't think we can be certain
she'd have started it. Given how risk-averse women are in general, I think the only issue was
whether the Russians could've made it clear that shooting at Russian soldiers would mean war with
Russia. And I think even Hillary's advisers would've blinked.
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic
policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately
be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in
the world.
Unfortunately I can see Orbán and the Poles torpedoing a common EU stance. I'm sure that will
be the price for Netanyahu's meeting with the V4 leaders a few months ago.
I think one good thing would be if US conservatives stopped their Reagan worship. He was certainly
not a bad person, but he allowed the amnesty to happen, couldn't stop the sanctions on Apartheid
South Africa, didn't (or couldn't?) do anything against the MLK cult becoming a state religion,
and started the free trade and tax cuts cults, he's also responsible for promoting the neocons
to positions of power. So overall he was a mixed bag from a nationalist conservative viewpoint.
Private citizens are forbidden to ask for help from a foreign country, when the US Government
is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process.
You forgot the Clintons, Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. China and Israel worked on behalf
of all five of them, even though three of them lost
Yes, that's quite possible, but a common EU stance is not really all that important. What really
matters is how far the Germans, and to a lesser extent the less relevant but still big European
nations such as France and Italy and the more subservient US tool, the UK, are prepared to continue
to kowtow to US and Israeli dishonesty on Iran.
All the signs seem to be that repudiating the deal and trying to return to the days of the
aggressive and counter-productive US-imposed sanctions will be a step too far for many of those
players.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane
domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This
would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only
used to evil ends in the world.
Actually I suspect that repudiating the JCPOA, whether openly or by de facto breach, will go
immensely farther, and much faster, towards destroying practical US influence and therefore power
globally than any of those domestic policies, at least in the short run.
You can see that Trump is at least dimly aware of that likelihood from the way he keeps bottling
and postponing the decision, despite his clearly evident and desperate desire to please his pro-Israeli
and anti-Iranian advisers and instincts.
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
1) There's a chance foreign policy insanity starts a nuclear war, in which case all domestic
policy issues will pale before such horror.
2) The US already has de facto open borders. Why does it matter if it becomes majority nonwhite
in 30 or just 20 years?
3) For non-American whites, it's better the earlier the US sphere disintegrates. I bet you
it's better for American whites as well. As long as this political/cultural center holds, the
rot cannot be stopped.
I watched the movie Independence Day last night: Can we have that guy for President after
Trump, or do we have to have an obligatory Democrat (Chelsea Clinton?) President for the next
8 years?
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
That's understandable, but obviously the calculation must be somewhat different from a non-US
perspective. Given how strongly many white Americans are in favor of pro-war policies and mindless
Israel worship (how many US blacks or Hispanics care about Israel or confronting Iran?), I'm not
even sure nationalists in Europe should really lament the Hispanicization of the US. It might
at least have a positive effect in restricting US interventionism and eroding US power. The sooner
the US is unable to continue with its self-appointed role as a global redeemer nation, the better.
History repeats first as tragedy (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly white air traffic controllers),
then as farce (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly afro NFL jocks). Reagan was at least an American
Firster. Trumpenstein is an obvious traitorous Izzie Firster, with little concern for the so-called
deplorables except to convert them into deployables at the service of his jooie sponsors. Maybe
Paddy should have titled his screed "Heir to Begin, not Reagan"?
Pat Buchanan points out that " it is far more likely that a major war would do for the Trump presidency
and his place in history what it did for Presidents Wilson, Truman, LBJ and George W. Bush."
As for President Trump; Let us hope that war DOES NOT BECOME "The Last Refuge Of This Scoundrel"!
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White
jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
If only non-White votes were counted, Hillary Clinton would have been elected unanimously by
the electoral college, and Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
The few reliable voices for foreign policy sanity in congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and
Congressmen Walter Jones, John Duncan, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash, represent overwhelmingly
White, Protestant, old-stock American districts.
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
Maybe, but is there any data indicating many blacks in Washington DC actually voted in the
Republican primaries? Why would they when most of them are a solid Democrat voting block? I'd
guess Rubio got his votes from white elites in DC.
As for Puerto Rico, I didn't know they actually have primaries, seems odd given they don't vote
in US presidential elections.
Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
Hillary was horrible all around, and I agree she might well have been disastrous as president
given her dangerous proposals for no-fly zones in Syria, and the potential of conflict with Russia
this entailed. But I'm no longer sure Trump is really better regarding foreign policy. His behaviour
on the North Korea issue is irresponsible imo, and his willingness to wreck the nuclear deal with
Iran at the behest of neoconservatives and Zionist donors like Sheldon Adelson is a big fat minus
in my view. Sorry, but I think you guys who hoped for something different have all been (neo-)conned.
Reagan said: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation
that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
Trump said: We will totally destroy North Korea if the United States is forced to defend
itself or its allies.
The only similarities I see between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is that both live (lived) in
a sort of la-la land, totally out of touch with reality. The only difference between them is that
Reagan had sensible people around him (like Pat Buchannan) who wrote good speeches and make good
decisions which he took full credit for. Trump, on the other hand delivers abbreviated, one-sentence
speeches via Twitter while surrounded by mental midgets with military minds.
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in
the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just
in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary
to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
but you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from
it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people
(like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process.
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced
just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets
necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Well, yes and no. In both cases. It really is more complicated than that.
Reagan didn't undo Arab Israel Camp David Peace Treaty He didn't keep the Israeli side and undo
the Egyptian side of the American obligation . He kept both.
Trump is dangerous malevolent anti-American and anti- anything that hurts his ego or pocket
. He has malcontent displaced sycophants as inner circle supporters who want a piece in the pie
denied to them by the establishment .
Here is a quote from antiwar -"In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal
lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state."
Also, Trump and Bannon aren't really interested in draining the foreign policy swamp in DC.
They simply want to install their own cronies who will ensure that war and globalization benefit
them rather than Kissinger and his ilk. It's a shell game designed to fool Trump's base, but the
rest of the world has kept its eye on the ball."
http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2017/10/13/trump-signaling-unprecedented-right-turn-foreign-policy/
This war between elites have been predicted by a CT professor in an article in 2016 , to get
more serious and dangerous by 2020 . The fights among elites are not new but another pathway an
empire takes additionally to the final fate of the destruction from within
"A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable,
has been denied access to elite positions."
Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the
fragmentation of political parties
cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the
most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and political violence
(see Secular Cycles for this analysis).
But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of
living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues
and rising expenses) are also important contributors.
Ideally Europe would be strong together, without US and more sane policies on morals and immigration.
Yes v4 is connected to CC, Neocon, Zios.
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is
depending on US too much, and being stuck between Russia and Germany which would isolate it from
Europe in some ways. Obviously Poles are not uniform, views on US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine are
all over the place. I wish Poland was just European (in politics) but the US-EU connection is
still strong.
Commenting on US presidents. Presidents are puppets. All of them. Modern leaders in Western world
are unlikable. Reagan at least had some balance, had some Catholic and Paleocon involvement. It
wasnt all Neocons and Zios. Im quite sure Reagan (and his dad), people like Buchanan had connections
to groups like Knights Malta or Knights Colombus. Cant prove it though. Kennedy was KC.
Today
Neocon/Zionist influence is even stronger. Trump policies on NK and Iran are nuts. At best a war
is avoided.
On the other side you have Clintons, Obamas. They would destroy the US, and have similar policies
because again they are puppets. Clinton would likely be involved in Syria, just like Obama was.
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem
is depending on US too much
Yes, that's a problem, and I think Polish national conservatives are somewhat in denial about
what the modern US stands for the "values" pushed by the US establishment today are incompatible
with the Polish right's vision for Poland (e.g. conservative values in sexual morality – no homo-lobbyism
and transgender nonsense -, strong public role of Catholicism, restrictive and selective immigration
policies that keep out Muslims).
I can understand to some degree why the Polish right is so pro-US, given history and apprehensions
about Germany and Russia, but they should at least be aware that alliance with the US could have
a rather pernicious influence on Poland itself.
Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state
propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and
independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support
a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference
last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be
supported by our committee. "
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret
information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his
co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together
Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to
produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the
intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by
pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's
been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed
more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively
spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry,
going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both
classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified
assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see
whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the
Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at
the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see,
the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors'
lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and
preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts
-- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters
of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and
psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be
taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and
because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't
think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence
report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The
report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd
realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had
avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the
former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who
contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent
putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and,
in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have
found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr
added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and
they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with
putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The
Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without
producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The
Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the
investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was
involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on
the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor,
Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The
committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now,
I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages"
there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news?
Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all,
they've hyped every other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so
they decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of
Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the
interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come
up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no
proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016
elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't
really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't
the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man
innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking
matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why
they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened.
Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan
rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the
hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to
his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by
Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax
to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC
emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the
Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly
admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor
has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a
credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has
produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a
foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not
hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose
excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the
hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation
titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly
obliterates the central claims of the ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence
(in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not
involved in the DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and
credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that
has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or
evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really
conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a
witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide
the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the
prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an
emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and
threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one
massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now
consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO)
devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It
is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory
of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American
people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report
that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the
horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and
Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How
dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?
But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so
emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the
establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are
they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of
those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing
will happen.
All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much
reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media
campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the
biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria
helping?
Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things
start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow
division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing.
This is really embarrassing.
Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump
administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This
mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama
administration.
If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I
can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.
I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion
narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.
I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so
that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and
probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an
unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.
Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies
from the usual suspects.
I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always
deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little
originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's
all BS from the get-go.
Note the date.:
THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so
amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter
with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at
least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat
beyond the facts.
-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 –
PDF
This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib
Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits
comments entirely).
While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along
with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that
MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word,
"insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!
If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I
will apologize.
The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all
over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring
and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let
alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.
I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important
things but utu has a better take on it.
it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with
having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with
Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]
I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on
getting on yer knees to deliver it!
PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's
take.)
We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so
many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no
evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of
nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a
theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off
Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there
actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty
by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the
manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians,
and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence
agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent,
the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is
an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the
publics perception of Russia.
Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.
This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were
hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.
In the end,
Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about
so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it.
The American public will get the report, which it deserves.
Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The
headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be
hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the
Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless
pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.
Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued
more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still
publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions,
it is no longer important, just political theater.
The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical
weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they
wanted. Mission accomplished.
Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten
flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its
blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts
out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards
accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully
buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40
years.
If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst
possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can
absolutely count on.
Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows;
the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power
they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.
So what ?
Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics:
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great
service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth
reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks
for that.
Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and
zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of
dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.
"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take
its natural course."
Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few
things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):
having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State
Dept
expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries
(everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails,
accounts, etc
spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise
operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be
in US
laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God
forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.
None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but
it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that
'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.
What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions
to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This
is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart
enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic
level of rationality after this fiasco?
Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How
does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this
level of nonsense?
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in
best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent
investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that
was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator
Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:
We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information
in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator
Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report
that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed
with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy.
Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee
has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising
250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000
documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57
hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents
and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions,
then what's the point?
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified
in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.
From the Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the
US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have
high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge
is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity.
There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based
on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing
our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in
this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think
this gibberish should be taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because
he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think.
The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is
it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength
seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it
would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the
point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed
to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting
the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition
to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate
for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's
review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official
in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans
in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250
hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence
that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case
not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people
testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with
the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point
of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare
moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:
"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into
all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial
findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's
not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't
the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every
other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they
decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia
meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all
the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness
testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence
of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections,
then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense,
does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall
on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty
or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter,
because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.
That's why they have excluded
any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would
the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder,
Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he
also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President
Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the
Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what
actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange
been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted
that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been
contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who
can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence
that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's
work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern
been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent
report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory,
as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the
ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the
Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the
form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the
DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible
witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated
the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence
that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting
an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public
with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as
a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that
has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous
and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative
is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics
perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum
Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives.
The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests
that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as
contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the
question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political
party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid
for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of
the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a
political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised
on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these
emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make
any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where
I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.
This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic
Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their
policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of
color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union
jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour.
It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the
1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of
the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation,
a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations.
It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the
right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they
have done to the country.
Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities,
where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over
three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control.
They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population
that becomes restive.
The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face
its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault
on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our
economy and our democratic institutions.
Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why
they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without
Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function
as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations
arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or
the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile
political theater.
These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political
process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.
... ... ...
DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability
to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various
intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation
of this?
CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business
of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They
speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat
what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable
news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue
streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on
"Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity,
meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying,
racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused
by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.
I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq
War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby,
Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story
the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't
go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming
the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any
rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.
The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or
Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies
the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and
one the paper has never faced.
DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who
pitch it to them.
CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the
"weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.
DN: It goes the other way too?
CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting
in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see
you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.
DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself
as the "left."
CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left --
not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories,
that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate
and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the
rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom
of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.
If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this
cartoonish vision of politics.
The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements
under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor
movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged
the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated
capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France.
There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon.
But here we almost have to begin from scratch.
I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children
for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis.
We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already
hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient
organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.
So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with
people who consider themselves part of the left.
The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique.
You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You
won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a
dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools,
and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate
the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much
less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly
stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates
of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!
Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they
run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual,
cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these
people: traitors.
Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working
FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They
resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.
Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly
stated in every poster and shout and beating.
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political
player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.
The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation
into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were
an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators
explained, and there was still work to be done.
Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there
was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment
(ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue
of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."
Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.
The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who
were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross
understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless
of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence
Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when
it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.
This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the
CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community
products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming
this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to
underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication
of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee does not engender confidence.
It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still
an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in
the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy
and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction
appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States
(1921):
The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment
of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate
or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.
One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving
on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the
degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.
The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements
on various social media platforms, including
Facebook and Twitter, by the
Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that
the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."
No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted
to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent
us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter,
a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.
Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who
care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who
are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.
There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively
releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based
advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United
States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri)
or immigration ("The Wall").
These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where
one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable
that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.
The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we
don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to
show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration
has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process
may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the
truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:
Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made
a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.
Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch
is the Duty of a Good Officer.
Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective
staffs, would do well to heed those words.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).
"... I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters. ..."
"... "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ..."
People need to learn, relearn, and talk to others about this. Let's admit it: today's Republicans
& Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all
are -- "Neocons."
Both sides need to be replaced by truly independent voters giving strength to an administration
that is neither R nor D, and that should be the Libertarians. Trump is not one, but he's
going to end up making the way for them during his four years.
I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and
Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters.
It was either Mark Twain or Samuel Clemens who said "In the beginning of a change
the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid
join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of
color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the
current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over
the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of
Trump.
It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads
were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then
promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the
issue.
Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on
Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button
issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign,
which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and
boost Donald J. Trump during the election.
Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like
a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.
If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved
that.
Today the NYT says that the ads
were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:
There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with
firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT
United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies
that spread across the site with the help of paid ads
No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence"
campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is
simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from
some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.
With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of
"election manipulation" falls further apart:
Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in
question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after,
the company said
The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor
of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And
how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election
victory?
Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are
designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as
a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.
Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed.
Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private
pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads
ran after the election.
All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ...
designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?
No.
But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find
the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:
Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in
Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of
influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held
in reserve for future use.
Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political
influence op.
The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on
these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook
mini-ads for them.
A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or
the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads.
Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort
for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be
automatized.
This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates
"news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to
advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs
reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.
We learned after
the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly
attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political
direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of
dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:
The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country
where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he
dropped nuggets of journalism advice.
"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling
through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."
The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads
promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were
themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is
behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their
Macedonian friends were running on.
With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is
producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to
advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague
information keeps its name in the news.
After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been
solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably
the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.
Russian Car Crash
Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase
road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify
divisive political issues across the political spectrum".
The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war
against the people of the United States!
You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!
This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by
"demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached
millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo
It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.
Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM |
Permalink
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from
the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the
oligarchs.
This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .
You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for
gain.
The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish
referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational
or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.
Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to
step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from
the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for
their gain, not ours.
We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous
anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.
It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta
characteristics like never before.
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western
media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this
nonsense.
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting
nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and
civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a
response.
But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become
even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily
medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the
political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues.
Independence has been made quaint.
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.
But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what
most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences
according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.
The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the
Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming
a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult
responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial
leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013,
Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and
Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of
Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task
NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United
States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and
Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers.
... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and
Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito
in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town
to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was
fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths,
including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio,
a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of
unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the
ground.
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the
'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9 The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this
Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station
country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music
program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including
the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a
joke.
whole page on WooW:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/
Great article.
I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM
business model.
Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were
stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and
Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their
interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it
appears....
The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's"
tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing
on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at
stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...
The group was most
likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually
done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be
shunned for life for one bad story?
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to
rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is
unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation
and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes
news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.
There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything
else plays the book of provocateurs.
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly
inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to
Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....
And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited
resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and
the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook
campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B?
Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor
of Trump.
This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders
This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the
increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...
Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ...
and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and
not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the
"remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can
only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ...
all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...
It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account
... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles
about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which
included the following referring to the Catalan people:
"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement,
inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read
Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."
"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"
Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come
to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned,
which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans
were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by
the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was
not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that
interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media
juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what
it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these
companies will bleed ad revenues.
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...
"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said
today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this a position you share?
MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill
today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel
to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of
information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the
next JCPOA guideline.
The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the
totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN
General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror
attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable
failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria.
Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the
world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in
sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.
I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the
administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and
so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that
determination when he's ready to do so."
"... The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness. ..."
"... This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. ..."
"... In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome! ..."
"... The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang ..."
"... The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised. ..."
"... if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial! ..."
"... The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. ..."
"... Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back. ..."
"... He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did. ..."
"... Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried. ..."
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of
Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.
The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist
billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election
of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation
of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.
White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic
neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens
also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated
Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.
This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism
to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility
and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that
threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.
What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering
to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering
of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness
to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist
domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral
and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall
Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and
liberties.
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic
gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing
inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.
Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible
to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering
– be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get
celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile,
poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.
In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and
Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie
Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the
rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist
outcome!
In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity,
courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.
We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under
Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to
expanding US military presence.
As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching,
Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that
calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.
For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead
we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.
theomatica -> MSP1984 17 Nov 2016 6:40
To be replaced by a form of capitalism that is constrained by national interests. An ideology
that wishes to uses the forces of capitalism within a market limited only by national boundaries
which aims for more self sufficiency only importing goods the nation can not itself source.
farga 17 Nov 2016 6:35
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang.
Really? The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship
at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised.
That in recent decades middle ground politicians have strayed from the true faith....and now
its time to go back - popular capitalism, small government, low taxes.
if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial!
Social36 -> farga 17 Nov 2016 8:33
Maybe, West should have written that we're now in neoliberal, neofascist era!
ForSparta -> farga 17 Nov 2016 14:24
Well in all fairness, Donald Trump (horse's ass) did say he'd 'pump' money into the middle
classes thus abandoning 'trickle down'. His plan/ideology is also to increase corporate tax revenues
overall by reducing the level of corporation tax -- the aim being to entice corporations to repatriate
wealth currently held overseas. Plus he has proposed an infrastructure spending spree, a fiscal
stimulus not a monetary one. When you add in tax cuts the middle classes will feel flushed and
it is within that demographic that most businesses and hence jobs are created. I think his short
game has every chance of doing what he said it would.
SeeNOevilHearNOevil 17 Nov 2016 6:36
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words
and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners,
oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians
abroad.
Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob?
Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute
the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back.
He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the
day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position.
He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people
to go along much better than HRC ever did.
But that lip service is where his progressive views begin and stop. It's the very reason none
of his promises never translated into actions and I will argue that he was the biggest and smoothest
scam artist to enter the white house who got even though that wholly opposed centre-right policies,
to flip and support them vehemently. Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he
never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do
it, yet he never even tried.
ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 6:37
I agree with some of this, but do we really have to throw around hysterical terms like 'fascist'
at every opportunity? It's as bad as when people call the left 'cultural Marxists'.
LithophaneFurcifera -> ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 7:05
True, it's sloganeering that drowns out any nuance, whoever does it. Whenever a political term
is coined, you can be assured that its use and meaning will eventually be extended to the point
that it becomes less effective at characterising the very groups that it was coined to characterise.
Keep "fascist" for Mussolini and "cultural Marxist" for Adorno, unless and until others show
such strong resemblances that the link can't seriously be denied.
I agree about the importance of recognising the suffering of the poor and building alliances
beyond, and not primarily defined by, race though.
l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 6:40
Hang about Trump is the embodiment of neo-liberalism. It's neo-liberalism with republican tea
party in control. He's not going to smash the system that served him so well, the years he manipulated
and cheated, why would he want to change it.
garrylee -> l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 9:38
West's point is that it's beyond Trump's control. The scales have fallen from peoples eyes. They
now see the deceit of neo-liberalism. And once they see through the charlatan Trump and the rest
of the fascists, they will, hopefully, come to realize the only antidote to neo-liberalism is
a planned economy.
Nash25 17 Nov 2016 6:40
This excellent analysis by professor West places the current political situation in a proper
historical context.
However, I fear that neo-liberalism may not be quite "dead" as he argues.
Most of the Democratic party's "establishment" politicians, who conspired to sabotage the populist
Sanders's campaign, still dominate the party, and they, in turn, are controlled by the giant corporations
who fund their campaigns.
Democrat Chuck Schumer is now the Senate minority leader, and he is the loyal servant of the
big Wall Street investment banks.
Sanders and Warren are the only two Democratic leaders who are not neo-liberals, and I fear
that they will once again be marginalized.
Rank and file Democrats must organize at the local and state level to remove these corrupt
neo-liberals from all party leadership positions. This will take many years, and it will be very
difficult.
VenetianBlind 17 Nov 2016 6:42
Not sure Neo-Liberalism has ended. All they have done is get rid of the middle man.
macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 6:46
It would seem that there is a great deal of over simplifying going on; some of the articles
represent an hysteric response and the vision of sack cloth and ashes prevails among those who
could not see that the wheels were coming off the bus. The use of the term 'liberal' has become
another buzz word - there are many different forms of liberalism and creating yet another sound
byte does little to illuminate anything.
Making appeals to restore what has been lost reflects badly upon the central political parties,
with their 30 year long rightward drift and their legacy of sucking up to corporate lobbyists,
systems managers, box tickers and consultants. You can't give away sovereign political power to
a bunch of right wing quangos who worship private wealth and its accumulation without suffering
the consequences. The article makes no contribution (and neither have many of the others of late)
to any kind of alternative to either neo-liberalism or the vacuum that has become a question mark
with the dark face of the devil behind it.
We are in uncharted waters. The conventional Left was totally discredited by1982 and all we've
had since are various forms of modifications of Thatcher's imported American vision. There has
been no opposition to this system for over 40 years - so where do we get the idea that democracy
has any real meaning? Yes, we can vote for the Greens, or one of the lesser known minority parties,
but of course people don't; they tend to go with what is portrayed as the orthodoxy and they've
been badly let down by it.
It would be a real breath of fresh air to see articles which offer some kind of analysis that
demonstrates tangible options to deal with the multiple crises we are suffering. Perhaps we might
start with a consideration that if our political institutions are prone to being haunted by the
ghost of the 1930's, the state itself could be seen as part of the problem rather than any solution.
Why is it that every other institution is considered to be past its sell by date and we still
believe in a phantom of democracy? Discuss.
VenetianBlind -> macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 7:00
I have spent hours trying to see solutions around Neo-Liberalism and find that governments
have basically signed away any control over the economy so nothing they can do. There are no solutions.
Maybe that is the starting point. The solution for workers left behind in Neo-Liberal language
is they must move. It demands labor mobility. It is not possible to dictate where jobs are created.
I see too much fiddly around the edges, the best start is to say they cannot fix the problem.
If they keep making false promises then things will just get dire as.
It is impossible to understand the current wave of the US militarism without understanding
neoliberalism and, especially, neoconservatism -- the dominant force in the US foreign policy since
Reagan.
Many of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, here in the Senate, for example, disparage the United
Nations, he says, sitting across the table from me, in front of a wall of Vermont tourism posters.
While clearly the United Nations could be more effective, it is imperative that we strengthen international
institutions, because at the end of the day, while it may not be sexy, it may not be glamorous, it
may not allow for great soundbites, simply the idea of people coming together and talking and arguing
is a lot better than countries going to war.
... ... ...
The senator makes clear that unilateralism, the belief that we can simply overthrow governments
that we dont want, that has got to be re-examined. After referencing the Iraq War -- one of the great
foreign policy blunders in the history of this country -- the senator touches on another historic
blunder which, to his credit, few of his fellow senators would be willing to discuss, let alone critique.
In 1953, the United States, with the British, overthrew [Mohammed] Mossadegh, the prime minister
of Iran – and this was to benefit British oil interests, he reminds me. The result was the shah came
into power, who was a very ruthless man, and the result of that was that we had the Iranian Revolution,
which takes us to where we are right now.
...So far this year, Sanders has hired
Matt Duss , a respected foreign affairs analyst and former president of the Foundation for Middle
East Peace (FMEP), as his foreign policy adviser, and has given speeches at the liberal Jewish lobbying
group, J Street, where he condemned
Israels continued occupation of Palestinian territories as being contrary to fundamental American
values, and at the centrist Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, where he
rebuked Russian President
Vladimir Putin for trying to weaken the transatlantic alliance.
Last week, my colleague Glenn Greenwald penned a column in The Intercept headlined,
The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result.
Greenwald argued that Clintons advocacy of multiple wars and other military actions pushed some swing
voters into the arms of both Donald Trump and third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein. I ask Sanders
whether he agrees with this analysis.
I mean, thats a whole other issue. And I dont know the answer to that. I persist. Surely hed concede
that foreign policy was a factor in Clintons defeat? He doesnt budge. I want to talk about
my speech, not about Hillary Clinton. So foreign policy plays no role in elections?
... ... ...
The U.S. funding plays a very important role, and I would love to see people in the Middle East
sit down with the United States government and figure out how U.S. aid can bring people together,
not just result in an arms war in that area. So I think there is extraordinary potential for the
United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand
that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues.
He then, finally, answers my question: So the answer is yes.
It is -- by the depressingly low standard of modern U.S. politics -- a remarkable and, dare I
say it, radical response from Sanders. Aid to Israel in Congress and the pro-Israel community has
been sacrosanct, the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted earlier this year, and no president has seriously proposed cutting
it since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s.
"... If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama's words were able to
play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping." Obama's
sentence, that "the only limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward it, is the Republican
story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails
to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough. ..."
"... People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard. There
are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and
unfair. This rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to every tomato-picker
and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come home from work exhausted and
who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least. Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP,
then, it should be deeply humiliating for Democrats that their rhetoric is so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word
in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking "why is Melania Trump using Michelle Obama's words?" we might think to ask "why
is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric of self-reliance?" ..."
"... This is, of course, the myth of "meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book
Listen, Liberal . It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving
lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she
should just have worked harder. ..."
"... It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests,
her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own
efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools,
right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness of our supposed
"meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that
measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al ) are "good" in
any moral sense. ..."
"... U.S. cultural norms, as the piece describes accurately, glorify and misrepresent "work" especially of the "hard" kind. Hmm
I wonder where that notion came from and why it gained such a foothold in the prevailing groupthink? ..."
"... The present regime of "teach to the test" here in America almost completely short circuits the teaching of critical thinking
skills. With stressed parents increasingly abdicating their responsibilities towards the upbringing of their offspring in favour of
the State, is it any wonder that the narrow interests of the State, such as the Iron Law of Institutions, are supplanting enlightenment
in the minds of the young? We now must begin to consider the divergence of the interests of the Society from the interests of the State.
With the balance of power swinging heavily in favour of the State these recent decades, I am not sanguine about the near term future
of our culture. ..."
"... As is so often the case in American culture, the "hard work" meme emerges from the slave system. Slaves had to be bullied and
terrorized in order to extract "hard work" from them, given that they had zero rewards of any tangible sort for it. So "hard work" required
constant vigilance and frequent punishments while slaves rationally attempted to do the least amount of work that enabled them to escape
the many types of tortures they were regularly threatened with. ..."
"... Then after "emancipation," plantation owners complained that they could not get any of those lazy, shiftless Negroes to perform
"hard work" for them, given that the newly freed men and women were much more interested in getting ahead for themselves than continuing
to pick cotton or harvest rice for starvation wages. ..."
"... I don't think you are over-simplifying, Clive–in Hong Kong, too, my experience has been that most people I deal with in the
work world take a great deal of intrinsic pride in doing a job efficiently and well, for its own sake, not because it will necessarily
make you more money. ..."
"... What I'm starting to sniff in the zeitgeist today is that Trump's kids are totally changing what people think of the father.
People are making the semi-rational assumption that anyone who can raise such good kids must be very different in private than he is
on the campaign trail. ..."
"... the genesis of the "plagiarism" attacks. The mud slinging has started early in this campaign. However, if Trumps' family can
exude some sense of charm and class, the entire mud slinging strategy can be 'stood on its' head.' ..."
"... Me, I'm terrified of Hillary Clinton and the devastation that her ascension to the Presidency might bring to this nation and
to the world. She is not only a liar, a blatantly self-dealing criminal, but more devastating yet, a sociopath of the first water, willing
to walk across the bodies to advance her personal and class agenda. ..."
"... Her time as President would go a long way toward cementing the Unitary Executive in place (i.e., a functional Dictator, as
understood in the Roman Republican meaning of the term, a Tribune, in which a chief magistrate of the State like the President under
our Constitution, whose writ as an authoritarian ruler ran so long as there was a national emergency. I serve as the clerk for government
documents in a university law library, and I can tell you that the number of House Documents announcing a "National Emergency" or the
continuation of a previously announced "National Emergency" is very alarming. These "emergencies" are the camel's nose under the tent
in my estimation for the slow accretion of Dictatorial powers (again, in the Roman Republican sense of the term "dictator") toward the
Caesar-like role of Unitary Executive. These "National Emergencies" functionally invest power into the hands of the President and those
forces military, legal, and regulatory under the control of the Executive by which the President can wage military, legal/diplomatic,
and economic warfare against those who refuse to bend the knee to US-dominated global hegemony. ..."
"... Hillary is practically salivating to grasp the rod of power embodied in the Unitary Executive. Warfare will follow her tenure
in office like a dire shadow, and due to her belief in the right of and necessity of the US to enforce a global hegemony, she is inevitably
moving toward a deadly clash with other nuclear powers unwilling to submit to the yoke of globalized, stateless, culturally-anodyne
finance capitalism. Good times await. ..."
"... "Our well-nigh useless Legislative branch has largely surrendered its Constitutional responsibilities to the Executive through
such trash as Authorizations of Military Force rather than engaging in the mandated procedure of the Declaration of War found in the
Constitution to authorize extended use of military (and legal and economic) force." ..."
"... That allows individuals to claim they had no responsibility for the war, something Pence and Clinton cannot claim because of
their votes. But on what other things do you see Obama as being a strong "unitary executive." I thought it was generally viewed that
Congress had thwarted his (almost) every wish. ..."
"... And how about that patriot act renewal, US out of iraq/afganistan? Vicky nuland and the ukraine? I guess the problem is that
you get your information as it is generally viewed, but you fail to indicate who it is that generally views things that way, however,
it should help you understand why trump will win because hillary is generally viewed as corrupt. ..."
"... I'm intrigued by author's concluding idea. "It involves another attempt to take over the Republican Party, this time by the
Clinton-led Democratic leadership. " ..."
"... And if the words were lies coming out of Obama's mouth, what are they coming out of Trump's mouth? ..."
"... "Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP, then, it should be deeply humiliating for Democrats that their rhetoric is
so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking "why is Melania
Trump using Michelle Obama's words?" we might think to ask "why is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric of self-reliance?" ..."
"... A lot of this is related to the Democrats and what Bill made "successful" with his presidency. The lack of a truly left party
that works for average citizens has created this environment when a character like Trump can gain such support. This article illustrates
but another example of meritocratic nonsense being regurgitated by the party. ..."
"... A thought-provoking and unexpected take, Gaius Publius. I was struck by one item left off your list of lucky attributes: beauty.
Both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump are undeniably beautiful women -– tall, slim, with the elegantly symmetrical features prized in
every culture. Sadly in beauty-obsessed America the doors opened for women who look this lovely are shut hard against women who are
fat, or old, or ugly. ..."
"... I had pretty much the exact same thought as your second "blackbird" when the video of Melania Trump plagiarizing Michele Obama's
speech and all my liberal friends were yuking it up. All I could think was "If the same speech could plausibly come out of either of
their mouths without alienating the audience, we have much worse problems than her Mrs. Trump's copycating." The fact that this seemed
to bother hardly anyone else made it worse. So much of these elections just get reduced down to rooting for your team at a sporting
event. This works well to keep people from having to deal with a lot of unpleasant questions and conclusions. ..."
"... Read Roosevelt's speech, Trump certainly did, for some real fear mongering and look at the coalition he has taken over the
Republican party to form. FDR 1932. ..."
"... > "another attempt to take over the Republican Party" Which shouldn't be that hard, since both the Democrat and Republican
parties are neoliberal. As always, the real enemy is the left. ..."
"... I'm surprised Gaius failed to address this portion of Michelle's speech which he quoted: "tell the truth; keep your promises;
treat others with dignity and respect." Since when has Obama told the truth, or kept his promises, or treated anyone except Jamie Dimon
and Lloyd Blanfein with respect? ..."
"... Put aside whether "Michelle Obama" or some speechwriting merc came up with the banal verbiage redolent of Sunday school and
Horatio Alger. What gives the snippet its special Trumpian turn into hyper-unreality, an ever-expanding balloon of hot boast and hyperbolic
deceit, is the way it transcends garden-variety plagiarism by laying claim to the very virtues that the appropriation itself falsifies.
..."
"... That's chutzpah! The stunning effrontery supersizes an overall meta-ness that's less indicative of middle-class morality and
meritocracy than the predatory opportunism of the exploitative rich, what C. Wright Mills might have recognized as the "higher immorality."
Here we have a colossally vain billionaire atop an empire of glitz and privilege kayfabing his way to a party nomination as the indignant
voice of the brutalized working class he's dedicated his life to disparaging as envious losers. The mind reels between giddiness and
nausea. ..."
"... You can't forever distract it away with Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and color counter-revolutions against exploitative
freeloaders (the non-rich and famous ones, that is). It takes an philosophy of human worth apart from vanities over this or that temporarily
adaptive skill or happy accident. ..."
"... I think Oren Nimni basically gets it right: When you cut through the tautologies and the bromides that many parents deliver
to their children, what you have is the message, "don't expect government to be there for you; those days are over" (which, actually,
sounds like Bubba Bill's pitch–"the day's of big government are over"). ..."
"... If you work hard enough and have enough ambition you will succeed is not a lie to those born on 3rd base, it was true for them.
The Obama's the Trumps. They are really just guilty of not understanding the plight of those who were born at bat against a major league
pitcher. ..."
Oren Nimni: Obama's statement "is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country"
The fact that Michelle Obama's statement is blatantly false (and that a woman of color in the United States said it) is revealing.
Current Affairs writer Oren Nimni
on that (emphasis in original):
If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama's words were able
to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping."
Obama's sentence, that "the only limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward
it, is the Republican story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing
with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough.
People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard.
There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally
skewed and unfair. This rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to
every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come
home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least.
Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP, then, it should be deeply humiliating for Democrats that their rhetoric is
so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking "why
is Melania Trump using Michelle Obama's words?" we might think to ask "why is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric of
self-reliance?"
This is, of course, the myth of
"meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book Listen, Liberal . It's clear
that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual
has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked
harder.
It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests,
her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her
own efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right
schools, right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness
of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory
capitalism. By that measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama
et al ) are "good" in any moral sense.
(The idea of the supposed "goodness" of the successful capitalist, by the way, his supposed "greater morality," goes all the way
back to the 18th Century attempt of the wealthy to counter the 17th Century bleakness of Protestant predestination. How could people,
especially the very rich, know whether they are among the "elect" or the damned?
God gives them wealth as a sign
of his plans for them, just as God gives them morally deficient poverty-wage workers to take advantage of.)
There's also a flip side to the main point drawn out in the above article ("if you work hard you'll be successful and rewarded")
which, dare I say, is rarely mentioned and even an anathema in U.S. culture (not, mind you, that I think British culture isn't
going the same way so I am not trying to throw stones in this glass house).
Which is: quite often, you are rewarded if you don't "work hard" and even if you work somewhat "hard" the rewards you receive
are out of all proportion to the effort you have to make. But no-one (or few people) are willing to admit, if they are in that
position, that - to put it crudely - they are really doing bugger all but raking it in.
I, for example, do very little. What I do do certainly isn't "hard work". Now, I have expended a certain amount of mental effort
on understanding the system - the dynamic - in play at my employer. And how to successfully exploit that to gain the maximum amount
of financial reward for the least amount of effort. But I would hardly call that "work", and certainly it is not of "hard" variety.
U.S. cultural norms, as the piece describes accurately, glorify and misrepresent "work" especially of the "hard" kind.
Hmm I wonder where that notion came from and why it gained such a foothold in the prevailing groupthink?
In Japanese culture, to introduce another nuance, the concept of "hard work" is still present as a thing to be looked up to
but it is more tinged with an air of "doing your best" or "doing your upmost" rather than "hard" (i.e. demanding) work and lacks
the "you're going to get the payoff if you do" quid pro quo. The reward, in Japanese culture, comes from knowing you've done the
best you can which is more a personal satisfaction than a financial compensator. But I am glossing over some complexity here so
do not view what I've just said in this paragraph as anything other than a simplification.
May I suggest that the "simplification" you mention is an essential part of any group control strategy. Simplified thinking
may work wonders in efficiency studies or some sorts of high energy physics, but in the realm of social relations, simplicity
masks diversity and complexity to the detriment of any version of "truth." I was lucky in having skeptical parents and some excellent
minds among my High School teachers. The present regime of "teach to the test" here in America almost completely short circuits
the teaching of critical thinking skills. With stressed parents increasingly abdicating their responsibilities towards the upbringing
of their offspring in favour of the State, is it any wonder that the narrow interests of the State, such as the Iron Law of Institutions,
are supplanting enlightenment in the minds of the young? We now must begin to consider the divergence of the interests of the
Society from the interests of the State. With the balance of power swinging heavily in favour of the State these recent decades,
I am not sanguine about the near term future of our culture.
As is so often the case in American culture, the "hard work" meme emerges from the slave system. Slaves had to be bullied
and terrorized in order to extract "hard work" from them, given that they had zero rewards of any tangible sort for it. So "hard
work" required constant vigilance and frequent punishments while slaves rationally attempted to do the least amount of work that
enabled them to escape the many types of tortures they were regularly threatened with.
Then after "emancipation," plantation owners complained that they could not get any of those lazy, shiftless Negroes to
perform "hard work" for them, given that the newly freed men and women were much more interested in getting ahead for themselves
than continuing to pick cotton or harvest rice for starvation wages. Ever since, we have lived with the embittered voice
of the slaveowner infuriated at the loss of all that labor power he once had at his disposal for free. Thus the mythology that
"hard work" is all you need to perform to get ahead and the implicit wink-wink-we-know-who-won't-do-that racism that goes along
with it.
I don't think you are over-simplifying, Clive–in Hong Kong, too, my experience has been that most people I deal with in
the work world take a great deal of intrinsic pride in doing a job efficiently and well, for its own sake, not because it will
necessarily make you more money. (Although often that is the result– over-performing and exceeding expectations is a great
way of ensuring repeat customers and a thriving business.)
Coming from the US, where every corporate smile and "Have a Nice Day" is being recorded for performance review, I find this
a most refreshing cultural trait, one that I have tried my best to assimilate.
I would add to what Clive said that in Japan the ganbare ethos is also underlined by a certain expectation that your
wider social group will back you up, or at least make certain your life doesn't fall off a cliff. This doesn't always work in
practice, and there are obvious examples of social groups that the Japanese polity like to pretend simply doesn't exist, but it
is a cultural expectation. You even see it among homeless camps in Japan, which constitute a very clear in group.
In the US, a great of anxiety stems from the realization that you could do your best in all circumstances and still have your
life fall apart, since that social backstop just isn't there, especially not in the world of meritocracy, in which you're expected
to basically give up your pre-existing social networks in order to even participate.
I remember one job where my Boss warned me: "Nice guys finish last here."
Nice of him, eh?
Figure out the culture of your workplace, and if you can stomach it, do what you have to do to succeed. This is what the Obamas
and the Clintons have done. And geez, they can stomach a lot. But I do know people who have "worked hard" and been successful
in their own businesses, and musicians are a prime example of having to really do the work to get the work. It's who you want
to be recognized by, in my way of thinking.
I often think the better saying would be "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make outrageously successful."
With outrageous – as in wildly-disproportionate-to-effort-and-actual-talent – success comes a sense of infallibility, inevitability,
hubris. A self-centered personality-cult delusion – ergo a form of madness – which often ends in a spectacular undoing. Alas,
not nearly often enough, when it comes to the DC cabal of hubristic upward-failing sociopaths.
GOP convention finished with a bang tonight, and thankfully the dire pre-convention worries about the streets of Cleveland
flowing with rivers of blood proved unfounded – I'd studiously avoided the previous evenings, aside from a few brief nauseating
while-channel-flipping glimpses – but happened to catch Trump himself tonight. While I disliked Trump's police-centric take on
American security at home, I thought he really effectively hammered the issues of economic inequality – including a mention of
soaring unemployment rates in the latino and black communities (I wish he would have said more in that vein, but he did at least
say something) and governmental corruption at the highest levels, as well as Hillary's multiple foreign-policy debacles; the whole
"what has 15 years of blowing shit up in the middle east done for us?" issue. Also made a very pronounced point of embracing Sanders'
"top issue" of bad so-called-free-trade deals, while emphasizing the degree to which things were rigged against Bernie. And closed
with a nifty turning of Hillary's pet slogan against her [I paraphrase, too tired to dig the exact quote out]: "she demands a
three-word loyalty oath 'I`m with her' well I'm here to tell you tonight that I'm with you ."
And the speeches by his kids (Donald Jr last night, Ivanka tonight) were both good, and I think likely surprising – in a positive
way – to many people. The image of the whole family onstage post-speech will likely resonate with the traditional Republican base
– clean-cut successful-looking guys and attractive ladies of a leggy-blond (but not Barbie-esque/ditzy) type I expect even folks
of a conservative Mormon bent will have found something to like in that image.
Scott Adams comments on the kids
:
What I'm starting to sniff in the zeitgeist today is that Trump's kids are totally changing what people think of the
father. People are making the semi-rational assumption that anyone who can raise such good kids must be very different in private
than he is on the campaign trail.
Would be interested to hear the takes of other NC readers who watched the nomination acceptance speech.
Re "..a minority of one.." At least you go in for nuance and reflection. My take on H Clinton and her claque is that they all
perceive the Candidate as a 'majority of one.'
Your comment about the wife of Trump reminds me of the old saying by Caesar that : " Caesars' wife must be above suspicion." Thus,
the genesis of the "plagiarism" attacks. The mud slinging has started early in this campaign. However, if Trumps' family can exude
some sense of charm and class, the entire mud slinging strategy can be 'stood on its' head.'
Me, I'm terrified of Hillary Clinton and the devastation that her ascension to the Presidency might bring to this nation
and to the world. She is not only a liar, a blatantly self-dealing criminal, but more devastating yet, a sociopath of the first
water, willing to walk across the bodies to advance her personal and class agenda.
Her time as President would go a long way toward cementing the Unitary Executive in place (i.e., a functional Dictator,
as understood in the Roman Republican meaning of the term, a Tribune, in which a chief magistrate of the State like the President
under our Constitution, whose writ as an authoritarian ruler ran so long as there was a national emergency. I serve as the clerk
for government documents in a university law library, and I can tell you that the number of House Documents announcing a "National
Emergency" or the continuation of a previously announced "National Emergency" is very alarming. These "emergencies" are the camel's
nose under the tent in my estimation for the slow accretion of Dictatorial powers (again, in the Roman Republican sense of the
term "dictator") toward the Caesar-like role of Unitary Executive. These "National Emergencies" functionally invest power into
the hands of the President and those forces military, legal, and regulatory under the control of the Executive by which the President
can wage military, legal/diplomatic, and economic warfare against those who refuse to bend the knee to US-dominated global hegemony.
Our well-nigh useless Legislative branch has largely surrendered its Constitutional responsibilities to the Executive through
such trash as Authorizations of Military Force rather than engaging in the mandated procedure of the Declaration of War found
in the Constitution to authorize extended use of military (and legal and economic) force. This gives the Executive carte blanche
to engage in unending wars (beginning to sound familiar?) with all that that implies concerning the dominance of the MIC in the
formulation of national policies.
Hillary is practically salivating to grasp the rod of power embodied in the Unitary Executive. Warfare will follow her
tenure in office like a dire shadow, and due to her belief in the right of and necessity of the US to enforce a global hegemony,
she is inevitably moving toward a deadly clash with other nuclear powers unwilling to submit to the yoke of globalized, stateless,
culturally-anodyne finance capitalism. Good times await.
And that is only the beginning, as the plans she has for the US citizenry are scarcely less dire, what with the inevitability
of the Grand Bargain in service of Finance Capitalism looming dead ahead.
"Our well-nigh useless Legislative branch has largely surrendered its Constitutional responsibilities to the Executive
through such trash as Authorizations of Military Force rather than engaging in the mandated procedure of the Declaration of
War found in the Constitution to authorize extended use of military (and legal and economic) force."
That allows individuals to claim they had no responsibility for the war, something Pence and Clinton cannot claim because
of their votes. But on what other things do you see Obama as being a strong "unitary executive." I thought it was generally viewed
that Congress had thwarted his (almost) every wish.
Indeed, the republicans twisted barack's arm behind his back and forced him to allow insurance company lobbyists to write the
"Affordable Care Act". Since you have tsa pre check I'll guess that your cadillac plan is still operational, or if not that that
all the people who pay for insurance they can't use are subsidising you, and your own health care costs have been ameliorated.
They also forced him to nominate merrick garland. They forced him to foam the runway for the banks and forced him to let all the
bankster crimes go unpunished. My view is that obama, like hillary, is a republican because for both of them the policies they
worked to advance are republican policies. TPP, ISDS, ACA, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning I could go on and on. I agree with
the author that dems like obama and hillary are interested in serving the top sliver of the population that has the lions share
of the wealth. It's not right/left anymore, it's top/bottom .
And how about that patriot act renewal, US out of iraq/afganistan? Vicky nuland and the ukraine? I guess the problem is
that you get your information as it is generally viewed, but you fail to indicate who it is that generally views things that way,
however, it should help you understand why trump will win because hillary is generally viewed as corrupt.
I think both Obama and Trump were reciting a standard variation of the American Dream™. Horatio Alger stories are part of the
US mythos. Bill Clinton used a variation in 1992. Most US pols use the "up from nothing by dint of hard work and good morals"
line. The flap is that O and T used the exact same words instead of noting that the sentiment itself is boilerplate?
I'm intrigued by author's concluding idea. "It involves another attempt to take over the Republican Party, this time
by the Clinton-led Democratic leadership. "
" And if the words were lies coming out of Obama's mouth, what are they coming out of Trump's mouth? "
They are still lies, but they are lies in keeping with the ideology that dominates the party of which Trump is the nominee.
Nimni summarized this well:
"Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP, then, it should be deeply humiliating for Democrats that their rhetoric
is so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking
"why is Melania Trump using Michelle Obama's words?" we might think to ask "why is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric
of self-reliance?"
A lot of this is related to the Democrats and what Bill made "successful" with his presidency. The lack of a truly left
party that works for average citizens has created this environment when a character like Trump can gain such support. This article
illustrates but another example of meritocratic nonsense being regurgitated by the party.
I think she initially claimed she wrote it didn't she? But yea it's clearly silly coming out of her mouth. Although being a
model may be hard work (it could very well be frankly), she hasn't worked hard for years by now, and didn't get into such a privileged
position by hard work (in whose definition exactly does marrying money count as hard work?).
So while in Michelle Obama's mouth the words are a lie, at least they might be a lie that's kind of true for her, in Misses
Trumps mouth it's beyond silly. I have no idea if Mr Inherited Wealth and Misses Married Money do raise their kids that way or
not. Wow the rich are crazy!!!
A thought-provoking and unexpected take, Gaius Publius. I was struck by one item left off your list of lucky attributes:
beauty. Both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump are undeniably beautiful women -– tall, slim, with the elegantly symmetrical features
prized in every culture. Sadly in beauty-obsessed America the doors opened for women who look this lovely are shut hard against
women who are fat, or old, or ugly.
There is a strong correlation between height and compensation. "When it comes to height, every inch counts–in fact, in the
workplace, each inch above average may be worth $789 more per year, according to a study in the Journal of Applied Psychology
(Vol. 89, No. 3).
The findings suggest that someone who is 6 feet tall earns, on average, nearly $166,000 more during a 30-year career than someone
who is 5 feet 5 inches–even when controlling for gender, age and weight." http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspx
That apparently is not true. One study of lawyers "found that those rated attractive on the basis of their graduation photographs
went on to earn higher salaries than their less well-favoured colleagues. Moreover, lawyers in private practice tended to be better
looking than those working in government departments." Even among economists, beauty pays and "attractive candidates were more
successful in elections for office in the American Economic Association."
http://www.economist.com/node/10311266
I had pretty much the exact same thought as your second "blackbird" when the video of Melania Trump plagiarizing Michele
Obama's speech and all my liberal friends were yuking it up. All I could think was "If the same speech could plausibly come out
of either of their mouths without alienating the audience, we have much worse problems than her Mrs. Trump's copycating." The
fact that this seemed to bother hardly anyone else made it worse. So much of these elections just get reduced down to rooting
for your team at a sporting event. This works well to keep people from having to deal with a lot of unpleasant questions and conclusions.
Or worse still, they've become so used to neoliberal platitudes like "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" that it's become
"common sense" or the don't even recognize it as such.
In case you missed it, T's entire speech was about the "forgotten man," those that work hard and still cannot make a living
wage. The height of their dreams count for nothing. The system is rigged. Read Roosevelt's speech, Trump certainly did, for
some real fear mongering and look at the coalition he has taken over the Republican party to form. FDR 1932.
> "another attempt to take over the Republican Party" Which shouldn't be that hard, since both the Democrat and Republican
parties are neoliberal. As always, the real enemy is the left.
I'm surprised Gaius failed to address this portion of Michelle's speech which he quoted: "tell the truth; keep your promises;
treat others with dignity and respect."
Since when has Obama told the truth, or kept his promises, or treated anyone except Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blanfein with respect?
you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise
Put aside whether "Michelle Obama" or some speechwriting merc came up with the banal verbiage redolent of Sunday school
and Horatio Alger. What gives the snippet its special Trumpian turn into hyper-unreality, an ever-expanding balloon of hot boast
and hyperbolic deceit, is the way it transcends garden-variety plagiarism by laying claim to the very virtues that the appropriation
itself falsifies.
That's chutzpah! The stunning effrontery supersizes an overall meta-ness that's less indicative of middle-class morality
and meritocracy than the predatory opportunism of the exploitative rich, what C. Wright Mills might have recognized as the "higher
immorality." Here we have a colossally vain billionaire atop an empire of glitz and privilege kayfabing his way to a party nomination
as the indignant voice of the brutalized working class he's dedicated his life to disparaging as envious losers. The mind reels
between giddiness and nausea.
What then exists outside the genteel social Darwinism of meritocratic ideology and further descent into a society of the spectacle,
the Reaganite sitcom devolved into the Trump unreality show? To the gnomic, sidelong mysticism of Stevens let's add the frontal
transvaluation of a sardonic Shaw:
What am I, Governors both? I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means
to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit
of it, it's always the same story: 'You're undeserving; so you can't have it.' But my needs is as great as the most deserving
widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less
than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause
I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything
as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.
Governors both, Democrats and Republicans, the meritocrats and the masters. What must be taken in is that the unskilled, the
uneducated, the out of step, the unlucky, all need the means to live. If that's taken from them by the self-described deserving
on the Acela and the higher immoralists in their towers and Gulfstreams, a democracy will begin to wobble like a spinning coin
on the verge. You can't educate that away. You can't forever distract it away with Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and color
counter-revolutions against exploitative freeloaders (the non-rich and famous ones, that is). It takes an philosophy of human
worth apart from vanities over this or that temporarily adaptive skill or happy accident.
When the market is be all and end all, an expression of natural law and supernatural giver of meaning, it's hard to see how
even a managed, minimal democracy can prevail except as grotesque, corrupt parody, a mood traced in the shadow a decipherable
cause. Or did I read something like that somewhere, like in a poem?
I don't recall Ms. Obama's speech. Based on the excerpts I heard during the recent news cycle (from both speeches) were pathetic.
I think Oren Nimni basically gets it right: When you cut through the tautologies and the bromides that many parents deliver
to their children, what you have is the message, "don't expect government to be there for you; those days are over" (which, actually,
sounds like Bubba Bill's pitch–"the day's of big government are over").
If you work hard enough and have enough ambition you will succeed is not a lie to those born on 3rd base, it was true for
them. The Obama's the Trumps. They are really just guilty of not understanding the plight of those who were born at bat against
a major league pitcher.
NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA
role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they
can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert
attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story
they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting
machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting
and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the
votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is
who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and
making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear
mongering neocons.
Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
The last piece
pointed out that the NYT headline "
U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake
news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The
relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further
inspection powers were authorized.
Today we find another similarly
lying headline in the New York Times.
Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny
By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017
The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential
election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:
There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and
software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a
Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more
reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various
innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there
of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.
The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference
and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically
irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to
paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by
the editors of the New York Times.
This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential
election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence
-none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia.
Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the
issue. There is
zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.
The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic
partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services)
to:
cover up for Hillary Clinton's and
the DNC's failure in the election and to
build up Russia as a public enemy to justify unnecessary military spending and other imperial
racketeering.
The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence
for them. In many cases they hide behind "
intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments"
of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and
not reported at all.
Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM |
Permalink
Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their
embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to
smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation
and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.
The end of this story
has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people
chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election
hacking.
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against
the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly
hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.
At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines,
and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian
hacking"!
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what
they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are
loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?
Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?
If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to
make Israel look reasonable.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by
an editor.
Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get
published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're
paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering
possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.
When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which
Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in
the NYT, WaPo et al.
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering
more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their
wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press
on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned
disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par
excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast
would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running
away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these
troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but
it doesn't, so it isn't.
She has recently joined the Gramps McCain war monger club and told TYT's Cenk Uygur in an
interview that she thinks "Russia" is the most important issue for 2018. She gone full Dem
idiot and has lost my vote (yes, in Mass) but then again, every vote I ever cast for DemocRATs
has been a disappointment. Kerry for Senator and POTUS, Obomber once, Warren once. It's too
much, and I'm done with them for good.
Reply
Joshua88
Mass Independent
September 1 2017, 3:45 p.m.
Her economic message and message of equity/fairness are
consistent.
I know about her support for the defense industry.
I did not know how she feels about Russia.
I know she didn't vote against sanctions and war funding, as well as not speaking out against
drones, etc.
All I can tell you is that, as an Independent, I am extremely harsh, disgusted, and fed up
with the Dems. They are the hopeless party. I listened to Rep Joe Crowley early this morning.
Christalmighty – these people ought to be put out of their misery.
What gives me optimism is that: How easy is it to tweet Ms Slaughter to say, Nobody believes
you; Joe Crowley, you are out of your mind. Keep thinking these thoughts and you will LOSE
2018? Very easy, I am sure.
Your nicknames are so sophomoric – are you about twelve/thirteen?
Reply
Mass
Independent
Joshua88
September 1 2017, 5:39 p.m.
So while we basically agree on our politicians, you take issue
with my nicknames for them? How sophomoric of you.
I am equally disgusted and fed up with them, so I try to get under their skin (too).
Reply
sglover
September 1 2017, 2:42 p.m.
Google aside, Slaughter's perch at this Beltway feeding trough
just goes to show how for somebody like her, the sweet gigs keep on coming no matter how much
or how often you fuck up. How many idiotic military adventures has Slaughter advocated?
Naturally, neither she nor anybody she knows ever has to pay the cost of her crackpot
enthusiasms ..
Reply
Mass Independent
sglover
September 1 2017, 3:24 p.m.
For all her liberal schooling, her "evolution" as a Hillary
NeoCon type is complete. These are the DemocRATS who are ruining the country–with the
help of their corporately owned counterparts, the Rethuglicans.
Reply
free
September 1 2017, 2:12 p.m.
Corporatins are a creation of the US state and proxies of the
US state. That's particularly clear in the case of google-NSA, facebook-NSA, amazon,NSA.
PAYPAL-EBAY-NSA etc.
It's quite unlkely tht the US nazi government is going to do anything against those
companies because the US gov't has no reason to cut its own arms.
Reply
Nonsenseyousay
free
September 1 2017, 2:19 p.m.
Welcome to Earth, but that is not how things work here in the
United States.
Reply
free
Nonsenseyousay
September 1 2017, 3:18 p.m.
What the fuck do you mean. That is exactly how things work in
the american cesspool.
Reply
Alferrer
September 1 2017, 12:37 p.m.
Our politicians are for sale.
Reply
GhostofTeddyRoosevelt
September 1 2017, 11:59 a.m.
As a libertarian, i am pretty much hands off the market.
However, many tech firms have gotten to a point of no return. At some point the Sherman Act
needs to be enlisted.
In the 70s Standard Oil was busted for a lot less. Google, Amazon, Fakebook, Apple, need
strutiny and likely busted as well.
I also would put a few large ag & chemical interests into this mix.
The control they wield is no longer acceptable.
Reply
Joe
September 1 2017, 11:10 a.m.
This goes to show you how Google is using its monopoly power
to crush dissent and destroy its rivals. If there was ever a textbook case of monopolistic
abuse that calls out for antitrust action, this is it.
Reply
Darren Douglas
September 1 2017, 10:04 a.m.
Time to split up Google (search, Gmail, YouTube, etc.) and
maybe Amazon (Washington Post, Whole Foods, etc.). Google in particular is a potentially
harmful monopoly for freedom of speech.
Reply
Elizabeth
September 1 2017, 9:46 a.m.
Great reporting! THANK YOU
Reply
Benito Mussolini
September 1 2017, 9:45 a.m.
Washington is a marketplace for buying and selling influence.
If you drain the swamp, it doesn't make the marketplace disappear, just renders it transparent.
Google's behavior does not seem exceptional, at least when compared with the machinations of
Big Oil and the Military-Industrial complex. As far as I know, Google isn't agitating for the
invasion of any foreign countries.
"... In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true -- that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent, ..."
"... The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton's favor, but the court's authority to intervene in a court of law is limited. ..."
"... "The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party's nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction." ..."
In June 2016, a
class
action lawsuit
was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former
DNC
Chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential
primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid
admitted
in July 2016, ""I knew!everybody knew!that this was not a fair deal." He added
adding that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The
lawsuit
was filed to push the
DNC
to
admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially
with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.
On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch,
dismissed
the lawsuit
after several months of litigation in which
DNC
attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select
their own candidate. "
In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their
allegations are true -- that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton
and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,
" the court order dismissing the
lawsuit stated.
The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. "The Court must now decide
whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly
impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair's conduct!the keys to entering
federal court. The Court holds that they have not." The court added that it did not consider
this within its jurisdiction. "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing
'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'"
The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton's favor, but the
court's authority to intervene in a court of law is limited.
"The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It
assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they
devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party's nomination and opposing other
Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while
publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore
concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction."
At this time, it's unclear if the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit, Jared and
Elizabeth Beck, will pursue other legal recourse regarding the 2016 Democratic primaries.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
"... Chairperson, the designated Vice Chair as provided for in Article Two, Section 12(b) of the Bylaws, or the next highest ranking officer of the National Committee present at the meeting shall preside. Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation asmay be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process. ..."
In June of 2016 Jared and Elizabeth Beck filed a lawsuit in Florida against the DNC, (Wilding
v.s. DNC Services Corporation) known mostly online as the #DNCFRAUDLAWSUIT. The case has
slowly wound its way through the courts but has picked up steam in 2017 as court transcripts
and allegations of intimidation have become public.
The plaintiffs have filed a class action suit on behalf of three classes of people,
arguing that the DNC must return all donations given in the 2016 cycle to Bernie Sanders
Donors, DNC Donors and Democrats in general. Why? They claim the DNC defrauded donors in the
2016 primary by failing to remain neutral during the contest. Article 5 section 4 of the
DNC bylaws state
s:
CHARTER
Chairperson, the designated Vice Chair as provided for in Article Two, Section 12(b)
of the Bylaws, or the next highest ranking officer of the National Committee present at the
meeting shall preside. Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall
receive such compensation asmay be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the
Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of
the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct
of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and
evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be
responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National
Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential
nominating process.
Beck and Beck cite the hacked emails from Wikileaks as evidence of Democratic Party
leaders tampering with the primary process.
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually
turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned
on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible
for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the
banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable
is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly,
Trump
could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public
entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets
and says Trump
has been out
of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management
and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard
to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such
shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to
go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers,
as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video
doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)
"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey
,
Book 11
PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this? TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice. It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida ,
Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week."
-Yours truly
So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform
to what's presently painted as true.
Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the
highly
suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of
absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the
destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point
to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that
in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have
another purpose .
Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined
not to be believed . To what
do I refer? Read on.
How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"
Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving
entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul
Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia)
until very after the fact.
See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes
to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What
Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."
Jonathan Marshall,
writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the
current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):
The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying
The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald
Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations
into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .
In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently
noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of
foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful
foreign pressure groups have enough clout to
downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system
is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence
peddling by other nations .
The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act,
failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World
War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:
Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters
as well as by the law's many loopholes -
including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect
records of those not registered under the Act."
A 2016 audit
by the inspector general of the Department of Justice
determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations
were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of
six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal
cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .
The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.
Here's Russia-savvy
Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being
investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:
When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view .
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about
tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable,
unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions
in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of
the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence
chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities
unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people
in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged
in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that
this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving
someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely
be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes
– for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting
a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption
than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than
"somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot
constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something
else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around
the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.
My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering
case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do
the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.
John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia
Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer
represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person)
firm still retained their business?
In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap
by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket
fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian
life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once
again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.
It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could
have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States
. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur
in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President
Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.
If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely
suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President
Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor,
Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian
government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign
imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone
conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being
paid by Georgia...
McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent
response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing
of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials
as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted
his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the
crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to
a Quinnipiac
University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their
last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified
to deal with Russia.
Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others
aren't so sure :
Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog
group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent
foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of
March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations.
Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined
to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .
If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register?
The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his
enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.
The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems.
Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.
An Investigation in Search of a Crime
Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole,
which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?
Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole
effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation
(how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.
Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator,
makes the same point :
In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as
they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed
two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's
role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.
In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated
a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He
also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding."
And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the
U.S. Constitution.
There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and
later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons
of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh
was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.
By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President
Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence –
that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other
Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)
The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence
regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails
pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features
of the Clinton Foundation.
Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any
formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the
Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russians in the hacking.
Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the
Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller
have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible
obstruction of justice.
I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting
point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning
thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation,
another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route
to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something
more incriminating? He's still looking too.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that
how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair
to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?
Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation
start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.
Here's Parry on that (same link):
In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser,
acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for
the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .
Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking
the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted
during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their
own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser
of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.
But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with
a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps
in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the
Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.
Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the
call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since
the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and
thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.
Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around
it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President
Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.
"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"
I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his
word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation,
for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.
What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely
in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the
century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still
hidden from view."
I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime
I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server
while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.
The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid
for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office
and those they represent are sidelined.
While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors
granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations
after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever
swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.
Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect
to the "right-wing echo chamber".
And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the
phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very
worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost?
Because she could no longer deliver.
I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a
poor place to try such things.
I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public
office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will
still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.
I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with
napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.
That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.
If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:
Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background,
financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama
administration.
Obama was aware of the arrangement
Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by
definition theft.
Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is
by definition obstruction of justice.
In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive
national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents
on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal
definition of treason.
Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather
one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect
the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the
US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our
version of Gen. Pinochet.
Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA
every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software,
voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the
traditional method is to have them shot.
It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over
their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected
all over again. I'll vote for that.
As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to
as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to
do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?
You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back
and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote
about 2008.
Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye
off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.
I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have
missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow,
etc
When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits
goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President
Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though
its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating
layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to
dump Democrats.
And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens
to be speaking.
And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most
privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom
socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history
in many or most places.
Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn
on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't.
In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature
death from alcoholism.
Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques
if a Democrat wins the next election.
One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of
election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black
hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the
electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and
the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that
I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used
in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system
for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of.
No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue
signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!
You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic
machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not
mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to
remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.
You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how
he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do
to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to
vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign
against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too.
And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.
In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short
summary:
Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch
There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.
None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have
demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate
a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the
investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for
obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins
where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.
Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the
major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog
may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're
fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction
of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or
any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence
that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much
as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated
and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing
manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence,
espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your
average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now
if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.
*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing
the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people
who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all
the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.
If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been
leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's
actually a crime.
Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback
for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years.
Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to
uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).
Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests!
This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff.
It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip
entirely.
> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed
by division
How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for
their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world
for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really,
there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else
> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose
So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities.
If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are
driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists
writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .
OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence
community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment
artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.
We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves
with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture,
that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung,
such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious
of here.
These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence.
That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we
don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.
Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance,
and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges
or brought or a crime is determined.
For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish
some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.
Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists
can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing
and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.
If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry
of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this
whole "Putin diddit" deal.
They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing
or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon
stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.
Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name
"Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.
> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one
of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been
following this as closely as I have.
Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before
a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed,
then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that
there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The
Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess
based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.
As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump
was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also
points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one
seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.
Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald
Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock
Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from
the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out
DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406
] and his D&O doc production.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if
anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on
this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections
overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication
would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding
people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).
On the latest one, "
GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked
at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land
of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead.
Do better!
Democrats Help Corporate Donors Block California Health
Care Measure, And Progressives Lose Again
BY DAVID SIROTA ON 06/26/17 AT 4:06 PM
As Republican lawmakers grapple with their unpopular bill
to repeal Obamacare, Democrats have tried to present a united
front on health care. But for all their populist rhetoric
against insurance and drug companies, Democratic powerbrokers
and their allies remain deeply divided on the issue - to the
point where a political civil war has spilled into the open
in America's largest state.
In California last week, Democratic state Assembly Speaker
Anthony Rendon helped his and his party's corporate donors
block a Democrat-sponsored bill to create a universal health
care program in which the government would be the single
payer.
Rendon's decision shows how progressives' ideal of
universal health care remains elusive - even in a liberal
state where government already foots 70 percent of the total
health care bill.
Until Rendon's move, things seemed to be looking up for
Democratic single-payer proponents in deep blue California,
which has been hammered by insurance premium increases.
There, the Democratic Party - which originally created
Medicare - just added a legislative supermajority to a
Democratic-controlled state government that oversees the
world's sixth largest economy. That 2016 election victory
came as a poll showed nearly two-thirds of Californians
support the creation of a taxpayer-funded universal health
care system in a state whose population is roughly the size
of Canada - which already has such a system.
California's highest-profile federal Democratic lawmaker
recently endorsed state efforts to create single-payer
systems, and 25 members of its congressional delegation had
signed on to sponsor a federal single-payer bill.
Meanwhile, after Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had
twice vetoed state single-payer legislation, California in
2010 elected a governor who had previously campaigned for
president on a pledge to support such a system. Other
statewide elected officials had also declared their support
for single-payer, including the current lieutenant governor,
who promised to enact a universal health care program if he
is wins the governorship in 2018.
None of that, though, made the difference: Late Friday,
Rendon announced that even though a single-payer bill had
passed the Democratic-controlled state senate, he would not
permit the bill to be voted on by the Assembly this year.
"As someone who has long been a supporter of single payer,
I am encouraged by the conversation begun by Senate Bill
562," Rendon said. But "senators who voted for SB 562 noted
there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the
fact it does not address many serious issues, such as
financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities
of needed action by the Trump Administration and voters to
make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation."
Since 2012, Rendon has taken in more than $82,000 from
business groups and healthcare corporations that are listed
in state documents opposed the measure, according to an
International Business Times review of data amassed by the
National Institute on Money In State Politics. In all, he has
received more than $101,000 from pharmaceutical companies and
another $50,000 from major health insurers.
In the same time, the California Democratic Party has
received more than $1.2 million from the specific groups
opposing the bill, and more than $2.2 million from
pharmaceutical and health insurance industry donors. That
includes a $100,000 infusion of cash from Blue Shield of
California in the waning days of the 2016 election - just
before state records show the insurer began lobbying against
the single-payer bill.
While Rendon oversees a supermajority, it had never been
clear that Assembly Democrats would muster the two-thirds
vote needed under the state constitution to add the new taxes
needed to fund the single-payer system proposed by the
senate-passed bill. That is because the Democratic Assembly
caucus includes progressive legislators but also more
conservative members who are closer to business interests.
In addition to the money given to Rendon, the groups
opposing the single-payer measure have delivered more than
$1.5 million to Democratic assembly members since the 2012
election cycle. In all, the 55 Democratic members of the
80-seat Assembly have received more than $2.7 million from
donors in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries
in just the last three election cycles.
Complicating matters for this year's single-payer bill was
the fact that the pharmaceutical industry had just spent more
than $100 million to defeat a 2016 ballot measure in
California aimed at lowering drug prices. That wave of money
was a powerful reminder that major industries opposed to
single-payer have virtually unlimited resources to spend
against California's Democratic incumbents in the next
election if those Democrats ultimately try to pass a bill.
"Subject To Enormous Uncertainty"
The episode in California was the latest defeat for
single-payer health care advocates, who have faced a string
of losses at the hands of Democrats whose party has continued
to attract significant cash from the health care industries
that benefit from the current system.
In the last decade, Barack Obama raised millions of
dollars from health care industry donors and then backed off
his previous support for single-payer. He and other
administration officials explicitly declared that the
Affordable Care Act would not become a Medicare-for-all
system. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate then failed to
pass a proposal to create a publicly run insurance option to
compete with private insurers.
More recently, Vermont's Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin
abandoned his state's high-profile push for single-payer in
2014 - just as he was serving as chairman of the Democratic
Governors Association, a group whose top donors included
UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross, AstraZeneca and the
pharmaceutical industry's trade association.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's
campaign was boosted by millions of dollars from health care
industry donors, and she derided Bernie Sanders for pushing
single payer, saying such an idea would "never, ever come to
pass." In the same 2106 election, prominent Democratic Party
consultants helped lead an insurer-funded campaign - backed
by prominent Democratic lawmakers - to kill a single-payer
ballot measure in Colorado.
And yet despite those defeats, single-payer advocates were
thinking big at the beginning of 2017. Heading into the new
legislative sessions, Democrats controlled both governorships
and legislatures in six states - and another
Democratic-leaning state with a Democratic governor, New
York, appeared to have legislative support for single-payer.
With its Democratic supermajority, California was the biggest
focus of attention among progressive healthcare advocates.
According to a June report by California senate analysts,
the single-payer legislation that was introduced in
Sacramento this year would have created a government agency
called Healthy California that would be "required to provide
comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage
system for all California residents." The program would have
been prohibited from charging participants premiums and
co-pays and would have covered "all medical care determined
to be medically appropriate by the members' health care
provider," according to the Senate report.
While the report said fiscal estimates "are subject to
enormous uncertainty," it projected that $200 billion worth
of existing federal, state and local health care spending
would offset about half of the estimated $400 billion annual
cost. Shifting that money, though, could require California
to secure waivers from the federal government that would
allow it to redirect the federal money into the new program.
The original bill did not include a specific tax proposal
to raise the rest of the needed revenue. However, the report
estimated that the other $200 billion could be funded by
moving state payroll taxes up to 15 percent , a levy the
report said "would be offset to a large degree by reduced
spending on health care coverage by employers and employees."
"The Only Health Care System That Makes Any Sense"
At the start of California's legislative session, bill
proponents pitched the sweeping measure as a way to protect
the state from Trump administration health care policy. They
may have been banking on support from California's top
Democrat, Gov. Jerry Brown, who endorsed single payer during
his 1992 presidential campaign.
"I believe the only health care system that makes any
sense is a single-payer system," Brown said during a March
1992 Democratic presidential forum. "I don't see any way,
after having worked on this problem in the largest state in
the union, which, after all, has the highest medical costs,
to really contain costs without establishing a single payer
for all basic services."
But as the the California legislation began moving
forward, Brown cast doubts on it in comments to reporters in
March.
"Where do you get the extra money?...This is the whole
question. I don't even get ... how do you do that?" said
Brown, who has collected more than a quarter-million dollars
of campaign contributions from groups opposing the bill.
Supporters of the legislation tried to answer the
governor's question with a detailed economic analysis
asserting that the legislation could save the state money
through lower administrative costs and drug prices.
"Providing full universal coverage would increase overall
system costs by about 10 percent, but ... single payer system
could produce savings of about 18 percent," concluded a May
2017 study led by University of Massachusetts-Amherst
economist Robert Pollin. "The proposed single-payer system
could provide decent health care for all California residents
while still reducing net overall costs by about 8 percent
relative to the existing system."
That same month, U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
- California's highest-ranking federal official -- seemed to
give the idea a boost. At a Capitol Hill press conference,
she said "the comfort level with a broader base of the
American people is not there yet" for a federal
Medicare-for-all bill, but she promoted state efforts.
"I say to people, if you want that, do it in your states.
States are laboratories. It can work out. It is the least
expensive, least administrative way to go about this," she
said. "States are a good place to start."
Economist Pollin echoed that argument, telling IBT that
the California situation is fundamentally different than
Vermont, which in 2014 abandoned its high-profile effort to
create the nation's first state-based single-payer system.
While single-payer could still be feasible in small states,
he said, the concept was particularly well suited to a very
large state like California.
"The issue of bargaining power is important relative to
pharmaceutical companies, and that's one big area of
savings," he told IBT. "If the pharmaceutical companies say
we're not interested in selling to Vermont, they can walk
away from Vermont. But they can't do the same thing with
California because it's too large a market. It's the same
thing with doctors - they are not going to run away from a
market of 33 million people just because their reimbursement
rates will be at Medicare levels. And the state of California
is already used to running big operations, so it has the
administrative power to do this kind of thing."
"Woefully Incomplete"
Despite Brown's lack of support, and opposition from
Republican lawmakers and health insurers, the California
senate passed the single-payer bill in June. Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders pressed the Democratic governor and California
lawmakers to enact the bill.
"As we sit here tonight, the California state senate has
passed single-payer," Sanders told a gathering of thousands
of activists in Chicago. "Now it's up to the California House
and the governor to do the right thing and help us transform
health care in this country by leading the way."
All of the pressure, however, was not enough to persuade
Rendon. Calling the legislation "woefully incomplete," he
announced that "SB 562 will remain in the Assembly Rules
Committee until further notice."
The move was instantly polarizing. Inside the labor
movement, the California branch of the Service Employees
International Union - which has long supported single-payer
health care - issued a statement supporting Rendon's
decision, saying the organization wants changes to the
legislation. SEIU's affiliates have previously negotiated a
collective bargaining agreement with insurer Kaiser
Permanente, which would be "dismantled" under the
single-payer bill, according to Kaiser's lobbyist.
By contrast, the California Nurses Association, which
represents 100,000 unionized nurses in the state, slammed
Rendon, asserting that he had acted "in secret in the
interests of the profiteering insurance companies" and that
he had "destroy[ed] the aspirations of millions of
Californians for guaranteed health care."
The internecine attacks were equally fierce within the
Democratic Party.
"Today's announcement that the Assembly will not be moving
forward on single-payer, Medicare-for-All healthcare for
California at this time is an unambiguous disappointment for
all of us who believe that healthcare is a right for every
Californian," said newly elected California Democratic Party
chairman Eric Bauman, who until the middle of June had worked
in the Assembly speaker's office under Rendon, and ran his
Southern California office. "We understand that SB 562 is a
work in progress, but we believe it should keep moving
forward, especially in light of the widespread suffering that
will occur if Trump and Congressional Republicans succeed in
passing their cold-blooded, morally bankrupt so-called
healthcare legislation."
Perhaps seeking to bridge the divide, Rendon left open the
possibility that the bill will come up next year.
"Because this is the first year of a two-year session,
this action does not mean SB 562 is dead," he said. "In fact,
it leaves open the exact deep discussion and debate the
senators who voted for SB 562 repeatedly said is needed. The
Senate can use that time to fill the holes in SB 562 and pass
and send to the Assembly workable legislation that addresses
financing, delivery of care, and cost control."
Rendon's focus on financing underscored the fact that
passing tax increases to generate hundreds of billions of
dollars of new revenue is generally no easy political task -
and such initiatives can be particularly tricky in
California. There, a 1988-passed measure called Proposition
98 typically requires that a significant amount of any new
tax revenue must go to education. Another 1979 measure known
as the Gann limit also aims to restrict spending increases.
Funding a single-payer system could require complex
legislation or even a separate ballot measure.
Bill proponents, though, say those potential roadblocks
are navigable within the scope of the bill they are pushing.
In an interview with IBT, Michael Lighty of the California
Nurses Association noted that the Senate version of the
legislation included language to make sure that the new
health care system would not launch unless state officials
certified that adequate funding was available.
"The speaker says the bill is 'woefully incomplete' but he
stopped the process that would have completed it," Lighty
said. "We have a failsafe mechanism in the legislation. In
the event anticipated monies are not available from whatever
source for whatever reason, we can address it before full
program operation. There are all sorts of options, but you
can't do any of it if the bill doesn't move forward."
Bauman told IBT that despite the opposition within his own
party, he expects progressive Democrats to continue pushing
for single payer.
"What Democratic activists need to be doing every day is
educating our elected officials and the public on just how
important the fight for health care is, and on why this is
the moral and ethical fight of the day," he said.
"Yes the California Senate pased(sic) a "single
payer" proposal but it is not moving in the House until
someone does the hard work of deciding: (a) what are the
details about what is being provided; and (b) how it will be
paid for."
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group
RootsAction.org
and
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author
of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death."
The plan for Democrats to run against
Russia may be falling apart.
After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the
horrific presidency of Donald Trump
After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia
more than on plutocrats in America
After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian
than pro-working-people
After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and
activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to
democracy here at home
After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink
and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive
remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters
Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an
emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.
The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress
keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for
a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of
Democrats in Congress are getting the message.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a
resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia,"
The
Hill
reported
over
the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople,
"rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue
with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic
concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."
The Hill
coverage added: "In the wake of a string of
special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an
adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the
economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift."
Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has
just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under
political illusions.
Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect
between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and
voters around the country.
The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to
make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018,"
The Hill
reported.
"The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that
Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried
that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues
more vital to them."
The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn,
commented
on
the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election
interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a
distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping
the country."
Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats
who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power.
In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics
at play across the country.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way:
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay
away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia,
whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's
going to happen on its own without us piling on."
Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up
with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."
Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote
reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool.
In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at
a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail:
"What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"
In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said:
"If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like
that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about
it."
But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders
have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now
pulling up lame.
Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the
Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should
also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign
operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the
same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by
leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."
In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the
Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A
recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered,"
by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage.
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign
manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her
communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the
election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."
At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press
and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton
presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach
in a Washington Post
opinion
piece
:
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on
our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the
more they'll be with us."
Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.
Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't
give it a second thought if they read my
article
published
by
The Hill
nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are
Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive
message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have
doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign -
trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."
And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than
speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and
elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather
scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with
working-class voters."
But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging
incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a
military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear
weapons."
I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming
a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously
- that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further
demonizing the Russian government."
My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic
beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin,
congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation
with Russia."
Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress
spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to
how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?
In political terms,
The Hill
's June 24 news article headlined "Dems
Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the
thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in
Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will
need help from constituents willing to bluntly
tell
them to snap out of it
.
If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require
real
diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia
, the world's two nuclear-weapons
superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate
hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on
Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will
compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.
The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux
journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton
News Network.
Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to
actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can
plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not
three months ago.
Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months.
If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really
interesting (& damning).
Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should
change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to
care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a
highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in
discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.
The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to
the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated
with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests
between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily
manipulate public opinion.
Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are
meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to
candidate behavior.
It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected
since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be
governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead
trillionaires who own it.
NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the
2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this
massive theft went to prison?
The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under
Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events,
torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote
control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist
organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been
held accountable for their lies and war crimes?
By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean
people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust
and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.
Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being
piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy
satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at
one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious
fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a
crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the
anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.
The first and foremost action should be government funded
elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access.
Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly
counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections
so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth
completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else
can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system,
foundation of democracy.
I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party
messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about
manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything
fundamentally different.
That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning.
We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out
there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.
Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country.
Rather, they are pissing
contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to
temporarily manipulate public opinion
while maximizing their
revenue.
All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC
readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most
of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our
friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we
are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic
members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely
accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking
to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary
is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long
time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete,
real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context
for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the
arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own.
While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't
already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those
situations.
Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news
the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump
all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated
incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers
they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like
the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy
into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It
is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives
of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's
base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't
lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its
patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and
ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight
years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It
corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a
professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in
health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups
combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement
of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity
politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic
catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing
themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research).
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite
vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic
senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as
Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is
no evidence of collusion
[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc
]. Without collusion, we are
left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled
by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is
it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman
Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against
Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the
century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and
what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector
and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they
ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions
that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually,
Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a
vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally
Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who
will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical
destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased
influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned
or aligned.
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most
Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the
empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as
close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's
anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away
embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the
CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality,
economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism,
but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian
collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with
many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party
elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly
and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political
preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction
of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing
Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a
Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat,
the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case
of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.
I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss
by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have
sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own
shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room.
Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social
media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.
Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.
integer
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that!
Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures
by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline
in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic
groups combined) have not increased since 1973.
In trying to
stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively
promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable
strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by
seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research)."
Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep
progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic
Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.
The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not
be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats,
lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned
to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers
at best.
It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This
is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least
represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general
98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways.
The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy
solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry.
That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.
The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the
other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without
embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to
neolib resulted in Trump..
Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face,
French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or
French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.
Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum,
country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces,
never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make
functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems
fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely
dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not
easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.
Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in
three way race is landslide.
In response to point number six:
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new
party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.
Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just
neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really
comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon
in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon
kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would
govern as a authoritarian.
The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume
that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or
quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message,
consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have
been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.
Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because
Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics
is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth
paying 50 kUSD for".
+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get
nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the
military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign
either.
'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and
hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed
orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just
might be a DIMOCRAT !"
The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very
telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated
so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has
even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization
of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe.
Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through
the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other
European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the
clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).
and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their
colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time,
only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick
again, alas now, when they are the paragons of
success in the west.
But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is
showing a
decent kind of leader on the planet.
Cheers from Bavaria's
So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better
than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got
in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally
a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well,
and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie
Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base
what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist"
third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to
lead what little remains of the party of the working people.
No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest
place they could find from where the problem really was.
As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news
sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this
bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to
oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known
Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence,
they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum
believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles
before looking to these "saviors".
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it
has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in
bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans –
sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating
new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but
an entire edifice.
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not
suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA,
and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (
not
just Republicans – sorry, integer
)?
Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.
Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is
primarily GOP owned or aligned".
Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to
advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are
"owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this
power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance.
You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.
It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the
Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major
embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.
Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on
right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.
Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable
proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and
Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!
If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about
the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically
supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't
deliver?
NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired
a host of climate change deniers.
For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's
really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an
election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe
Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine
Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats
blame? A powerless figure in Nader.
This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a
billion and a half, with nothing to show for it?
But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't
really Team D's fault you see, and then
Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too
smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why
Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope
to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The
Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of
for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"
The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their
voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the
Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence
the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US
military.
The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas,
with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a
Palestine election.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats
hope to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump
voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have
been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary
Clinton"
I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the
deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The
charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics
are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their
corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold
out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should
have won is a rationale for staying the course.
Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose
than change.
"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal
clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better
policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.
Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones.
When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual
nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to
legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less
the end-game of all this.
And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit
class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020?
Shameful shit right there
Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed
to failure, methinks.
Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of
America's anti-communist right was that they were actually
jealous
of
the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly
– and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing
here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's
alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were
composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.
So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown
reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have
known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there
was
anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a
shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with.
Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway
What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against
any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?
Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the
Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's
'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col.
Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the
Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting
with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.
This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves
destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and
insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian
Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy
theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of
the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control
over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.
Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:
Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in
Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the
Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that
can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
Controlling energy transit and access points.
Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.
Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a
piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the
Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq,
and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
Iran.""
It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would
have been accomplished.
But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer,
but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..
Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The
Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos
has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union
was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of
dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of
spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.
The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron
capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks.
The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they
probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed.
However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of
defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct
threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at
the knees
You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though.
Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of
influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is
American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union
fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it
had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a
popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and
96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn
out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of
arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't
represent the actual choice of the citizens.
Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty
good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the
time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the
Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part
of their war goals in ww2
"... "The United States does not have a national health care system worthy of the name, because it is in the war business, not the health business or the social equality business." ..."
"... The United States is a predator nation, conceived and settled as a thief, exterminator and enslaver of other peoples. The slave-based republic's phenomenal geographic expansion and economic growth were predicated on the super-exploitation of stolen African labor and the ruthless expropriation of native lands through genocidal wars, an uninterrupted history of plunder glorified in earlier times as "Manifest Destiny" and now exalted as "American exceptionalism," an inherently racist justification for international and domestic lawlessness. ..."
"... "The U.S. state demands fealty to its imperial project as a substitute for any genuine social contract among its inhabitants." ..."
"... "The first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama, was among the most aggressive defenders of white supremacy in history." ..."
"... in opposition to their own interests ..."
"... "Race relations in the U.S. cannot be understood outside the historical context of war, including the constant state of race war that is a central function of the U.S. State." ..."
"... "We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa." ..."
"... Sanders is a regime-changer, which means he thinks the U.S., in combination with self-selected allies, is above international law, i.e., "exceptional." ..."
"... According to Politico , "As late as 2002," Sanders' campaign website declared that "the defense budget should be cut by 50 percent over the next five years." But all the defense-cutting air went out of his chest after Bush invaded Iraq. Nowadays, Sanders limits himself to the usual noises about Pentagon "waste," but has no principled position against the imperial mission of the United States. "We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa, during the campaign. ..."
"... Like Paul Street said, he's an "imperialist...Democratic Party company man." ..."
"... "A Sanders-led Party would still be an imperialist, pro-war party." ..."
"... BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected] . ..."
Leftish
Democrats insist they can reform the corporate-run, Russia-obsessed Democratic Party from the inside,
but most pay little attention to war. However, "War is not a side issue in the United States; it
is the central political issue, on which all the others turn." Some think Bernie Sanders should run
with the Peoples Party. But, "Sanders is a warmonger, not merely by association, but by
"The United States does not have a national health care system worthy of the name, because
it is in the war business, not the health business or the social equality business."
The United States is a predator nation, conceived and settled as a thief, exterminator and enslaver
of other peoples. The slave-based republic's phenomenal geographic expansion and economic growth
were predicated on the super-exploitation of stolen African labor and the ruthless expropriation
of native lands through genocidal wars, an uninterrupted history of plunder glorified in earlier
times as "Manifest Destiny" and now exalted as "American exceptionalism," an inherently racist justification
for international and domestic lawlessness.
Assembled, acre by bloody acre, as a metastasizing empire, the U.S. state demands fealty to its
imperial project as a substitute for any genuine social contract among its inhabitants – a political
culture custom-made for the rule of rich white people.
The American project has been one long war of aggression that has shaped its borders, its internal
social relations, and its global outlook and ambitions. It was founded as a consciously capitalist
state that competed with other European powers through direct absorption of captured lands, brutal
suppression of native peoples and the fantastic accumulation of capital through a diabolically efficient
system of Black chattel slavery – a 24/7 war against the slave. This system then morphed through
two stages of "Jim Crow" to become a Mass Black Incarceration State – a perpetual war of political
and physical containment against Black America.
"The U.S. state demands fealty to its imperial project as a substitute for any genuine social
contract among its inhabitants."
Since the end of World War Two, the U.S. has assumed the role of protector of the spoils of half
a millennium of European wars and occupations of the rest of the world: the organized rape of nations
that we call colonialism. The first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama, was among the most aggressive
defenders of white supremacy in history -- defending the accumulated advantages that colonialism
provided to western European nations, settler states (like the U.S.) and citizens -- having launched
an ongoing military offensive aimed at strangling the Chinese giant and preventing an effective Eurasian
partnership with Russia. The first phase of the offensive, the crushing of Libya in 2011, allowed
the United States to complete the effective military occupation of Africa, through AFRICOM.
The U.S. and its NATO allies already account for about 70 percent of global military spending,
but Obama and his successor, Donald Trump, demand that Europeans increase the proportion of their
economic output that goes to war. More than half of U.S. discretionary spending -- the tax money
that is not dedicated to mandated social and development programs -- goes to what Dr. Martin Luther
King 50 years ago called the "demonic, destructive suction tube" of the U.S. war machine.
"The first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama, was among the most aggressive defenders of
white supremacy in history."
The United States does not have a national health care system worthy of the name, because it is
in the war business, not the health business or the social equality business. The U.S. has the weakest
left, by far, of any industrialized country, because it has never escaped the racist, predatory dynamic
on which it was founded, which stunted and deformed any real social contract among its peoples. In
the U.S., progress is defined by global dominance of the U.S. State -- chiefly in military terms
-- rather than domestic social development. Americans only imagine that they are materially better
off than the people of other developed nations -- a fallacy they assume to be the case because of
U.S. global military dominance. More importantly, most white Americans feel racially entitled to
the spoils of U.S. dominance as part of their patrimony, even if they don't actually enjoy the fruits.
("WE made this country great.") This is by no means limited to Trump voters.
Race relations in the U.S. cannot be understood outside the historical context of war, including
the constant state of race war that is a central function of the U.S. State: protecting "American
values," fighting "crime" and "urban disorder," and all the other euphemisms for preserving white
supremacy.
War is not a side issue in the United States; it is the central political issue, on which all
the others turn. War mania is the enemy of all social progress -- especially so, when it unites disparate
social forces, in opposition to their own interests , in the service of an imperialist state
that is the tool of a rapacious white capitalist elite. Therefore, the orchestrated propaganda blitzkrieg
against Russia by the Democratic Party, in collaboration with the corporate media and other functionaries
and properties of the U.S. ruling class, marks the party as, collectively, the Warmonger-in-Chief
political institution in the United States at this historical juncture. The Democrats are anathema
to any politics that can be described as progressive.
"Race relations in the U.S. cannot be understood outside the historical context of war, including
the constant state of race war that is a central function of the U.S. State."
Bernie Sanders is a highly valued Democrat, the party's Outreach Director and therefore, as
Paul Street writes , "the imperialist and sheep-dogging fake-socialist Democratic Party company
man that some of us on the 'hard radical' Left said he was." Sanders is a warmonger, not merely by
association, but by virtue of his own positions. He favors more sanctions against Russia, in addition
to the sanctions levied against Moscow in 2014 and 2016 for its measured response to the U.S-backed
fascist coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine. Rather than surrender to U.S.
bullying, Russia came to the military aid of the sovereign and internationally recognized government
of Syria in 2015, upsetting the U.S. game plan for an Islamic jihadist victory.
Back in April of this year, on NBC's Meet The Press, Sanders purposely
mimicked
The Godfather when asked what he would do to force the Russians "to the table" in Syria:
"I think you may want to make them an offer they can't refuse. And that means tightening the screws
on them, dealing with sanctions, telling them that we need their help, they have got to come to the
table and not maintain this horrific dictator."
Of course, it is the United States that has sabotaged every international agreement to rein in
its jihadist mercenaries in Syria.
"We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa."
Sanders is a regime-changer, which means he thinks the U.S., in combination with self-selected
allies, is above international law, i.e., "exceptional."
"We've got to work with countries around the world for a political solution to get rid of this
guy [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] and to finally bring peace and stability to this country,
which has been so decimated."
During the 2016 campaign, Sanders urged the U.S. to stop acting unilaterally in the region, but
instead to collaborate with Syria's Arab neighbors -- as if the funding and training of jihadist
fighters had not been a joint effort with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies, all along.
According to
Politico , "As late as 2002," Sanders' campaign website declared that "the defense budget should
be cut by 50 percent over the next five years." But all the defense-cutting air went out of his chest
after Bush invaded Iraq. Nowadays, Sanders limits himself to the usual noises about Pentagon "waste,"
but has no principled position against the imperial mission of the United States. "We need a strong
military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa, during the campaign.
Like Paul Street said, he's an "imperialist...Democratic Party company man."
"A Sanders-led Party would still be an imperialist, pro-war party."
At last weekend's
People's Summit , in Chicago, National Nurses United executive director RoseAnn DeMoro endorsed
Sanders for a mission he finds impossible to accept: a run for president in 2020 on the Peoples Party
ticket. Sanders already had his chance to run as a Green, and refused. He is now the second most
important Democrat in the country, behind the ultra-corrupt Bill-Hillary Clinton machine -- and by
far the most popular. On top of that, Sanders loves being the hero of the phony left, the guy who
gimmick-seeking left-liberals hope will create an instant national party for them, making it unnecessary
to build a real anti-war, pro-people party from scratch to go heads up with the two corporate machines.
Sanders doesn't even have to exert himself to string the Peoples Party folks along; they eagerly
delude themselves. However, a Sanders-led Party would still be an imperialist, pro-war party.
The U.S. does need a social democratic party, but it must be anti-war, otherwise it commits a
fraud on social democracy. The United States is the imperial superpower, the main military aggressor
on the planet. Its rulers must be deprived of the political ability to spend trillions on war, and
to kill millions, or they will always use the "necessity" of war to enforce austerity. The "left"
domestic project will fail.
For those of us from the Black Radical Tradition, anti-imperialism is central. Solidarity with
the victims of U.S. imperialism is non-negotiable, and we can make no common cause with U.S. political
actors that treat war as a political side show, an "elective" issue that is separate from domestic
social justice. This is not just a matter of principle, but also of practical politics. "Left" imperialism
isn't just evil, it is self-defeating and stupid.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
[email protected].
@15 You mistate/misunderstood: "There was a simultaneous vote..." There was not.
S.Amdt. 232 (increase sanctions on Russia and limit Trump) was an amendment to
S. 722 (the Iranian sanctions bill).
Sanders voted for 232 because, frankly, he's all on board the Russia-Russia-Russia hysteria
and demonizing Syria. He voted against 722 for the potential damage to the multi-lateral nuclear
agreement with Iran. From his senate.gov website today:
" I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable
for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the
world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies
and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime
in Syria.
I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important
tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could
endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its
partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened
tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a
more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities,
but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
"... It could be argued a polarized America has joined a polarized world in taking the course of least resistance and that is to do nothing. It appears most of the developed countries across the world are in exactly the same boat. With Trump's greatest accomplishment being the rolling-back of the Obama agenda the article below argues this may be as good as it gets. ..."
A lot of the debate by the MSM focuses on the careerist power struggle of elites at the top.
That is not what brought Trump to power, nor is ideological purity of any kind the reason, although
college students at elite universities may be motivated by ideology.
Many people who voted for Trump said they had not bothered to vote since Perot. That was the
last time serious economic issues were addressed head-on. There were many cross-over voters in
the Rust Belt and elsewhere, voting for Trump because their party, when not focused on one more
layer of welfare/taxfare for single moms, focuses on racism, sexism and xenophobia.....
....in a "racist" era with a twice-elected Black president, where many government agencies
have 80% Black staff and managers
.....in a "sexist"' era where more than half of the MDs are women, as are half of the managers,
in general, when wealth has never been more concentrated due to assortative mating
....in a "xenophobic" era, where even illegal immigrants are treated much better than millions
of citizens, leading to $113 billion per year in welfare/taxfare expenditures for the illegal
immigrants alone, not counting all of the freebies for 1 million legal immigrants admitted per
year, particularly for those who reproduce
As I said in response to another article I've been off on a kick of reading about the American
unCivil War. The heated rhetoric led up to violence far before either "side" was ready. It proved
to be a messy disaster. Very few thought ahead far enough to even have their own families survive
it. Be very careful of what you wish for. John Michael Greer's "Twilight's Last Gleaming" and
"Retrotopia" should give us serious pause for thought. Our just in time grocery supply system
would fail, fuel delivery from the few states with refineries would crawl and with all those nuclear
power plants needing constant baby sitting everybody needs to settle down and really think this
mess out. Inter US civil divisions would need careful and peaceful negotiations.
The messaging Henninger identifies was rampant for eight years of Obama ("Get in their faces!"
and the Chicago Way--"They bring a knife, you bring a gun.") Social media is/was no different.
Remember the Rodeo Clown wearing an Obama mask who was summarily fired. Any critique of Obama
was automatically racist. I could go on and on with examples. The Left never policed its own,
was constantly on-guard against the Right, with enforcement of political correctness job #1.
The ankle-biting mainstream media is part and parcel the opposition and the resistence--and
the Establishment Republicans at the WSJ are just now noticing?? Someone alert Captain Renault...
In reality no intelligent plans have been written or are moving through the halls of Congress.
It could be argued a polarized America has joined a polarized world in taking the course of least
resistance and that is to do nothing. It appears most of the developed countries across the world
are in exactly the same boat. With Trump's greatest accomplishment being the rolling-back of the
Obama agenda the article below argues this may be as good as it gets.
But, But, ... that sounds like RINOs, DINOs, NeoCons, Neoliberals, those that think Economics
is a Hard Science... Sounds like Propaganda by the Most Powerful Corporations and Family Dynasties...
"Political Disorder Syndrome - "Refusal To Reason Is The New Normal"
PDS - won't get traction since TPTB have to approve of this kind of thing!
- Borders Are Destroyed to Attack the US Labor Rate (Deserved or Undeserved) - Globalism, CAFTA,
NAFTA, Fast-Track by Bill Clinton, deployed to destroy US Labor Rate & US Jobs & US Middle Class
= PROOF that Democrats are Treasonous, are working against the Worker (Either Communist Worker
or Other worker) - US National Security is destroyed by the cost of MIC, $1 Trillion Annually
- US Constitutional Republic is Destroyed, replaced by Globalism Ideology & Propaganda Deep Program
to hide this Fact from Middle Class, from Workers, from Job Losers, from Voters, from Students,
from Youth who will not see the entry level jobs...
IT IS A REAL MESS, Propaganda is the name of the Problem! We all know the history of Propaganda.
We know that Hillary Clinton engaged in an INFO-War long, long ago. 1971 William Renquist Memo
pointed out to Republicans that they must gear up for Foundations to fight Democrats who were
much stronger in Political Organizations at this time.
I think main street has been extremely patient. I think after three decades of being slowly
and consistently shit on though, enough is enough, and they are starting to lose it.
"The event was a political fraud from beginning to end. The basic thread running through all of
the workshops and demagogic speeches was the fiction that the Democratic Party-a party of Wall
Street and the CIA-can be transformed into a "people's party."
LOL!!! Totally spot the F on!!!!!
"Sanders lent his support to the neo-McCarthyite campaign of the Democrats and the military-intelligence
apparatus, which sees Russia as the chief obstacle to US imperialism's drive for regime change
in Syria and Iran. "I find it strange we have a president who is more comfortable with autocrats
and authoritarians than leaders of democratic nations," Sanders said. "Why is he enamored with
Putin, a man who has suppressed democracy and destabilized democracies around the world, including
our own?"
Sanders?? No fool like an old fool and tool of TPTB
Oh, I doubt he's a fool; the creed of the western political class is recognition of its own and
their interests over the interests of the majority. It is technically true that Putin is destabilizing
governments around the world – 'democracies', if you will – but it would presuppose that western
leaders are his accomplices. Because it is through them and their crackdowns and restrictions
and surveillance, which they say they must introduce for our own protection (because, you know,
freedom isn't free) that discontent and destabilization are born.
Reply
Three Takeaways From Bernie Sanders' Speech At The
People's Summit
"He may not be the leader of the free
world, but to the 4,000 activists gathered at The
People's Summit in Chicago, Sen. Bernie Sanders reigns
supreme.
The former presidential candidate and senator from Vermont headlined the progressive activist
conference Saturday night, drawing whoops, hollers, and standing ovations from the crowd that fought
alongside him on the road to the White House. Sanders' new calling: turning the 'resistance' movement
into action in the face of a president he's called a "fraud."
Sanders took aim at President Trump, the Democratic Party, and the outsized role of corporations
in American politics, hitting the major themes from his campaign stump speech and introducing some
new ones.
"Alas the pretend progressives here cannot be bothered."
PGL you're the only "pretend progressive" here. Real leftists do well in an election and so
PGL throws a little temper tantrum. You can't make him discuss it! He won't admit he was wrong!
He supported Corbyn even though he didn't talk about the election once during the entire campaign.
What a tedious phoney.
LONDON - Among the many satisfying outcomes of Britain's general election has been the roll
call of pundits reeling out apologies for getting it so wrong. The Labour Party has, against all
odds, surged to take a 40 percent share of the vote, more than it has won in years. And so the
nation's commentariat, who had confidently thought that the party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership
would be wiped off the political map, are now eating giant slices of humble pie.
Nobody is in politics to gloat. Labour's leadership team and supporters alike want the party
to win not for the sake of winning, but in order to bring Labour's economic and social agenda
to Britain, to measurably improve people's lives. Still, a little schadenfreude is definitely
in order.
Mr. Corbyn, from the left of the party, unexpectedly took its helm in 2015 after a rule change
allowed, for the first time, rank-and-file members to have an equal vote for their leader. And
he has been ridiculed, dismissed and bemoaned ever since. Cast as an incongruous combination of
incompetent beardy old man and peacenik terrorist sympathizer, Mr. Corbyn faced down a leadership
challenge from his own party about a year ago and constant sniping, criticism and calls for him
to quit throughout.
The political and pundit classes, in their wisdom, thought it entirely inconceivable that someone
like him - so unpolished, so left wing - could ever persuade voters. After Britain's referendum
decision, last June, to leave the European Union, more scathing criticism was piled upon the Labour
leader for his decision to, well, accept the democratic referendum decision, however bad it was.
By the time Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election six weeks ago, her party ran
a 20-point poll lead ahead of Labour and her personal approval ratings were sky high while Mr.
Corbyn's were abysmally low. Liberal pundits were aghast at the thought of the Labour Party self-destructing
under Mr. Corbyn's supposedly toxic leadership. He was once again urged to step down.
Then the campaign started - and every prediction was turned on its head. The well-funded, hyper-efficient
Conservatives and their chorus of supporters in Britain's mostly right-wing press ran a terrible
campaign. Mrs. May came across as robotic and out of touch; she didn't seem to like engaging with
the press, much less the public. The more people saw of her, the more her ratings sank.
For Mr. Corbyn, the opposite was true. His detractors said his appeal was limited to a niche
of radical left activists, but in reality his quiet confidence, credibility and integrity - so
refreshing at a time when politicians are viewed as untrustworthy careerists - drew crowds of
enthusiastic supporters to ever-growing rallies. At one point, arriving to a televised debate
just over a week before the election, he was greeted with solid cheers en route to the event.
That was when his leadership team sensed something significant was taking place.
Part of this extraordinary success was a result of the party's campaign. Fun, energetic, innovative
and inspiring, it created its own momentum, with organic support mushrooming out of the most unlikely
places, flooding social media with viral memes and messages: Rappers and D.J.s, soccer players,
economists and television personalities alike climbed aboard the Corbyn project. Momentum, a grass-roots
organization of Corbyn supporters, activated the party's estimated 500,000 members - many of whom
had joined because Mr. Corbyn was elected as leader - into canvassing efforts across the country,
including, crucially, in up-for-grabs districts. Supporters were further encouraged by the sight
of Labour candidates demolishing long-hated Conservatives on television, appearances that were
swiftly turned into video clips and raced around the internet.
But the main mobilizer of support was the party's politics. For decades, Labour has been resolutely
centrist, essentially offering a slightly kinder version of neoliberal consensus politics. Those
on the left had long said that this was what had caused the party's slow decline, a hemorrhaging
of support from its traditional working-class voters. With Mr. Corbyn at its helm, the party tacked
firmly to the left, proposing to tax the few for the benefit of the many and offering major national
investment projects, funding for the welfare state, the scrapping of university tuition fees and
the re-nationalization of rail and energy companies.
It was a hopeful vision for a fairer society, offered at a time when the country is experiencing
wage stagnation and spiraling living costs, with many buckling under because of the economic crash
of 2008 and the Conservative Party's savage austerity cuts that followed. Given the chance for
the first time in decades to vote for something else, something better, a surprising number of
voters took it. Young people, in particular, seized this offer: With youth turnout unusually high
at 72 percent, it's clear that Labour brought them to the ballot box in droves.
Labour's shock comeback has tugged the party, along with Britain's political landscape, and
the range of acceptable discourse back to the left. In a hung Parliament, the Conservatives still
came out of the election as the main party, and now looks set to go into coalition government
with the homophobic, anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party. But the Conservatives are now a
maimed party with a discredited leader - weaknesses to be seized upon and exploited by a now united
and empowered Labour party.
The grifters in the party didn't lose you dope. They all got paid. It's all so very much like
making a movie. So what if it didn't break even at the box office, everyone involved got theirs.
Seriously though you are correct. Sanders would have won against Trump. Everyone knows that,
except the die hard centerist Democrats that are trying hard not to look in mirror.
You wingnuts cant seem to comprehend that the Democratic primaries
was a series of state elections in which Hillary legitimately got more voters to vote for her.
They picked Hillary, for all your bleating about "elites."
Krugman posited once that Bernie might win the nomination by beating Hillary with disaffected
white voters in the red states despite being ultimately unelectable because of his radical views
in the general election. Of course that is not at all what happened.
"....This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to
which left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism
has failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity
politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these
"populist" voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their
identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear
about it or believe it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage
thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open
their eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however,
Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open."
I recall something more damning, but have not been able to find it after repeated attempts. My
belief is that it was obviously so far off the mark that it has been taken down off Krugman's
NYT blog and maybe any reference to it here at EV as well.
John Harris is wonderful too. The only guy on the staff who can write about the working class
with clarity, respect and understanding. But Monbiot is also the biscuit.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with
problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for
a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the
participants, their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix' the price, which abnegates
the collective intelligence of the market participants, and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract
concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds
a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually
a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to
enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias.
Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think tanks
like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
This is an interesting academic piece but the reality is that we don't have anything like neo-liberalism
in this country as defined by Hayek and it has become a term of abuse by people who really ought
to know better. The strongest abuse of course is linked to the Blair Government, a period, of
course, when, with substantial success, the size and reach of the state increased quite substantially,
ie the complete opposite of neo-liberalism.
In fact, suggesting that the UK is neo liberal is not that much different for suggesting that
Russia had communism as defined by Marx.
Whether it is a good or bad thing that we don't have neo-liberalism is open to academic debate
but is not of much use in real life.
Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed
but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that
it must have some type of environmental context.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left,
the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to
design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders started threatening Hillary,
or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
There is no alternative on offer by the left.
The socialist/trade union package is outmoded.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary people experience has
driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not move has given UK leftism
a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience. The opposition to
rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic oligarchy which
runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions,
as opposed to the right wing media agenda, that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison
on the unions, pour poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for workers,
and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it. You can curse the middle class
socialists all you like, but without their support the labour movement would never have got off
the ground.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off the scale because the
workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated the idea that without the workforce,
your entrepreneurs can't do anything on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire
without the help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some of us are
human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling and dollars, cause they're not
the most important things in life.
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals
deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where the UK was pretty much
in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite,
the more people in gainful employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down
while simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people have cash to spare they
spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the hands of a minority and starve the masses of
cash, economy dies. It really is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching themselves. To
get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the private wealth of the rich through
financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters,
you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it
will work perfectly.
I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform
key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding pitfalls.
Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause
and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's
one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
Let's make a start by staying in the EU. !--
Report
John Harris is wonderful too. The only guy on the staff who can write about the working class
with clarity, respect and understanding. But Monbiot is also the biscuit.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with
problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for
a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the
participants, their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix' the price, which abnegates
the collective intelligence of the market participants, and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract
concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds
a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually
a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to
enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias.
Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think tanks
like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
This is an interesting academic piece but the reality is that we don't have anything like neo-liberalism
in this country as defined by Hayek and it has become a term of abuse by people who really ought
to know better. The strongest abuse of course is linked to the Blair Government, a period, of
course, when, with substantial success, the size and reach of the state increased quite substantially,
ie the complete opposite of neo-liberalism.
In fact, suggesting that the UK is neo liberal is not that much different for suggesting that
Russia had communism as defined by Marx.
Whether it is a good or bad thing that we don't have neo-liberalism is open to academic debate
but is not of much use in real life.
Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed
but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that
it must have some type of environmental context.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left,
the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to
design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders started threatening Hillary,
or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
There is no alternative on offer by the left.
The socialist/trade union package is outmoded.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary people experience has
driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not move has given UK leftism
a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience. The opposition to
rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic oligarchy which
runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions,
as opposed to the right wing media agenda, that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison
on the unions, pour poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for workers,
and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it. You can curse the middle class
socialists all you like, but without their support the labour movement would never have got off
the ground.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off the scale because the
workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated the idea that without the workforce,
your entrepreneurs can't do anything on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire
without the help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some of us are
human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling and dollars, cause they're not
the most important things in life.
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals
deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where the UK was pretty much
in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite,
the more people in gainful employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down
while simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people have cash to spare they
spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the hands of a minority and starve the masses of
cash, economy dies. It really is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching themselves. To
get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the private wealth of the rich through
financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters,
you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it
will work perfectly.
I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform
key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding pitfalls.
Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause
and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's
one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
Let's make a start by staying in the EU. !--
Report
John Harris is wonderful too. The only guy on the staff who can write about the working class
with clarity, respect and understanding. But Monbiot is also the biscuit.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with
problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for
a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the
participants, their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix' the price, which abnegates
the collective intelligence of the market participants, and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract
concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds
a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually
a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to
enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias.
Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think tanks
like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
This is an interesting academic piece but the reality is that we don't have anything like neo-liberalism
in this country as defined by Hayek and it has become a term of abuse by people who really ought
to know better. The strongest abuse of course is linked to the Blair Government, a period, of
course, when, with substantial success, the size and reach of the state increased quite substantially,
ie the complete opposite of neo-liberalism.
In fact, suggesting that the UK is neo liberal is not that much different for suggesting that
Russia had communism as defined by Marx.
Whether it is a good or bad thing that we don't have neo-liberalism is open to academic debate
but is not of much use in real life.
Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed
but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that
it must have some type of environmental context.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left,
the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to
design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders started threatening Hillary,
or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
There is no alternative on offer by the left.
The socialist/trade union package is outmoded.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary people experience has
driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not move has given UK leftism
a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience. The opposition to
rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic oligarchy which
runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions,
as opposed to the right wing media agenda, that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison
on the unions, pour poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for workers,
and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it. You can curse the middle class
socialists all you like, but without their support the labour movement would never have got off
the ground.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off the scale because the
workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated the idea that without the workforce,
your entrepreneurs can't do anything on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire
without the help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some of us are
human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling and dollars, cause they're not
the most important things in life.
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals
deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where the UK was pretty much
in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite,
the more people in gainful employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down
while simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people have cash to spare they
spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the hands of a minority and starve the masses of
cash, economy dies. It really is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching themselves. To
get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the private wealth of the rich through
financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters,
you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it
will work perfectly.
I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform
key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding pitfalls.
Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause
and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's
one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
Let's make a start by staying in the EU.
"... There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today. ..."
"... Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up.
Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of
the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that
Obama was (as I explained in a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was
installed.
Evidence
Sanders as sheep-dog
Black
Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . Sanders made it
clear from the start that he ruled out the possibility of running as an independent. That was
only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep' into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
>> "Enough with the emails!"
>> Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
>> Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
>> Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
>> Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
>> Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
"... The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan. ..."
"... Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red State inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies that appeal to the majority of people. ..."
"... There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan administration. The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching from Right/Center to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism as 'socialism', 'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party of neoliberal economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money and they are the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up and run with it instead of calling the the BS that it is. ..."
"... I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers. ..."
"... Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy. ..."
"... Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy YES. Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already displayed financial incompetence at Harvard, YES. ..."
The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan.
Reagan did the Savings
& Loan deregulation which led to the S&L bailout under G.W. Bush during which they prosecuted
over 1,000 bank executives and got convictions including five sitting senators with four forced
resignations.
After Clinton did the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and Obama prosecuted zero,
let me say that again, zero, bank executives and provided $9 trillion in bailout liquidity.
Take Amtrak between Chicago and Washington DC and witness wreckage of heartland industry along
a corridor 800 miles long. People still live there, forgotten. Bernie Sanders is not finished.
Listen to him; and put yourself up for election locally, on a Park District board; or a Township
position; as an Election Judge or for County or State office. And listen to your neighbors, who
are suffering. Then do something about it. When I ran for State Representative, the Democratic
Party sent me a highlighted map instead of a check for my campaign. The map showed "70% Republican"
voting registration in my State Representative district. No Party cash for my campaign was forthcoming.
The only way to change this Gerrymandering is to be on-hand in the State House following the next
decennial census in 2020. It will be "too late" to do anything -- again -- unless "we" change
the Party; and the Party changes the re-districting scam. Bernie Sanders is right about pitching
in to re-shape and re-form the Democratic Party. The Party, as constructed, is passé... and as
hollowed-out as the miles and miles of decrepit buildings with thousands of gaping, broken windows
that lie between Chicago and DC. Go see the devastation for yourself. Then get serious about answers.
Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red
State inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies
that appeal to the majority of people.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but Identity Politics has FAILED. The Dems are not
going to cobble together some sort of Ruling Coalition out of Transgendered people and urban people
of color. That's an insane strategy of hoping you will win national elections by appealing to
25% or less of the population of whom only half that number actually vote if you are lucky.
I'm not saying abandon those struggles. Under a just system those struggles will continue and
prevail - the Constitution guarantees that unless you get dishonest justices on the Supreme Court
- which seems more likely the more national elections you blow. Democrats need to stop worrying
about narrow single issues like that and focus on developing a BROAD national strategy to appeal
to the Majority of Americans.
So says the guy from Punjab who is NOT a poorly educated white person and who has voted Democrat
since 1980.
There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a
product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan
administration. The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching
from Right/Center to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism
as 'socialism', 'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party
of neoliberal economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money
and they are the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up
and run with it instead of calling the the BS that it is.
The problem with the Rust Belt states is that they keep on electing Republican state governments.
These fail to deliver on anything useful for working people -- they're more interested in entrenching
their power by tweaking the elections -- but then people turn to the Federal government as if
this is some kind of savior capable of turning around their fortunes overnight.
Anyway, don't take my word for it. Just keep electing those regressive state legislators (and
keep drinking that tainted water....).
Great comment on the article, but I think even you have been kind in your criticism of it. I can
only hope that the writer started out with the intention of saying that while the GOP and their
rich and big business political patrons are responsible for the impoverishment of those in the
article, the Democrats have missed out on messaging and on more specific policies that addresses
those wrongs committed against a voting block they can own. Instead the entire piece is written
as though the Democrats have earned the scorn and anger of these voters. One can argue the Democrats
have failed to focus more on the plight of these voters, but they are NOT the cause of these voters'
plight; and there is nothing in this piece to make that distinction or about the irony of why
these same voters flock to a political party primarily responsible for what has happened to them.
In fact consider this below from the article:
"Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's
board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. "
Yes, that is right! The political anomaly that Trump is can be be explained by the successful
exploitation of the improvised classes by media outlets that voice these voters' anger to acquire
a capture audience and then lay the blame for what has happened to them on immigrants & liberals.
You never hear anything on those outlets about the unholy triad of the GOP political class, big
business and media outlets in their orbit. I don't need to drive through these flyover states
to know they are hurting; and I don't need to sit down with them to know they are real human beings
with a great deal in common with me or to know that despite their general decency they are full
of misplaced anger and resentment.
I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think
that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could
not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were
instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly
to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since
they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers.
Interesting he choices of examples for how liberals let the mid west down. Republican president
Reagan deregulated S&Ls with predictable awful results. Republicans under Clinton (they controlled
the Senate and house ) when Glass Steagsll was repealed. Republic Phil Gramm also rescinded the
AntiBucket Shop Law which loosed the disaster of the naked CDS,
Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like
a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused
to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox
ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy.
It was Republican Sen. Phil Gramm who said in hearings on CSPAN that these instruments of financial
mass destruction (Warren Buffet's words) were too complicated to understand and therefore should
not be regulated.
Republicans wanted to free up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy subprime even NINJA loans and
made it so.
Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy
YES. Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already
displayed financial incompetence at Harvard, YES.
But, it is republicans who either drove the bad financial ideas or controlled them. Republicans
who support IRS rules and their laws that promote off shoring jobs and stashing cash untaxed off
shore.
Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, Bush41 - even Nixon - would not know these people.
Oh, and as for the rest of the party and its defeats: A quick look at the numbers show that Democrats
keep losing not because voters are switching to the Republican brand, but because they no longer
bother to vote for Democrats who are just going to shiv them in the back with Republican economic
policies.
But now liberals and the Democratic Party are to get the lion's share of the blame for everything?
As I've said on numerous occasions in the past: The reason Trump beat Hillary is the same reason
Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries: Voters knew her and what she stood for -- and so were willing
to take a chance on the other candidate.
Thank you for the Abramson reminder -- as a retired journalist I know the importance of providing
clear and accurate information to the general public. While Abramson and Frank and others are
writing Opinion in the Guard and elsewhere, too many people do not understand positioning and
propaganda. Media must make money to stay in business and often it is opinion writers/tv hosts
etc that generate interest and coin to keep the words rolling and the money coming in.
It is especially ironic as wages are cut, jobs disappear, cost of living rises so fewer people
can afford to subscribe or pay for actual news and information. Not to mention the political idiocy
of reducing school funding so that the electorate knows nothing of history or how politics works.
Trump wants to take us back to Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher years that left us with trillion
dollar deficits and decimation of the middle class that is now on the downward slide to actual
poverty...
No, it is a crap comment. From the neo-liberal 'pseudo science' that economics supposedly is (almost
forgot to use the word neo-liberal, a must these days to make your point) , to the greed and the
rapacity of the "one percenters".
Such a simple problem isn't it? Let's just go back in time rather than find more creative and
up-to-date solution for the problems there are. Globalisation isn't going to go away, the world
is too small a place. Globalisation has created problems for people, but many more people have
benefitted from it.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on
some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely. "
---
As someone who's middle aged, I am getting sick and tired of this historical revisionist nonsense
that all the country's woes and economic climate can be mostly pinned on the liberals and that
somehow, it's something that they did wrong that is the reason why they "lost" constituents in
the Midwest. Someone can peddle this nonsense over and over again with the smug belief that everyone
on on the internet is too young to know whether what he's saying is true. But there are some of
us "old folks" who are also on the internet and as an old folk, I have no issues calling out this
article out for the nonsense that it is.
Everything that is going on now in terms of jobs can be 100% attributable to Reaganomics--period,
end of. It's nothing to do with liberals. It's 100% to do with the devastating rippling effect
that his neoliberal policies has had on the country since the 1980s, only made 100x worse by Republican
pols who have been further carrying out his neoliberalist agenda to full effect for the past several
decades.
It was under Reagan that the country began experiencing mass layoffs (euphemistically called
"downsizing"). It was under Reagan that corporations began slashing benefits, cutting wages and
closing up shop to ship thousands of jobs overseas. It was under Reagan that the middle class
American dream died--aka, the expectation that if got a diploma, you could start working for a
company full time straight out of college, work for decades with decent benefits and perks, save
up enough money to buy a house and retire with a generous pension. Gone. All gone.
Remember the "Buy American" grassroots campaign? That started in the 1980s, precisely because
under Reagan, the country had relied increasingly on imported goods at the expense of domestic
manufacturing. Here's an actual article from 1989 that shows you that the roots of everything
going on now started decades ago. It's actually a defeatist article telling people to *stop* wasting
their time to get everyone to "Buy American" because it had become virtually impossible to buy
American-made goods.
As for the idea that there's always been a staunchly"Democratic" following in the Midwest that
has been "lost" because of something that the party is doing wrong and that this caused them to
turn to populism? False. It may have been true a very long time ago that this constituency has
been staunchly Democratic and not amenable to populism, but not recently. It has voted on populist
platforms before. Remember "welfare queens?" Remember "Willie Horton?" Willie Horton, the black
bogeyman, was the "bad hombres" of today.
In addition, this constituency has been increasingly voting against its best interests for
decades since Reagan was voted into office. Why? Because demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and the
large number of puppets at Rupert Murdoch's vast media empire have been selling them a bill of
goods since the 1990s that the reason why they're becoming poorer is that liberals are giving
all their "white" hard-earned money to shiftless, lazy blacks and immigrants and losing out to
them because of affirmative action. In the famous words of South Park, "THEY TOOK R JERBS" and
"IT'S ALL DUH LIBRUHL'S FAULTS!!"
This constituency has developed such a deep-seated hatred and loathing for liberals because
of the demagogues at FOX or news radio that even when Michael Moore directly spoke to their plight
in Roger and Me, they derided him as a typical Communist-loving, anti-Capitalist pinko. Because,
you see, according to FOX demagogues, calling out rich corporate fatcats who also happen to be
white is attacking white people, a form of class warfare and anti-Capitalist.
Given all that, for someone to try to paint a picture that this constituency would otherwise
be embracing liberalism if not for the Democratic Party adopting an "ideology" is laughable. They
were never going to win because anything short of ranting, "They took r jerbs" and "Damned brown
people on welfare and illegals stealing taking all our money" was going to cost them the election.
Bottom line, the Midwest was never the liberals' or Democratic Party's constituency to lose,
and Reagan is behind all of the economic devastation that the region is experiencing. Anyone else
trying to say otherwise is just using spin and historical revisionism.
That's exactly what America needs -- another neocon/neolib, just like Macron! As if Obama and
the Clintons hadn't been neocon/neolib enough!
Reply Share
Frank is right that the white working class in the Midwestern states have been the swing votes
for presidential elections since the Reagan election of 1984, when the white Democratic South
became more fully the white Republican South. But he is wrong in not recognizing that the Democratic
Party has three major constituents and it needs all of them to win elections and to do the progressive
things while in office that would help people like those in the Midwest. Democrats need the votes
of the white working class, but also of race/ethnic minorities, and the "new class" professionals
and others. The problem is that these groups have been fighting with each other since the 1960s,
continually undermining the chances for Democrats to win. In the period of the Civil Rights Movement
and the Vietnam War, students and professionals joined with race and ethnic minorities to challenge
the influence of the unionists, big city mayors, and white working class in the Democratic Party,
which is what gave us Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Through this period, predictably, more white
working class people either stopped voting or moved to the Republican Party. In the 2016 election,
with the Bernie Sanders influence, students and professionals began to attack the influence of
race and ethnic minorities (and women?) in the Democratic Party, ostensibly in support of the
white working class over "identity politics," with the result that we got Trump. Globalization
is a difficult and complex issue, but the reality is that since the 1970s the U.S. economy has
not been able to prosper, nor the working class jobs that it requires, by selling things only
in the U.S. We have to be in global markets and integrated with other economies around the world
and that requires trade deals that balance our interests against those of other countries. This
has generated winners and losers in the economy, and it will continue to do so. While it may not
be possible to bring back the same kinds of jobs that pay a middle class wage for those with not
much education, it should be possible to create new jobs that pay a middle class wage and to invest
in education and skill development, infrastructure, and a welfare state that sustains people through
periods of disruption and transformation. The Republican Party and the New Right that took it
over are fighting to the death to undermine what is left of the social safety net to force people
to take whatever jobs are available at exploitative wages, and they have been successful exploiting
anti-government sentiment by using racial animosity and more recently anti-immigrant hysteria.
The right has been successful because those on the left who should support the Democratic Party
and then fight for more progressive policies within it just keep fighting each other and in the
last election delivered Trump by voting third party (along with gutting of the Voting Rights Act,
voter suppression, Russian influences that helped Sanders and vilified Hillary Clinton, the rogue
FBI, Citizens United, and so on). The only option for the left in a two party system is to support
the Democratic Party. Staying home or voting third party is a vote for your worst enemy. France
is experiencing the same thing, with the left candidate refusing to support the more centrist
candidate against Le Pen. We all need to learn how to form coalitions and to keep our focus on
winning elections, not winning ideological battles.
Umm, the real goals of labor unions have been beach houses and new SUVs for labor leadership.
Unions have been adept at screwing over their memberships since at least the 1970s -- no wonder
they keep supporting anti-union Dims.
Maddow has to defend the Corporate Democratic Establishment any way she can. Maddow to my knowledge
has never mentioned:
Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta,
the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, for lobbying
its interests in the United States.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought
to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with
the Department of Justice. The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses,
on a contract from March through September 2016.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless cankles of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear -
"My name is Ozywomandias, queen of queens:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
They became the party of neocons and defense establishment. The party of MIC lobbyists. nothing
to do with the democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... What, pray tell, is the Democratic Party's message otherwise? That they don't like Russia, except when they did? That they believe Russia is the biggest national security threat to America, except when it wasn't? ..."
"... Where the rubber meets the road for me is in the total abrogation of interest in controlling state legislatures and governorships. This is the level of governance where not only Congressional districting is decided, but also where influential policies and laws such as insurance regulation and such happens. ..."
"The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday there is no "smoking gun" so
far showing collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in an effort to influence the 2016 election,
adding that hearings this week will be crucial to congressional investigations into the matter" [
Wall Street Journal ]. "'Listen, there's a lot of smoke. We have no smoking gun at this point,'
Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said on CNN on Sunday. 'But there is a lot of smoke.'" Named sources
with evidence the public can see would be nice, especially considering that some Democrats frame
Russian "meddling" as a casus belli . I mean, in both the Gulf of Tonkin and the Iraq WMDs,
the administration that wanted war had the common decency to fake some physical evidence; they didn't
rely on anonymous "officials," "17 intelligence agencies," and so forth. (Oh, the word now seems
to be "colluding." It used to be "meddling.")
"The Latest: France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron" [
AP ]. I'm so old I remember when that was a done deal. Everybody believed it!
"A Noun, a Verb and Vladimir Putin" [
Politico ]. "To those with a bit of distance from cable news-that is, every sane person in America-Democrats
seem to be replaying the exact strategy that lost them the last election. What, pray tell, is
the Democratic Party's message otherwise? That they don't like Russia, except when they did? That
they believe Russia is the biggest national security threat to America, except when it wasn't?
Democrats appear to have spent about two minutes trying to figure out why the voters of Wisconsin,
Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and, very nearly, Minnesota rejected them only a few months ago. And
why, despite an ostensibly popular Obama presidency, they now have less political power than at any
point in memory. But this is hard and painful spadework, and what's unearthed might prove unpleasant.
So why bother?"
Realignment and Legitimacy
"'We call for a #MarchForTruth on Saturday, June 3rd to raise our voices and let our elected leaders
know that Americans want answers,' the site reads
. 'The legitimacy of our democracy is more important than the interests of any party, or any
President" [ Time
].
"A Field of Lavender Nourished by Trump's Tweets" [
HyperAllergic ]. "Using a Raspberry Pi, [artist Martin] Roth has synced grow lights on the small
room's ceiling so the strength of their bulbs corresponds with the activities of nearly two dozen
Twitter accounts. Most belong to people in President Trump's closest circle: feeds included along
with @POTUS and @realDonaldTrump are those of Press Secretary Sean Spicer and White House counselor
Kellyanne Conway. Other accounts represent the mainstream media, from CNN to Fox News. When any of
these accounts retweets a tweet, the grow lights brighten, increasing in power if there's a flurry
of retweets With all of this curious wiring, Roth intends to create a sort of underground retreat
that transforms our media-born anxieties into something therapeutic.
Lavender has long been used to soothe the mind and encourage better sleep in addition to healing
physical wounds; the more these select politicians and pundits fire tweets, the stronger the scent
to the installation's visitors ." You can visit the exhibit until June 21 if you are in the New York
City area;
here are the details .
"RONALD REAGAN, THE FIRST REALITY TV STAR PRESIDENT" [
JSTOR ].
"'Politics in the United States has always been a performance art,' writes Tim Raphael in his
analysis of
the branding and image-crafting that now dominate our political system . Throughout his eight
years as president, Ronald Reagan had much more positive poll numbers (60-70%) as a person than
did his actual policies (40%). Raphael attributes Reagan's success to the potent combination of
advertising, public relations, and a television in every home. (There were 14,000 TVs in America
in 1947; by 1954, 32 million; by 1962, 90% of American homes plugged in.) Ronald, Nancy, and
four-year-old Patti were TV's 'first all-electric family' with 'electric servants' making magic
as the folks at home watched and dreamed of the good life as seen on television."
>>Article lists Biden, Warren, cites Mike Allen approvingly on Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Cuban
(!), ..
The Democrats have no bench. That's what you get when one circle of cronies has controlled
the DNC apparatus since 1992. (even Obama is a partially Clinton creation as Obama's political
career was propelled by William Daley, a Bill Clinton Chief of Staff)
The DNC had some potential to build a bench when Howard Dean was running the show through his
50 state strategy with its grass roots level organizing in the states and its success in winning
majorities in both houses. Opportunity that had the potential to bring new younger blood into
the party and have them move up the food chain. Guess Barack and Rahm got too scared of the left
getting the upper hand and scaring the big donors away, so they brought in stiffs like Tim Kaine
and DWS to keep the donors happy, even at the expense of congressional majorities and bench building.
Where the rubber meets the road for me is in the total abrogation of interest in controlling
state legislatures and governorships. This is the level of governance where not only Congressional
districting is decided, but also where influential policies and laws such as insurance regulation
and such happens.
The Democrat party is all about centralized power in Washington. This enhances the effectiveness
of Congressional grifting; toll gates ahead, mofos. To them states should only be administrative
districts of the Federal government.
Whoops, it's a federal republic; more limited than in the past due to overreach through the
Interstate Commerce Clause expansion over time, and through the Feds' propensity to declare war
on everything which has the effect of giving them primacy on matters that could equally well,
or perhaps in a superior fashion, be addressed on a state (or even local) level.
When the centralizing strategy comes a cropper, they have so disempowered themselves on the
state level, that they got nothin'. Well, not them personally, 'cause they have generally seen
to that aspect; but the citizens who might be habitual Democrat voters, and who favor old-school
Democrat priorities are rude, screwed, and tattooed.
"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the
2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are
"friends in Bernie."
I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues,
ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence,
to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya
and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi
regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as
her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises
to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation).
These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.
The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was
a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the
actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks
on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted
as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.
It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for
a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay
to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not
to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).
Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday
and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am
and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore
the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake
news."
Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I
had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to
what the media said about her.
When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist
then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't
know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard
response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.
TheCubanGentlemen
,
27 Apr 2017 10:42
Sorry Mr. Cuban but Barney has a point. Sympathy for criminals? How
about a system that extracts wealth by taking family members that have
made a mistake hostage. Private prisons are incredibly corrupt. They pay
their guards $7 an hour, barely train them and then throw them into a
hellhole of starved and abused prisoners, prisoners who's families are
charged $2-5 a MINUTE to talk to them! Prisoners who are charged for
laundry, for new underwear, for sanitary napkins, for extra food
anything they can, they charge them for, all to meet a higher quarterly
profit. If they work, prisoners get only .25 an hour! Menawhile, the
items they make get a proud MADE IN AMERICA sticker and sold at a
premium netting the company MORE money. This is a direct threat to
DEMOCRACY! Why not contract our work to prisons with no liability and
infinitesimal wages to lower costs. Gee, doesn't that sounds like a
threat to low skilled workers?! Everything matters because EVERYTHING IS
CONNECTED!!!
--
,
iamwhiskerbiscuit
Ramus
,
27 Apr 2017 09:35
Very little differences between neoncons and neoliberals these days.
They're both in Goldman Saacs corner, they both support war even when
they claim otherwise during their election... Both laugh at the idea of
emulating countries that offer free Healthcare, free college, higher
minimum wage and lower cost of living. Bush tax policy = Obama tax
policy. Bush stance on war = Obama stance on war. Whats the difference?
Abortion and gun rights. That's pretty much all thats different. Pro
militarist, world police, globalists who favor a regressive tax system.
Don't like it? Don't vote... You have no say in this debate.
Yes, the Democratic Party are essentially corporate shills who talk
pretty to the poor and oppressed and then serve their corporate masters.
But that isn't why people voted against them. That would be assuming
some sort of political sophistication among the masses. It is rather,
IMHO, the corporate owned media in the form of AM radio, cable and local
news outlets, and most local newspapers who either report on nothing
that might change the status quo or are actual propaganda outlets for
the ultra right. The fact that Fox news and right wing radio is the
background music of mid America, should not be discounted. And secondly,
the seizure of nearly all of the church pulpits by the 'religious'
right. People vote the way their pastor tells them to vote. This isn't
rocket science. When there is a coup, the first order of business has
always been to seize the radio and TV stations. Bernie who ?
In a close election, there is something of
everything. But this concept that the
election turned on these displaced workers is
hilarious. In truth, we've been talking about
things like this since the 70s or before. Why
now? Because now, a wave of xenophobia and
racism swept the world and that was the wave
Trump rode to office. Many of his so-called
displaced workers overlap with those groups.
Add the religious evangelicals. That's how
Trump won... take away the evangelicals, take
away the racists, take away the xenophobes,
take away the screaming about the Mexican
this, the Muslims that, the Syrians, the
pandering to far-right groups who in the past
were considered the underbelly of the
country..and Trump doesn't have a chance.
This is a man with Mike Pence as vice
president. This is a man who brings people
like Steve Bannon into the administration.
That's how he won and that's how he remains
popular with his base. The rest is an
illusion
What happens to those good old days when a job could support an entire
family? Reagan happened. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, building up
our military 10 times as big as the next largest military, deregulating
banks and brokerage... Then Clinton continued to deregulate further.
Then Bush brought about more tax cuts for the rich and Obama kept his
tax policy on place. In 68, a minimum wage worker with 3 kids fell 500
dollars above the poverty line. (5,000 in today's money). Today, a
minimum wage worker with 3 kids falls 10,000 below the poverty line. And
the neocon/neoliberal answer to that is women must work, single people
need roommates and the wealthy need tax relief. What a load of crap.
The Democratic Party is still owned and operated by the Wall Street,
fossil fuel and war interests. The fact that the DNC installed Tom
Perez, who is not inspired by the idea of health care as a human right,
is telling. The DNC is the enemy of lower-middle class working (or
non-working) people. The DNC nominated the candidate least likely to win
over Trump. The Democrats need to send their bank/war/oil candidates to
the Republicans. We need a whole new truly progressive party..but since
our governement has been sold to the highest bidder, it make take some
unpleasantness in the streets to achieve power over the special
interests. And EVERYONE must vote EVERY TIME.
The problem is US elites, who are only exceptional in their stupidity.
"Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States,
but rent-seekers like the banking and the health-care sectors just
might"
Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton
The exceptionally stupid US elite are going for the easy money and
destroying their nation.
Its elites are always rigging stuff in their favour and forgetting
the reality they have hidden.
There is a huge difference between wealth creation and wealth
extraction, but today we have no idea of even the concept of wealth
extraction.
Well, one of our 21st Century Nobel prize winning economists, Angus
Deaton, has just remembered the problem.
The Classical Economists of the 19th Century were only too aware of
the two sides of capitalism, the productive side where wealth creation
takes place and the parasitic side where wealth extraction takes place.
The US was a key player in developing neoclassical economics and it's
what we use today.
It looks after the interests of the old money, idle rich rentiers.
The distinction between "earned" income (wealth creation) and
"unearned" income (wealth extraction) disappears and the once separate
areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The old money, idle rich
rentiers are now just productive members of society and not parasites
riding on the back of other people's hard work.
It happens at the end of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but
doesn't blow up until the 21st century when the exceptionally stupid US
elite have forgotten what they have done.
Monetary theory has been regressing for the last one hundred years.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial
intermediation theory
" banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the
funds out at a higher rate of interest"
Paul Krugman, 2015.
One of today's Nobel Prize winning economists spouting today's
nonsense.
Progress in monetary theory has been in the reverse direction,
leading to many of today's problems.
There was massive debt and money creation in the US leading up to the
2008 bust:
Get back to the Classical Economists to learn how you tax "unearned"
income to provide subsidized housing, healthcare, education and other
services to provide a low cost economy whose workforce isn't priced out
of the global market place.
When you understand money you can see in the money supply when Wall
Street is getting really stupid and about to blow up the economy.
Throughout history, the "people" were ruled by the powerful even if the
powerful were idiots, thieves, rapists and murderers. Times have
changed. People don't accept that anymore. But if Democrats have made a
blanket error it was in assuming that everyone sees the world as they
do, and in assuming that everyone is a rational being committed to the
ideals of a republic. Clearly that is not the case. And the "people"
want leaders, not pals. They want security. Democrats need a person who
combines the guile of a Machiavelli with the smarts of an Obama and the
steel fist of a Cromwell. Thing is, under such conditions, it's doubtful
if the "people" are governable anymore, in the sense of making decisions
based on reality as opposed to a combination of superstition, myth, and
misinformation. Oh, and vanity is an important factor: ask Susan
Sarandon and her proxy vote for Trump--she voted for Stein.
It was the DLC ("Democrats Led by Clintons") that brought the DP to its
current condition of self-satisfied atrophy and irrelevance by embracing
Davos "meritocracy" and neo-liberal economics combined with
neo-conservative foreign policy for the past 30 years. They sealed their
fate by turning the Party (DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DGA, most state committees)
into stale and pale imitations of Reagan's GOP; and Party 'leaders' are
far too comfortable with their own sense of entitlement to power and
wealth to understand either the fallacies of their tunnel vision, or the
consequences (like electing Trump and keeping the GOP in control of
Congress and most states) of their blinkered myopia.
The only hope for the DP is to let the genuine 'progressives' (aka the
socialist/green 'left') take over management of the political apparatus
because what passes for 'liberalism' these days is no longer an
electoral/policy option, at least as far as the electorate is concerned.
And all the early indications are that the from the DNC down the Party
establishment is more concerned about stamping out the Bernie Bro and Ho
heresies than defeating Republicans.
Our politicians have been brainwashed by neoliberal economists.
These
economists produce models that factor-in all the upsides to
globalisation, but fail to model any of the crippling,
expensive-to-treat consequences of shutting down entire towns in places
like Michigan or Lancashire.
They assume people live frictionless lives; that when the European
ship-building industry moves to Poland, riveters in Portsmouth can just
up-sticks and move to Gdansk with no problem. They encourage a narrative
that implies such an English riveter are lazy if he fails to seize this
opportunity.
(Let's drop a few economists in Gdansk with £100 in their pockets,
and see how their families do.)
Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific
justification for the greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its
methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists went back to the
social science faculty, where they belong.
"... Tell people about how the Russians stole the election for Trump and everyone knows you're just reiterating a Beltway talking point. Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. Remind people of the ways in which the Democrats have reoriented themselves around affluent, tasteful white-collar people and you hear a chorus of angry yesses; talk about how the Democrats live to serve the so-called "creative class" and a murmur of recognition sweeps the room. ..."
"... People in the labor movement that I met in my turn around the midwest expressed complicated feelings about Donald Trump. On the one hand, everyone understands that he is an obvious scoundrel and they fear that his administration will bring about (via a possible supreme court ruling against public-sector unions) an epic defeat for organized labor. ..."
"... Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific justification for the greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists went back to the social science faculty, where they belong. ..."
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at the economic disasters that have
befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some
lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what
happened last November a little more likely.
Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned around and told working-class
people that their misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education, that the only answer
for them was a lot of student loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did
this they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest,
in the manner of the New York Times , is not the answer to this problem. Listening to the voices
of the good people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the answer, either. Cursing those
bad people for the stupid way they voted is an even lousier idea.
What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not enough
to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need to understand
that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material harm to millions
of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different next time. And
then they need to deliver.
They are already failing on this front. Consider the idea, currently approaching revealed truth
among American liberals, that last November's electoral upset was in fact an act of political vandalism
attributable to some violation of fair play by the Russians or the FBI director; that it had no greater
historical significance than does an ordinary act of shoplifting.
I met few who are actually buying that line. Tell people about how the Russians stole the election
for Trump and everyone knows you're just reiterating a Beltway talking point. Mention how the Democrats
betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's board immediately lights
up with enthusiastic callers. Remind people of the ways in which the Democrats have reoriented themselves
around affluent, tasteful white-collar people and you hear a chorus of angry yesses; talk about how
the Democrats live to serve the so-called "creative class" and a murmur of recognition sweeps the
room.
People in the labor movement that I met in my turn around the midwest expressed complicated feelings
about Donald Trump. On the one hand, everyone understands that he is an obvious scoundrel and they
fear that his administration will bring about (via a possible
supreme court ruling against public-sector unions) an epic defeat for organized labor.
In the union hall of the Steelworkers local that represents workers at the Indianapolis Carrier
plant – a union hall where you might expect Trump to be venerated – I spotted instead a flyer depicting
the billionaire president with his famous pompadour on fire. The headline: "Lying Con and Volatile
Gasbag is Enemy of the Working Class."
On the other hand, Trump at least pretended to be a friend of the working class, and it was working-class
people in this part of America who turned against the Democrats and helped delivered him into the
White House. By a certain school of thought, this should make working-class people the Number One
swing group for Democrats to court.
Of course it isn't working out that way. So far, liberal organs seem far less interested in courting
such voters than they do in scolding them, insulting them for their coarse taste and the hate for
humanity they supposedly cherish in their ignorant hearts.
Ignorance is not the issue, however. Many midwesterners I met share an outlook that is profoundly
bleak. They believe that the life has gone out of this region; indeed, they fear that a civilization
based on making things is no longer sustainable.
They tell me about seniors falling prey to Fox News syndrome and young people who are growing
up without hope. And just about everyone I talked to believes that the national Democratic party
has abandoned them. They are frustrated beyond words with the stupidity of the party's leadership.
One thing we must never forget about the midwest, however, is that radicalism lurks just beneath
the surface. The region has always swung back and forth between contentment and outrage; between
Chicago Tribune-style business-worship and Eugene Debs-style socialism. I was reminded of this one
night in Minneapolis, when a friend told me the story of a local Teamsters strike in 1934, a conflict
that briefly plunged the Twin Cities into something akin to civil war.
I have no doubt that people in this part of America would respond enthusiastically to a populist
message that addressed their unhappy situation – just look, for example, at the soaring
popularity of Bernie Sanders.
As things have unfolded thus far, however, our system seems designed to keep such an alternative
off the table. The choice we are offered instead is between Trumpian fake populism and a high-minded
politics of personal virtue. Between a nomenklatura of New Economy winners and a party of traditional
business types, willing to say anything to get elected and (once that is done) to use the state to
reward people like themselves. The public's frustration with this state of affairs, at least as I
heard it on my midwestern trip, is well-nigh overwhelming.
The way I see it, the critical test for our system will come late next year. The billionaire great-maker
in the Oval Office has already turned out to be an incompetent buffoon, and his greatest failures
are no doubt yet to come. By November 2018, the winds of change will be in full hurricane shriek,
and unless the Democratic Party's incompetence is even more profound than it appears to be, the D's
will sweep to some sort of mid-term triumph.
But when "the resistance" comes into power in Washington, it will face this question: this time
around, will Democrats serve the 80% of us that this modern economy has left behind? Will they stand
up to the money power? Or will we be invited once again to feast on inspiring speeches while the
tasteful gentlemen from JP Morgan foreclose on the world?
Writing that Trump is an 'incompetent buffoon' only highlights the foolishness of the Washington
establishment, and why millions see the media with disdain.
While you may dislike the man, you still have to contend with the fact that the guy has been successful,
and he is a byproduct of a system that rewards success. It is similar to the derision that Obama
experienced when he claimed that 'you didn't build that."
Historically hard work and self determination has been a shared American value, and during the
campaign we saw one who skated through process and the other who worked his butt off to win. To
dismiss this American value as incompetent and buffoonery is the height of elitism from a pointed
headed pencil pusher.
Reply Share
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick - >
Report
-> mmercier0921
->
deborahmconner
,
29 Apr
2017 15:32 Americans of age are not bolshevik's. What is killing the rat party is reality
that the immigrants here tend to want freedom or anarchy, not old communists loading over them.
The stunted domestic children's have proven mostly... dysfunctional at the political levels so
far, and a burden on us all.
The only hope for the Democrat party at this point is economic colapse and war... their only
remaining tried and true methods.
Mr. Frank may be overestimating the Democrats' chances next year. My senator is one of the most
liberal but already this year she has voted for new sanctions on Iran and admitting Montenegro
into NATO.
I'm seriously considering staying home on election day next year -- for the first time in my
life.
The turmoil in financial markets was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards
for subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 through 2007. That's when Republicans controlled
all branches of government. The share of mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie during that time
went from 48% to 24%, being eclipsed by private mortgage banks.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission allowed the nation's largest financial institutions
to "self-regulate;" taking the cops off the beat. Unregulated mortgage brokers sold subprime loans
aided by the NINA (No Income No Assets) program. Major financial institutions packaged those bad
mortgages into securities and sold them as low-risk investments.
In 2007, FOX News taking heads, Art Laffer, Ben Stein and others laughed themselves silly over
an impending housing collapse they had championed. They said "It can't happen," claiming lasting
wealth had been created by subprime loans. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_yw0kq3MM
First of all, the idea that the nationalist right is exclusively 'Nazi', or that Trump is a 'white
supremacist', is more than a bit silly, but regardless:
My argument has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's tax cuts (which, fwiw, I'm hugely opposed
to).
--
As an outside observer I am not well enough informed to dig deep into regional issues in America,
but on a national level many can see the some root causes.
The US has a political system that does not monitor and control election spending by parties or
candidates. You get the best people that money can buy, not the best people.
You have an electoral "commission" that is a privately run club of 2 parties whose stated aim
is to keep it like that, and do so by strangling any dissent at birth.
You also have a media circus with players like Rupert Murdoch involved and wherever he goes you
find mischief, spin, downright lies all mobilised to get you all to believe in whatever movement
is generating him the most cash.
You also have a large and powerful group of dark suits that "advise" the administration, whoever
it is, on foreign policy and how to control, manipulate or even overthrow, foreign governments
of countries that have resources America needs.
As a result, your idea of living in a Demoracy is just that, a nice idea.
You can argue with me all day long, but the fact remains, that I have watched all of the above
actually happen over a 70 year period, with my own eyes, while still of sound mind.
Much the same is happening in the UK too, creating diabolical levels of inequality that are destroying
large sections of society.
It will get much worse before it gets much better. Will it get better before the planet shrugs
humans off it though?
not like electing Hillary would have helped us. she's just as complacently sure that neoliberalism
works. well, yeah, for the billionaires it does. hasn't done us much good though.
I'm not supporting Trump's election. but as far as economic problems, neither of the two main
candidates offered us much of anything but more of the same.
not like electing Hillary would have helped us. she's just as complacently sure that neoliberalism
works. well, yeah, for the billionaires it does. hasn't done us much good though.
I'm not supporting Trump's election. but as far as economic problems, neither of the two main
candidates offered us much of anything but more of the same.
They won the popular vote ONLY because of Democrats overwhelming strength in Los Angeles, California
& New York City...if you remove the votes for BOTH Hillary & Donald from those two regions, Trump
would have won by 2 million votes. That alone is why the men who wrote the US Constitution instituted
the Electoral College. It was to keep a few large cities from choosing the president and essentially
ignoring the rest of the country. It was called the Virginia Compromise...
I'm an analytics professional that worked on Obama's primary & re-election where I saw first hand
a robust machine learning process. Electoral politics is so insanely tribal because you're seeing
voter outcomes reflect voter self image based on their general zip code/geographic living space.
Electorally we don't know how Bernie would have performed because it's unknown how the oppo
research would have impacted older voters outcomes. This is even harder to predict because of
the $$ spent required to run in a general. You can assume Bernie would have gotten 60% of Millennials
instead of Hillary's 55% (matching Obama's number in 2012). However; we don't know what happens
in the reverse manner.
Hillary had entrenched Democratic loyalty with urban blanks/latinos/Asians /Jews/White educated
women. Because Latino/Asian turnout rates increased from 46% to 56% Clinton basically outperformed
Obama in ever major metro area except ( Detroit / Milwaukee). That's because black turnout rates
dropped from 64% to 54%. And these two metros are heavily AA .
Hillary slightly outperformed Obama in Philly metro; but she was brutalized in literally all
these heavily white working class areas.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn."
Yup! And the means doing away with public sector unions in their present form, it means securing
the borders, it means getting big banks and wall street under control, it means dropping the left
wingnut social policies and getting the government out of peoples lives, not the other way 'round.
Ain't gonna happen.
The liberal/progressive leftist totalitarians are in charge of the party, and unless they change
their ways, as previously described, they are going to wander in the wilderness for a very long
time.
It's fine to blame the Democratic Party and let it go at that, but let's frame the problem somewhat
more clearly: the United States hasn't managed its transition from industrial capitalism to
post-industrial capitalism wisely, or really at all.
The Republican Party? Well, everyone pretty much expects them to act like worshipers of the
Great God Mammon; they wrongly think any kind of capitalism is perfect, so they offer no modifications
to a situation that has left millions of Americans behind.
The Democrats? You would expect them at least to show some appreciation of the problem and
to go beyond lip service when it comes to economic justice and opportunity for all. But you would
be mostly mistaken in that, since they have (if at times ambivalently) embraced the shifting lay
of the land -- an attitude that amounts to a species of fatalism. That leaves them little to offer
except support for some important but not fully curative improvements in American life: support
for equality for LGBTQI people, for example. That support, proper though it is, then gets slammed
by vicious, sneering Republicans as elitism or extremism. The truth is that if the Dems appear
to be all about such issues, it's only because right-wing morons oppose them with primitive ferocity
at every turn, making the Dems' steadfast belief in fairness look like a mere obsession with "boutique"
issues that only directly affect very small segments of the population. So the answer isn't for
Democrats to drop their support for civic and human rights for all people -- that isn't the problem.
This is a genuine dilemma because the pain the country's going through has fundamentally to
do with our economic system and the technological shifts to it, and we really aren't going to
jettison that system. But I suggest that the Democrats are better positioned to become the great
"rearticulators" of why we are in the fix we are in and of a more compassionate social system
that won't ignore the working class, won't embrace some kind of neoliberal fatalism that writes
people off as "collateral damage" of an inevitable shift.
The Democratic Party has gradually become the party of the status quo and business as usual instead
of the progressive-- working people's party-- it use to be under Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
Even Obamacare is a concept originally conceived by the Republicans to force all Americans into
the arms of the private health insurance companies.
Instead of more trickle down economics, Democrats should be trying to focus on creating a worker's
paradise in order to re-energize the American economy:
1. A 32 hour work week (overtime beyond 32 hours):
2. Up to six weeks of annual Federally mandated paid vacation
3. Reduction of individual income tax to just 1% for individuals that make less than $60,000
a year
4. Employer payment of all Federal payroll taxes for all employees that make less than $60,000
a year
5. A $1000 a year workers rebate from the Federal government if you work full time or part
time or employ full time or part time workers
6. Federal infrastructure program providing matching funds for cities that want to build affordable
urban-- rental housing-- for senior citizens and the working class families and individuals, who
don't own their own home who make less than $60,000 a year.
7. Federal and employer financed medical savings accounts for all American citizens
8. High tariffs (15% to 100%) on all imports coming in from nations that are not free and democratic
(China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Low tariffs (1% to 10%) on imports from nations that
are free and democratic. How Democrats could have ever gone along with allowing a fascist state
like China to have full and free trading access to the American economy is almost incomprehensible
(and it also cost Americans more than 3 million jobs)!
I'm at a loss as to why anyone would think voting for Trump conveys a desire for these things.
He has spent his entire career taking advantage of working class people who had the misfortune
to be employed by him, and he was literally fighting charges for running a fraudulent, for-profit
university during the campaign.
Lets review the key points of Democratic politics as they now pronounce it (through words and
action)
1 - Save the planet - translation - regulate any and all forms of energy to be too expensive
then subsidize renewable energy. This means a few major companies will win huge government contracts
to put up windmills while, power plant operators, miners, natural gas workers and countless supporting
industries go dark.
2 - Identity Politics - Translation - Vast swaths of America are understood only in context
of their race, gender (chosen or otherwise) or political perspective. They will be administered
according to an as yet unpublished preference chart favoring some over others. Meaning that individuals
don't matter and needs don't matter. Only that you fit into some defined category where political
messaging will tell you why your oppressed and that only democrats can free you.
3 - Free Trade Agreements - In short - how to off shore manufacturing to cheap labor countries.
That one is very simple.
4 - Sanctuary Cities - People who arrived into this country illegally will be protected from
deportation, even identifcation as illegal regardless of the law. This reduces the cost of labor
for less skilled workers and drives up costs - which drive up taxes to provide services. In point
of fact California is in the process of creating a single payer healthcare system that will provide
free (only if your don't earn and income) healthcare to anybody in California - no questions asked.
What is missing? Jobs. There are zero plans to bring back jobs. The coasties don't care about
manufacturing. They only buy the highest quality imports with the right labels on them anyway.
Their answer - why more government "programs" designed to robe Peter to pay Paul. Job training
for jobs that don't exist where people live, and often disappeared years ago.
I am entirely sympathetic to Frank's point of view. My question is what kind of economic policy
would help the working class people he is talking about. I'm reading Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of
Revolution (1789-1848) and here's what he has to say about the mechanization of the cotton industry
in Britain: "Everywhere weaving was a mechanized a generation after spinning, and everywhere,
incidentally, the handloom weavers died a lingering death, occasionally revolting against their
awful fate, when industry no longer had any need for them." You can't stop technological progress.
Nor (although I'm less sure of this) does it seem like a good idea for governments to intervene
in preventing production from migrating to the countries where it is cheapest. What public policy
can do is offer displaced persons a choice: government support to go back to school to learn a
skill that will make you employable; or government employment at a job that uses the skills you
already have on projects that the private sector would not undertake but which fulfills a social
need (from infrastructure to building affordable housing in low income areas to driving a bus
from poor neighborhoods to jobs). Financed, of course, by higher taxes on the wealthy.
Thomas Frank is at least a liberal who recognizes that the Democrats offer nothing to the working
class, but he fails to really see how Democratic policies have made states under Democratic governance
less attractive to those businesses that would actually hire the working class. He make make snide
remarks about lousy trade deals, yet many foreign car manufacturers have set up some of the most
sophisticated plants in the US, but in southern states. In fact, US manufacturing output is near
all time highs, but it is ever more automated. Even some rust belt states, under Republican governance,
are attracting industry back to these states.
The Dems really crises is going to come when blue collar Hispanics conclude that their economic
interests are not dissimilar to those of blue collar whites. They too might conclude that their
best course is to deal with those who might actually hire them as opposed to those that will never
hire them but who want to set the terms whereby others might. That will surely dash the idea (or
fantasy) that changing demographics portend a coming brown progressive paradise led by old white
hippies.
Meritocracy?
The best of the best of the best?
Not for the Smugatocratic World Rigging Nepotistic 'Davos' Elite!
(Busy "Late Night" Offices)
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 1" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth My Dear Boy I really need you to do me a solid
you remember my Granddaughter Brittany?
Seth Myers
Ummm .Not really .?
Who is this?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
No matter .You met her last year at Davos
Seth Myers
Ahhh .I didn't actually go to Davos last year?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Well she just graduated from Emerson Gawd knows what they learn there?
AAAAAANYWAAAYS .
this whole "Clinton Kerfuffle" has kind of put us in a little bind
Seth Myers
Oh really?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
And Britt had her dear little heart set on interning with Hilly and Billy
Seth Myers
Oh....She did?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Now, she'd really like to work on your show
Seth Myers
My show?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Oh .She's a really good writer
Seth Myers
Writer .Wow .Why not just host?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
You think? Well, maybe?
K Thanks Gottah Run Love Yah' Bunches Britt will just be so thrilled!
See you at Davos .
Seth Myers
Wait I'm not go
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 2" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth .My Dear Boy I really, really need you to do me a solid you remember my Granddaughter...Gemma?
Special interests are intertwined with the Dems as much as they are with Repubs now, that's what's
changed. The article speaks of the neoliberal policies that are destroying the Democratic party
(deregulation, pro-corporate/anti-worker policies).
Yes, Republicans do those things and always have, but the point is that the Dems now do them
too. And they need to step away from neoliberal policies like that if they want to be relevant
again.
The 1970s were the beginning of the end because oil was no longer cheap, and our factories were
in northern cities and both ran on oil. Unions didn't help with strikes and corruption. Unions
were also divided on race. Manufacturing was more expensive in terms of energy and labor in the
North than in the South. Since then paper mills and auto plants have followed areas where unions
never caught on, the growing season for trees is short, and which have mild winters. This is logic,
not NAFTA.
Now we glorify unions of a hazy past, but then they seemed to have gotten too big for their
britches. Midwesterners voted for Reagan and neoliberal policies back then, which is ignored in
this discussion.
NAFTA, passed under George HW Bush, and signed when Clinton was new in office, recognized that
industry was changing. It also created new markets for agriculture, which is also a Midwest product,
let it not be forgotten. Oh, but agriculture was Republican territory. Which is why it was passed
under Bush.
NAFTA isn't the issue but is an excuse. The refusal of the auto industry to wake up until they
had to in the recent recession or refusal to face the cost of energy that fueled it is the issue.
It couldn't have been the companies where people could work for $25/hr with only a H.S. Diploma??
No, it must be those "others" from far away, right?
While it is true that Hillary and the Neoliberal wing of the Democrats has prevailed, until 2016
the Neoliberals were the only wing of the Republicans. Trump can talk a good game offer some hope
to the Rust Belt Hopeless, but does anyone really believe the commercial interests that have been
the backbone of the GOP since Lincoln are going to let Trump cancel NAFTA, reimpose tariffs and
cut of the flow of cheap labor?
No doubt about it, the industrial towns of the Midwest have been savaged by Globalization and
the wages of a lot on essentially unskilled worker have fallen behind but there are a lot of people
who have benefited from it as well, like everyone who shops at Walmart or drives a car.
How much more are you willing to pay for "stuff" so that somebody in Youngstown Ohio can get
the $25 an hour job he thought would be waiting for him when he graduated from H.S.?
Changes in the world economy create winners and losers and losers seek relief from the federal
government. They don't want help navigating the changed situation they find themselves in, they
want things back to the way they were before.
I equate neoliberalism with MBA NATION. The stupidity of book learning the economics of numbers
but not of their effects on human life.
I recall hearing an interview with an economist who was dismissing something Trump said about
how he'd handle certain things in the economy. "Sure," the economist huffed, "It would put more
money in average people's pockets but it wouldn't improve the GDP or the economy as a whole."
The interview didn't call the "expert" out on this nonsense. It stopped me in my tracks (I
was walking past the office lunch room). As a citizen, I would very much like to be living in
a world where we put more money in my neighbours' pockets (as well as my own, of course) than
watch it magnetize to the rich and ever-more-powerful, making the big numbers look impressive
while the average person abandons all hope of a decent future for themselves and their children.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I will say that I am an MBA NATION loather. Free trade that
lines the pockets of rich people and robs citizens of the right to intervene or shift or change
the deal is obscene.
"What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not
enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They
need to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has
done material harm to millions of their own former constituents."
Yes of course. But that's not gonna happen. Demanding such a thing is demanding that rational
self-interested individuals go against their entrenched self-interest, which goes against everything
held sacred in an enlightened market economy and against the sacred neoclassical tenet of the
rational homo economicus . You don't wish to be perceived as an apostate now Mr. Frank,
do you? It is in the interest of the operatives and functionaries of the party to maintain the
current status quo by acting in the interest of Wall Street and Silicon Valley and other top economic
players to the detriment of their base.
The Democratic party took a drubbing from the right with the dawn of the Reagan era. The emergence
of the so-called Third Way in the 1990s was an acknowledgement of this defeat. Clinton's major
political innovation was to secure a source of funding for the Democrats by prostrating before
the financial sector. This is a formula that has proven successful, and no Democratic candidate
will deviate from this script as long as it continues to be so. Essentially, the Democratic party
transformed itself from the "loser" representative of unions, teachers, and ordinary folk in general,
to a "kinder, gentler" version of the Republican party. The they-have-nowhere else-to-go strategy
was quite rational and has worked for more than two decades, and will conceivably work for at
least four more presidential election cycles. However, the initial givenness of the Democratic
base in 1992 was a finite source of electoral fuel, and as the election of Trump has shown this
resource is nearing depletion.
"One thing we must never forget about the midwest, however, is that radicalism lurks just
beneath the surface."
Please, that ship sailed a long time ago, at least a century to be more precise. This is red-state
Heartland territory now through-and-through, respect the empirical data.
"The choice we are offered instead is between Trumpian fake populism and a high-minded politics
of personal virtue. Between a nomenklatura of New Economy winners and a party of traditional
business types, willing to say anything to get elected and (once that is done) to use the state
to reward people like themselves."
To use a quantitative scale, the choice offered to the non-elite voters is between a zero-to-slightly-positive
socially liberal neoliberalism, and a negative socially conservative neoliberalism. Put another
way, economically the choice is between the nothing of the Democrats and the worse-than-nothing
of the Republicans. The calm and stability at the center of wealth and power masks the constant
rattling sound of the lives perturbed and dislocated by the dominant economic forces. At this
point, the relation of the non-elite voters to the D-R duopoly resembles sadomasochism. Or perhaps
the working people voting for Trump is a form of supplication before their god: "Shoot me now
Lord, please."
To be more generous and grant the Heartland left-behind a measure of agency and rationality,
they - and one group in particular, the Reagan Democrats - took a chance on his and his descendants'
rhetoric of the shining city upon a hill, and when they realized that the end result was the loss
of jobs and diminution of their standards of living and that of their offspring, they graciously
accepted the verdict and had the fortitude and decency to bear the burden of their own decision.
There is nothing the matter with Kansas, the only thing that needs attention is the inconsistency
between its pronunciation and that of Arkansas.
Thomas Frank offers an advice to democrats - break up with your neoliberal fallacies and embrace
Bernie Sanders. It clearly means a break up with their true (core) base - big money. Such choice
is too stark, hard to believes they are willing or capable of making it.
Rather than pleading with them, I could offer a better option - reject republico-cratic duopoly
(and its enterprising scoundrels) altogether, and embrace an American version of La France insoumise
"All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking."
Yes, originally, but the Clinton-third way wing of the Democratic Party went along with it and
adopted neoliberalism lite. That's the problem. Instead of offering an alternative vision to what
Republicans were doing, they offered "me, too."
The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan. Reagan did the Savings & Loan
deregulation which led to the S&L bailout under G.W. Bush during which they prosecuted over 1,000
bank executives and got convictions including five sitting senators with four forced resignations.
After Clinton did the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and Obama prosecuted zero,
let me say that again, zero, bank executives and provided $9 trillion in bailout liquidity.
--
They can offer the illusion with the proper candidate but with the same congressmen and senators
that currently hold the seats none of the substance.
--
Take Amtrak between Chicago and Washington DC and witness wreckage of heartland industry along
a corridor 800 miles long. People still live there, forgotten. Bernie Sanders is not finished.
Listen to him; and put yourself up for election locally, on a Park District board; or a Township
position; as an Election Judge or for County or State office. And listen to your neighbors, who
are suffering. Then do something about it. When I ran for State Representative, the Democratic
Party sent me a highlighted map instead of a check for my campaign. The map showed "70% Republican"
voting registration in my State Representative district. No Party cash for my campaign was forthcoming.
The only way to change this Gerrymandering is to be on-hand in the State House following the next
decennial census in 2020. It will be "too late" to do anything -- again -- unless "we" change
the Party; and the Party changes the re-districting scam. Bernie Sanders is right about pitching
in to re-shape and re-form the Democratic Party. The Party, as constructed, is passé... and as
hollowed-out as the miles and miles of decrepit buildings with thousands of gaping, broken windows
that lie between Chicago and DC. Go see the devastation for yourself. Then get serious about answers.
Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red State
inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies that
appeal to the majority of people.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but Identity Politics has FAILED. The Dems are not
going to cobble together some sort of Ruling Coalition out of Transgendered people and urban people
of color. That's an insane strategy of hoping you will win national elections by appealing to
25% or less of the population of whom only half that number actually vote if you are lucky.
I'm not saying abandon those struggles. Under a just system those struggles will continue and
prevail - the Constitution guarantees that unless you get dishonest justices on the Supreme Court
- which seems more likely the more national elections you blow. Democrats need to stop worrying
about narrow single issues like that and focus on developing a BROAD national strategy to appeal
to the Majority of Americans.
So says the guy from Punjab who is NOT a poorly educated white person and who has voted Democrat
since 1980.
There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product
of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan administration.
The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching from Right/Center
to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism as 'socialism',
'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party of neoliberal
economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money and they are
the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up and run with
it instead of calling the the BS that it is.
The problem with the Rust Belt states is that they keep on electing Republican state governments.
These fail to deliver on anything useful for working people -- they're more interested in entrenching
their power by tweaking the elections -- but then people turn to the Federal government as if
this is some kind of savior capable of turning around their fortunes overnight.
Anyway, don't take my word for it. Just keep electing those regressive state legislators (and
keep drinking that tainted water....).
Great comment on the article, but I think even you have been kind in your criticism of it. I can
only hope that the writer started out with the intention of saying that while the GOP and their
rich and big business political patrons are responsible for the impoverishment of those in the
article, the Democrats have missed out on messaging and on more specific policies that addresses
those wrongs committed against a voting block they can own. Instead the entire piece is written
as though the Democrats have earned the scorn and anger of these voters. One can argue the Democrats
have failed to focus more on the plight of these voters, but they are NOT the cause of these voters'
plight; and there is nothing in this piece to make that distinction or about the irony of why
these same voters flock to a political party primarily responsible for what has happened to them.
In fact consider this below from the article:
"Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's
board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. "
Yes, that is right! The political anomaly that Trump is can be be explained by the successful
exploitation of the improvised classes by media outlets that voice these voters' anger to acquire
a capture audience and then lay the blame for what has happened to them on immigrants & liberals.
You never hear anything on those outlets about the unholy triad of the GOP political class, big
business and media outlets in their orbit. I don't need to drive through these flyover states
to know they are hurting; and I don't need to sit down with them to know they are real human beings
with a great deal in common with me or to know that despite their general decency they are full
of misplaced anger and resentment.
I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think
that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could
not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were
instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly
to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since
they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers.
Interesting he choices of examples for how liberals let the mid west down. Republican president
Reagan deregulated S&Ls with predictable awful results. Republicans under Clinton (they controlled
the Senate and house ) when Glass Steagsll was repealed. Republic Phil Gramm also rescinded the
AntiBucket Shop Law which loosed the disaster of the naked CDS,
Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like
a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused
to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox
ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy.
It was Republican Sen. Phil Gramm who said in hearings on CSPAN that these instruments of financial
mass destruction (Warren Buffet's words) were too complicated to understand and therefore should
not be regulated.
Republicans wanted to free up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy subprime even NINJA loans and
made it so.
Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy YES.
Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already displayed
financial incompetence at Harvard, YES.
But, it is republicans who either drove the bad financial ideas or controlled them. Republicans
who support IRS rules and their laws that promote off shoring jobs and stashing cash untaxed off
shore.
Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, Bush41 - even Nixon - would not know these people.
Oh, and as for the rest of the party and its defeats: A quick look at the numbers show that Democrats
keep losing not because voters are switching to the Republican brand, but because they no longer
bother to vote for Democrats who are just going to shiv them in the back with Republican economic
policies.
Reply Share
But now liberals and the Democratic Party are to get the lion's share of the blame for everything?
As I've said on numerous occasions in the past: The reason Trump beat Hillary is the same reason
Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries: Voters knew her and what she stood for -- and so were willing
to take a chance on the other candidate.
Thank you for the Abramson reminder -- as a retired journalist I know the importance of providing
clear and accurate information to the general public. While Abramson and Frank and others are
writing Opinion in the Guard and elsewhere, too many people do not understand positioning and
propaganda. Media must make money to stay in business and often it is opinion writers/tv hosts
etc that generate interest and coin to keep the words rolling and the money coming in.
It is especially ironic as wages are cut, jobs disappear, cost of living rises so fewer people
can afford to subscribe or pay for actual news and information. Not to mention the political idiocy
of reducing school funding so that the electorate knows nothing of history or how politics works.
Trump wants to take us back to Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher years that left us with trillion
dollar deficits and decimation of the middle class that is now on the downward slide to actual
poverty...
No, it is a crap comment. From the neo-liberal 'pseudo science' that economics supposedly is (almost
forgot to use the word neo-liberal, a must these days to make your point) , to the greed and the
rapacity of the "one percenters".
Such a simple problem isn't it? Let's just go back in time rather than find more creative and
up-to-date solution for the problems there are. Globalisation isn't going to go away, the world
is too small a place. Globalisation has created problems for people, but many more people have
benefitted from it.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on
some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely. "
---
As someone who's middle aged, I am getting sick and tired of this historical revisionist nonsense
that all the country's woes and economic climate can be mostly pinned on the liberals and that
somehow, it's something that they did wrong that is the reason why they "lost" constituents in
the Midwest. Someone can peddle this nonsense over and over again with the smug belief that everyone
on on the internet is too young to know whether what he's saying is true. But there are some of
us "old folks" who are also on the internet and as an old folk, I have no issues calling out this
article out for the nonsense that it is.
Everything that is going on now in terms of jobs can be 100% attributable to Reaganomics--period,
end of. It's nothing to do with liberals. It's 100% to do with the devastating rippling effect
that his neoliberal policies has had on the country since the 1980s, only made 100x worse by Republican
pols who have been further carrying out his neoliberalist agenda to full effect for the past several
decades.
It was under Reagan that the country began experiencing mass layoffs (euphemistically called
"downsizing"). It was under Reagan that corporations began slashing benefits, cutting wages and
closing up shop to ship thousands of jobs overseas. It was under Reagan that the middle class
American dream died--aka, the expectation that if got a diploma, you could start working for a
company full time straight out of college, work for decades with decent benefits and perks, save
up enough money to buy a house and retire with a generous pension. Gone. All gone.
Remember the "Buy American" grassroots campaign? That started in the 1980s, precisely because
under Reagan, the country had relied increasingly on imported goods at the expense of domestic
manufacturing. Here's an actual article from 1989 that shows you that the roots of everything
going on now started decades ago. It's actually a defeatist article telling people to *stop* wasting
their time to get everyone to "Buy American" because it had become virtually impossible to buy
American-made goods.
As for the idea that there's always been a staunchly"Democratic" following in the Midwest that
has been "lost" because of something that the party is doing wrong and that this caused them to
turn to populism? False. It may have been true a very long time ago that this constituency has
been staunchly Democratic and not amenable to populism, but not recently. It has voted on populist
platforms before. Remember "welfare queens?" Remember "Willie Horton?" Willie Horton, the black
bogeyman, was the "bad hombres" of today.
In addition, this constituency has been increasingly voting against its best interests for
decades since Reagan was voted into office. Why? Because demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and the
large number of puppets at Rupert Murdoch's vast media empire have been selling them a bill of
goods since the 1990s that the reason why they're becoming poorer is that liberals are giving
all their "white" hard-earned money to shiftless, lazy blacks and immigrants and losing out to
them because of affirmative action. In the famous words of South Park, "THEY TOOK R JERBS" and
"IT'S ALL DUH LIBRUHL'S FAULTS!!"
This constituency has developed such a deep-seated hatred and loathing for liberals because
of the demagogues at FOX or news radio that even when Michael Moore directly spoke to their plight
in Roger and Me, they derided him as a typical Communist-loving, anti-Capitalist pinko. Because,
you see, according to FOX demagogues, calling out rich corporate fatcats who also happen to be
white is attacking white people, a form of class warfare and anti-Capitalist.
Given all that, for someone to try to paint a picture that this constituency would otherwise
be embracing liberalism if not for the Democratic Party adopting an "ideology" is laughable. They
were never going to win because anything short of ranting, "They took r jerbs" and "Damned brown
people on welfare and illegals stealing taking all our money" was going to cost them the election.
Bottom line, the Midwest was never the liberals' or Democratic Party's constituency to lose,
and Reagan is behind all of the economic devastation that the region is experiencing. Anyone else
trying to say otherwise is just using spin and historical revisionism.
That's exactly what America needs -- another neocon/neolib, just like Macron! As if Obama and
the Clintons hadn't been neocon/neolib enough!
Reply Share
Frank is right that the white working class in the Midwestern states have been the swing votes
for presidential elections since the Reagan election of 1984, when the white Democratic South
became more fully the white Republican South. But he is wrong in not recognizing that the Democratic
Party has three major constituents and it needs all of them to win elections and to do the progressive
things while in office that would help people like those in the Midwest. Democrats need the votes
of the white working class, but also of race/ethnic minorities, and the "new class" professionals
and others. The problem is that these groups have been fighting with each other since the 1960s,
continually undermining the chances for Democrats to win. In the period of the Civil Rights Movement
and the Vietnam War, students and professionals joined with race and ethnic minorities to challenge
the influence of the unionists, big city mayors, and white working class in the Democratic Party,
which is what gave us Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Through this period, predictably, more white
working class people either stopped voting or moved to the Republican Party. In the 2016 election,
with the Bernie Sanders influence, students and professionals began to attack the influence of
race and ethnic minorities (and women?) in the Democratic Party, ostensibly in support of the
white working class over "identity politics," with the result that we got Trump. Globalization
is a difficult and complex issue, but the reality is that since the 1970s the U.S. economy has
not been able to prosper, nor the working class jobs that it requires, by selling things only
in the U.S. We have to be in global markets and integrated with other economies around the world
and that requires trade deals that balance our interests against those of other countries. This
has generated winners and losers in the economy, and it will continue to do so. While it may not
be possible to bring back the same kinds of jobs that pay a middle class wage for those with not
much education, it should be possible to create new jobs that pay a middle class wage and to invest
in education and skill development, infrastructure, and a welfare state that sustains people through
periods of disruption and transformation. The Republican Party and the New Right that took it
over are fighting to the death to undermine what is left of the social safety net to force people
to take whatever jobs are available at exploitative wages, and they have been successful exploiting
anti-government sentiment by using racial animosity and more recently anti-immigrant hysteria.
The right has been successful because those on the left who should support the Democratic Party
and then fight for more progressive policies within it just keep fighting each other and in the
last election delivered Trump by voting third party (along with gutting of the Voting Rights Act,
voter suppression, Russian influences that helped Sanders and vilified Hillary Clinton, the rogue
FBI, Citizens United, and so on). The only option for the left in a two party system is to support
the Democratic Party. Staying home or voting third party is a vote for your worst enemy. France
is experiencing the same thing, with the left candidate refusing to support the more centrist
candidate against Le Pen. We all need to learn how to form coalitions and to keep our focus on
winning elections, not winning ideological battles.
Umm, the real goals of labor unions have been beach houses and new SUVs for labor leadership.
Unions have been adept at screwing over their memberships since at least the 1970s -- no wonder
they keep supporting anti-union Dims.
Maddow has to defend the Corporate Democratic Establishment any way she can. Maddow to my knowledge
has never mentioned:
Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta,
the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, for lobbying
its interests in the United States.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought
to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with
the Department of Justice. The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses,
on a contract from March through September 2016.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/russias-largest-bank-confirms-hiring-podesta-group-lobby-ending-sanctions
Sorry Mr. Cuban but Barney has a point. Sympathy for criminals? How about a system that extracts
wealth by taking family members that have made a mistake hostage. Private prisons are incredibly
corrupt. They pay their guards $7 an hour, barely train them and then throw them into a hellhole
of starved and abused prisoners, prisoners who's families are charged $2-5 a MINUTE to talk to
them! Prisoners who are charged for laundry, for new underwear, for sanitary napkins, for extra
food anything they can, they charge them for, all to meet a higher quarterly profit. If they work,
prisoners get only .25 an hour! Menawhile, the items they make get a proud MADE IN AMERICA sticker
and sold at a premium netting the company MORE money. This is a direct threat to DEMOCRACY! Why
not contract our work to prisons with no liability and infinitesimal wages to lower costs. Gee,
doesn't that sounds like a threat to low skilled workers?!
Everything matters because EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED!!!
-
Very little differences between neoncons and neoliberals these days. They're both in Goldman Saacs
corner, they both support war even when they claim otherwise during their election... Both laugh
at the idea of emulating countries that offer free Healthcare, free college, higher minimum wage
and lower cost of living. Bush tax policy = Obama tax policy. Bush stance on war = Obama stance
on war. Whats the difference? Abortion and gun rights. That's pretty much all thats different.
Pro militarist, world police, globalists who favor a regressive tax system. Don't like it? Don't
vote... You have no say in this debate.
Yes, the Democratic Party are essentially corporate shills who talk pretty to the poor and oppressed
and then serve their corporate masters. But that isn't why people voted against them. That would
be assuming some sort of political sophistication among the masses. It is rather, IMHO, the corporate
owned media in the form of AM radio, cable and local news outlets, and most local newspapers who
either report on nothing that might change the status quo or are actual propaganda outlets for
the ultra right. The fact that Fox news and right wing radio is the background music of mid America,
should not be discounted. And secondly, the seizure of nearly all of the church pulpits by the
'religious' right. People vote the way their pastor tells them to vote. This isn't rocket science.
When there is a coup, the first order of business has always been to seize the radio and TV stations.
Bernie who ?
In a close election, there is something of everything. But this concept that the election turned
on these displaced workers is hilarious. In truth, we've been talking about things like this since
the 70s or before. Why now? Because now, a wave of xenophobia and racism swept the world and that
was the wave Trump rode to office. Many of his so-called displaced workers overlap with those
groups. Add the religious evangelicals. That's how Trump won... take away the evangelicals, take
away the racists, take away the xenophobes, take away the screaming about the Mexican this, the
Muslims that, the Syrians, the pandering to far-right groups who in the past were considered the
underbelly of the country..and Trump doesn't have a chance. This is a man with Mike Pence as vice
president. This is a man who brings people like Steve Bannon into the administration. That's how
he won and that's how he remains popular with his base. The rest is an illusion
What happens to those good old days when a job could support an entire family? Reagan happened.
Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, building up our military 10 times as big as the next largest
military, deregulating banks and brokerage... Then Clinton continued to deregulate further. Then
Bush brought about more tax cuts for the rich and Obama kept his tax policy on place. In 68, a
minimum wage worker with 3 kids fell 500 dollars above the poverty line. (5,000 in today's money).
Today, a minimum wage worker with 3 kids falls 10,000 below the poverty line. And the neocon/neoliberal
answer to that is women must work, single people need roommates and the wealthy need tax relief.
What a load of crap.
The Democratic Party is still owned and operated by the Wall Street, fossil fuel and war interests.
The fact that the DNC installed Tom Perez, who is not inspired by the idea of health care as a
human right, is telling. The DNC is the enemy of lower-middle class working (or non-working) people.
The DNC nominated the candidate least likely to win over Trump. The Democrats need to send their
bank/war/oil candidates to the Republicans. We need a whole new truly progressive party..but since
our governement has been sold to the highest bidder, it make take some unpleasantness in the streets
to achieve power over the special interests. And EVERYONE must vote EVERY TIME.
The problem is US elites, who are only exceptional in their stupidity.
"Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like
the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton
The exceptionally stupid US elite are going for the easy money and destroying their nation.
Its elites are always rigging stuff in their favour and forgetting the reality they have hidden.
There is a huge difference between wealth creation and wealth extraction, but today we have
no idea of even the concept of wealth extraction.
Well, one of our 21st Century Nobel prize winning economists, Angus Deaton, has just remembered
the problem.
The Classical Economists of the 19th Century were only too aware of the two sides of capitalism,
the productive side where wealth creation takes place and the parasitic side where wealth extraction
takes place.
The US was a key player in developing neoclassical economics and it's what we use today.
It looks after the interests of the old money, idle rich rentiers.
The distinction between "earned" income (wealth creation) and "unearned" income (wealth extraction)
disappears and the once separate areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The old money, idle
rich rentiers are now just productive members of society and not parasites riding on the back
of other people's hard work.
It happens at the end of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but doesn't blow up until
the 21st century when the exceptionally stupid US elite have forgotten what they have done.
Monetary theory has been regressing for the last one hundred years.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial intermediation theory
" banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the funds out at a higher rate
of interest" Paul Krugman, 2015.
One of today's Nobel Prize winning economists spouting today's nonsense.
Progress in monetary theory has been in the reverse direction, leading to many of today's problems.
There was massive debt and money creation in the US leading up to the 2008 bust:
Get back to the Classical Economists to learn how you tax "unearned" income to provide subsidized
housing, healthcare, education and other services to provide a low cost economy whose workforce
isn't priced out of the global market place.
When you understand money you can see in the money supply when Wall Street is getting really
stupid and about to blow up the economy.
Throughout history, the "people" were ruled by the powerful even if the powerful were idiots,
thieves, rapists and murderers. Times have changed. People don't accept that anymore. But if Democrats
have made a blanket error it was in assuming that everyone sees the world as they do, and in assuming
that everyone is a rational being committed to the ideals of a republic. Clearly that is not the
case. And the "people" want leaders, not pals. They want security. Democrats need a person who
combines the guile of a Machiavelli with the smarts of an Obama and the steel fist of a Cromwell.
Thing is, under such conditions, it's doubtful if the "people" are governable anymore, in the
sense of making decisions based on reality as opposed to a combination of superstition, myth,
and misinformation. Oh, and vanity is an important factor: ask Susan Sarandon and her proxy vote
for Trump--she voted for Stein.
It was the DLC ("Democrats Led by Clintons") that brought the DP to its current condition of self-satisfied
atrophy and irrelevance by embracing Davos "meritocracy" and neo-liberal economics combined with
neo-conservative foreign policy for the past 30 years. They sealed their fate by turning the Party
(DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DGA, most state committees) into stale and pale imitations of Reagan's GOP;
and Party 'leaders' are far too comfortable with their own sense of entitlement to power and wealth
to understand either the fallacies of their tunnel vision, or the consequences (like electing
Trump and keeping the GOP in control of Congress and most states) of their blinkered myopia.
The only hope for the DP is to let the genuine 'progressives' (aka the socialist/green 'left')
take over management of the political apparatus because what passes for 'liberalism' these days
is no longer an electoral/policy option, at least as far as the electorate is concerned. And all
the early indications are that the from the DNC down the Party establishment is more concerned
about stamping out the Bernie Bro and Ho heresies than defeating Republicans.
Our politicians have been brainwashed by neoliberal economists.
These economists produce models that factor-in all the upsides to globalisation, but fail to
model any of the crippling, expensive-to-treat consequences of shutting down entire towns in places
like Michigan or Lancashire.
They assume people live frictionless lives; that when the European ship-building industry moves
to Poland, riveters in Portsmouth can just up-sticks and move to Gdansk with no problem. They
encourage a narrative that implies such an English riveter are lazy if he fails to seize this
opportunity.
(Let's drop a few economists in Gdansk with £100 in their pockets, and see how their families
do.)
Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific justification for the
greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists
went back to the social science faculty, where they belong.
Racism if fake reason because the same voters managed somehow to elect Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... "...despite significant evidence that Trump voters were largely driven by racism." This is one of two main Dems "Monday morning quarterbacking" storylines. I am not so sure. I think the most significant factor in the recent election was voters rejection of neoliberal establishment and, specifically, neoliberal globalization, that destroyed American jobs. In other words, people voted by-and-large not "for" but "against". That's why Trump have won. ..."
"...despite significant evidence that Trump voters were largely driven by racism." This is
one of two main Dems "Monday morning quarterbacking" storylines. I am not so sure. I think the
most significant factor in the recent election was voters rejection of neoliberal establishment
and, specifically, neoliberal globalization, that destroyed American jobs. In other words, people
voted by-and-large not "for" but "against". That's why Trump have won.
"... During his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, lived up to the grand Democratic tradition of favoring the underdog at the expense of the rich. He proposed hammering the affluent by raising taxes in the amount of $15.3 trillion over ten years. New revenues would finance about half the cost of a $33.3 trillion boost in social spending ..."
"... Trouble brews when a deeply held commitment to the underdog comes into conflict with the self-interested pocketbook and lifestyle concerns of the upper middle class. ..."
"... In rhetoric reminiscent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman, Sanders declared: We must send a message to the billionaire class: "you can't have it all." You can't get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry.But Sanders spoke to the Democratic Party of 2016, not the Democratic Party of the Great Depression. ..."
"... In days past, a proposal to slam the rich to reward the working and middle classes meant hitting Republicans to benefit Democrats. ..."
"... Even as recently as 1976, according to data from American National Election Studies, the most affluent voters, the top 5 percent, were solidly in the Republican camp, 77-23. Those in the bottom third of the income distribution were solidly Democratic, 64-36. ..."
"... In the 2016 election, the economic elite was essentially half Democratic, according to exit polls: Those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution voted 47 percent for Clinton and 46 percent for Trump. Half the voters Sanders would hit hardest are members of the party from which he sought the nomination. ..."
Has the Democratic Party Gotten Too Rich for Its Own Good?
by Thomas B. Edsall
JUNE 1, 2017
During his primary campaign against Hillary
Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed
socialist, lived up to the grand Democratic tradition of
favoring the underdog at the expense of the rich. He
proposed hammering the affluent by raising taxes in the
amount of $15.3 trillion over ten years. New revenues
would finance about half the cost of a $33.3 trillion
boost in social spending
The Sanders tax-and-spending plan throws into sharp
relief the problem that the changing demographic makeup of
the Democratic coalition creates for party leaders.
Trouble brews when a deeply held commitment to the
underdog comes into conflict with the self-interested
pocketbook and lifestyle concerns of the upper middle
class.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that under the
Sanders plan, a married couple filing jointly with an
income below $10,650 would continue to pay no income tax;
everyone else would pay higher taxes. Those in the second
quintile would pay an additional $1,625 and those in the
middle quintile would see their income tax liability
increase by $4,692. Those in the top quintile would pay
$42,719 more.
Higher up the ladder, the tax increase would grow to
$130,275 for those in the top 5 percent, to $525,365 for
those in the top one percent and to $3.1 million for the
top 0.1 percent.
When the additional revenues from the Sanders tax hike
are subtracted from the additional spending his proposals
would demand, the net result is an $18.1 trillion increase
in the national debt over 10 years, according to the
center.
In rhetoric reminiscent of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Harry Truman, Sanders declared: We must send
a message to the billionaire class: "you can't have it
all." You can't get huge tax breaks while children in this
country go hungry.But Sanders spoke to the Democratic
Party of 2016, not the Democratic Party of the Great
Depression.
In days past, a proposal to slam the rich to reward
the working and middle classes meant hitting Republicans
to benefit Democrats.
Even as recently as 1976, according to data from
American National Election Studies, the most affluent
voters, the top 5 percent, were solidly in the Republican
camp, 77-23. Those in the bottom third of the income
distribution were solidly Democratic, 64-36.
In other words, 41 years ago, the year Jimmy Carter won
the presidency, the Sanders proposal would have made
political sense.
But what about now?
In the 2016 election, the economic elite was
essentially half Democratic, according to exit polls:
Those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution
voted 47 percent for Clinton and 46 percent for Trump.
Half the voters Sanders would hit hardest are members of
the party from which he sought the nomination.
The problem for the Democratic Party is that "them" has
become "us."
...
As the Democratic elite and the Democratic electorate
as a whole become increasingly well educated and affluent,
the party faces a crucial question. Can it maintain its
crucial role as the representative of the least powerful,
the marginalized, the most oppressed, many of whom belong
to disadvantaged racial and ethnic minority groups - those
on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder?
This will be no easy task. In 2016, for the first time
in the party's history, a majority of voters (54.2
percent) who cast Democratic ballots for president had
college degrees. Clinton won all 15 of the states with the
highest percentage of college graduates.
The steady loss of Democratic support in the white
working class, culminating in Trump's Electoral College
victory on the backs of these white voters, must
inevitably send a loud and clear signal to the Democratic
elite: The more the party abandons the moral imperative to
represent the interests of the less well off of all races
and ethnicities, the more it risks a repetition of the
electoral disaster of 2016 in 2018, 2020 and beyond.
A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
Notable quotes:
"... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
"... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
"... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
"... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
"... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
"... dezinformatsiya ..."
"... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
"... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
"... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
"... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
"... actual conspiracy. ..."
"... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
"... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
"... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
President Donald Trump is
about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal.
Bernie Sanders
and Sean
Hannity are Russian agents. The
Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using
Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a
traitor for
refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was
a secret Russian
agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.
These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions
as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart
and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between
Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump
will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed
to confirm.
Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian
and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her
283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch
is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler (
226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer
Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers
).
There's also a handful of websites, like
Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly
exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell
funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's
70,000 Facebook fans.
Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping
into the mainstream discourse. In March,
the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they
should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two
months prior to that, Mensch had penned a
lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims
to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit
Hillary Clinton.
Last Thursday,
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand
jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were
Mensch and Palmer:
Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too
cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.
"There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White
House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't
exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump
in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."
Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded
speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole
of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.
The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation
into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless
hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of
gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's
election.
"One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize
- and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor
at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern
being repeated."
Anatomy of a conspiracy theory
The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job"
or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian
influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything
that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump
administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.
There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've
written about them personally
over and
over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian
hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible
and
somewhat supported by the available evidence .
The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.
Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one
legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic
between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks (
before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January,
she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's
exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.
Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship
"Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to
Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American
policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an
April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian
government in hacking the election."
Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed
that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against
"the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.
She's also suggested that
Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the
news:
I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting
not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker
, working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who
hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement
officials.
And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:
Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she
refused and called me a
"dickhead."
But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas
on Twitter.
One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned
in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent
a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the
time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared"
(the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter
since 2013
).
"Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the
Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me.
"That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's
disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."
Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on
Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his
speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya
(disinformation), or Chekist
, a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's
Russia.
This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its
members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their
enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies
of being Chekists.
Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims
to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information
into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge
what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that
are on the way.
These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump
is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.
These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information
circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter
search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many
of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also
reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper
Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account
Counterchekist
, and financial analyst
Eric Garland
(best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)
Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to
Quantcast ,
a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more
than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook,
according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that
Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.
This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.
These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of
power
To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars:
Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three
of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form
political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing
from the Russiasphere.
"I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the
left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence
in the White House," Reifler says.
The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in
America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership
in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.
"Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs,
especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics,
that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false
information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."
In
one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms
of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms
of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.
The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation
between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question,
just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control
didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical
reasoning skills.
"[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't
that many people who are willing to do that."
In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math
problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and
the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their
political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories.
You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing
something evil behind the scenes.
The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So
because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of
white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism
and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs
and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald
J. Trump.
There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the
Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a
"trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for
good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.
We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies
may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know
the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want
someone to fill in the blanks for them.
"Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're
among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks
like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish
claims."
This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual
penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled
liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits
the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these
ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying
this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media
outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.
But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to,
is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.
For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC
chair Donna
Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":
A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that
the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:
Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a
Palmer Report
story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price
tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the
same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to
BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.
"Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended
disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story
seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its
accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."
What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators
being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary
people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest
in factual accuracy.
This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again
in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes
a core and important part of what Democrats believe.
"Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about
Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other
affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."
That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about
Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic
elites to correct it.
Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against
this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous,
then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the
Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center
of the political conversation.
"Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this
kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on
the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."
So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed
up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the
people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer
to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems meme is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the neoliberal MSM are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
Notable quotes:
"... "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia." ..."
"... Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues." ..."
"... It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. ..."
With McCarthyism 2.0 continues to run amok in the US, spread like a virulent plague by unnamed, unknown,
even fabricated sources , over in France one day after his first meeting with French president Emanuel
Macron, the man who supposedly colluded with and was Trump's pre-election puppet master (but had
to wait until after the election to set up back-channels with Jared Kushner) Vladimir Putin sat down
for an interview with
French newspaper Le Figaro in which the Russian president expressed the belief that Moscow and
Western capitals "all want security, peace, safety and cooperation."
"Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid
warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today?
Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle
East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia."
Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon,
John McCain said that
Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare
yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no
prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues."
"Hacking" Clinton And the DNC
Even with the FBI special investigation on "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign and administration
taking place in the background, Putin
once again dismissed allegations of Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election
as "fiction" invented by Democrats to divert the blame for their defeat. Putin repeated his strong
denial of Russia's involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that yielded
disclosures that proved embarrassing for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, he countered that claims
of Russian interference were driven by the " desire of those who lost the U.S. elections to improve
their standing ."
"They want to explain to themselves and prove to others that they had nothing to do with it, their
policy was right, they have done everything well, but someone from the outside cheated them," he
continued. "It's not so. They simply lost, and they must acknowledge it. " That has proven easier
said than done, because half a year after the election,
Hillary Clinton still blames Wikileaks and James Comey for her loss . Ironically, what Putin
said next, namely that the "people who lost the vote hate to acknowledge that they indeed lost because
the person who won was closer to the people and had a better understanding of what people wanted,"
is precisely what
even Joe Biden has admitted several weeks ago , and once
again yesterday . Maybe Uncle Joe is a Russian secret agent too...
In reflecting on the ongoing scandal, which has seen constant, daily accusations of collusion
and interference if no evidence (yet), Putin conceded that the damage has already been done and Russia's
hopes for a new detente under Trump have been shattered by congressional and FBI investigations of
the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. In the interview, Putin also said the accusations of meddling
leveled at Russia have destabilized international affairs
Going back to the hotly debated topic of "influencing" the election, Putin once again made a dangerous
dose of sense when he argued that trying to influence the U.S. vote would make no sense for Moscow
as a U.S. president can't unilaterally shape policies. " Russia has never engaged in that, we don't
need it and it makes no sense to do it ," he said. " Presidents come and go, but policies don't change.
You know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong ." Especially when the bureaucracy
in question is the so-called "deep state."
Asked who could have been behind the hacking of the Democrats' emails, The Russian leader added
that he agreed with Trump that it could have been anyone. "Maybe someone lying in his bed invented
something or maybe someone deliberately inserted a USB with a Russian citizen's signature or anything
else," Putin said. "Anything can be done in this virtual world." This echoed a remark by Trump during
a September presidential debate in which he said of the DNC hacks: "It could be Russia, but it could
be China, could also be lots of other people. It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs
400 pounds."
Assad, Red-Lines and Chemical Weapons
Putin was asked about French President Emmanuel Macron's warning that any use of chemical weapons
in Syria was a "red line" that would be met by reprisals, to which the Russian president said he
agreed with that position. But he also reiterated Russia's view that Syrian President Bashar Assad's
forces weren't responsible for a fatal chemical attack in Syria in April. Putin said Russia had offered
the U.S. and its allies the chance to inspect the Syrian base for traces of the chemical agent. He
added that their refusal reflected a desire to justify military action against Assad. "There is no
proof of Assad using chemical weapons," Putin insisted in the interview. "We firmly believe that
that this is a provocation. President Assad did not use chemical weapons."
"Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron
shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international
community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons
impossible for anyone," the Russian leader said.
On NATO's Military Buildup across Russian borders
Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at which Russia was branded a threat to security,
Putin pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving from the alliance. "What attracted my
attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with
Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against?"
Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless "feels confident" in its own defenses. Washington's appeal
to other NATO members to ramp up their military spending and alleviate the financial burden the US
is forced to shoulder is "understandable" and "pragmatic," Putin said.
But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is "shortsighted," the Russian president
added, referring to the NATO's expanding missile defense infrastructure on Russia's doorstep and
calling it "an extremely dangerous development for international security." Putin lamented that an
idea of a comprehensive security system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe, Russia and
US has never become a reality, arguing that it would have spared Russia many challenges to its security
stemming from NATO. "Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history,
it is not a movie."
junction -> Boris Badenov •May 30, 2017 10:03 PM
Paging Seth Rich. Oh, he can't say anything about the reason why the Democrats lost. Maybe
Hillary could try to contact him using witchcraft and the Satanist arts she follows. Then again,
her old reliable is her hit team of FBI agents, not her sacrifices to Moloch.
GooseShtepping Moron •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Putin packs more truth into one newspaper interview than the entire Western media publishes
in a year.
Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Who would they blame if Russia was suddenly gone?
rejected -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:05 PM
Iran.
GooseShtepping Moron -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:06 PM
Me and you, the basket of deplorables.
Billy the Poet -> rwmctrofholz •May 30, 2017 10:25 PM
I find this little cut and paste job to be effective when addressing this issue:
Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The
Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution
"DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not
involved in vote tallying."
"Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems thing is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the mainstream media are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
ogretown •May 30, 2017 10:43 PM
It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming
the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. But who else could they blame? If instead they had
started a campaign that focused on the Muslims trying to ruin America and (correctly)
identified
Saudi Arabia as America's greatest enemy, imagine the votes they would have received from the
soft-right, independents, (relatively) sane liberals. If the (worthless) liberals opted for a
moratorium on squandering any more money on the pseudo-science of global warming and insisted
on a balanced panel to investigate the issue once and for all - even more votes.
Ditto with exotic pro-globalist trade deals...instead if the (worthless) Rats would have opted
for town hall discussions on how a vast international trade deal would have may be helped America,
they would have been viewed as the party of balance, consideration and the thoughtful.
But all of that means having smart and dedicated people as either part of the party or willing
to trust the party - none of which exist. Instead the party of bankrupt ideals and impoverished
morality finger point the Russians and try to blame it all on them.
"... When establishment mainstream media "blacklists" the topic, it just makes us all suspect "they" have something to hide. Why can't we have an open and honest exploration of what really happened? ..."
Tremendous kudos goes to OANN network for putting together this powerful documentary. The fact
of the matter is the Seth Rich murder is unanswered and people want the truth.
When establishment mainstream media "blacklists" the topic, it just makes us all suspect
"they" have something to hide. Why can't we have an open and honest exploration of what really
happened?
America is in lots of trouble this is one of many deaths around the Clinton crime family do
your own research see what comes up suicides with 2 shots back of head weird accidents people
just disappearing these people must not be like my family high powered rifles and crack shots we
would make sure justice was served.
Carlette Duperior
What a great documentary well done filled in a lot of blanks and questions that I had very
professional very objective nice to see Great reporting.
"... A lawsuit last year against the DNC was filed in the Southern District of Florida by attorney Shaun Lucas. ..."
"... A month after Lucas filed the papers to sue the DNC, he was found dead at the age of 38. 14 prosecutors have been killed in
100 years. ..."
"... One of those was Lucas - the man who served the DNC papers. ..."
"... The lawsuit was filed on June 28 by Bernie Sanders supporters against the DNC and then DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
who resigned in the wake of the WikiLeaks email scandal. ..."
"... And now a young federal prosecutor working in the Southern District of Florida is also found dead. Florida Prosecutor Beranton
J. Whisenant Jr., 37, was investigating fraud and visa case in Wasserman-Schultz's back yard district. Was he working on the case against
the DNC? ..."
A Florida federal attorney who was investigating against the DNC, specifically, Wasserman-Shultz district, was found dead on a
beach with what authorities describe as "head trauma."
COINCIDENCE?
A lawsuit last year against the DNC was filed in the Southern District of Florida by attorney Shaun Lucas.
A month after Lucas filed the papers to sue the DNC, he was found dead at the age of 38. 14 prosecutors have been killed in
100 years.
One of those was Lucas - the man who served the DNC papers.
The lawsuit was filed on June 28 by Bernie Sanders supporters against the DNC and then DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
who resigned in the wake of the WikiLeaks email scandal.
And now a young federal prosecutor working in the Southern District of Florida is also found dead. Florida Prosecutor Beranton
J. Whisenant Jr., 37, was investigating fraud and visa case in Wasserman-Schultz's back yard district. Was he working on the case
against the DNC?
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) - The body of a federal prosecutor has been found on a Florida beach with possible head trauma.
Hollywood police spokeswoman Miranda Grossman said Thursday that the body of 37-year-old Beranton J. Whisenant Jr. was found early
Wednesday by a passerby on the city's beach. She said detectives are trying to determine if the death was a homicide, suicide or
something else.
Whisenant worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami in its major crimes unit. He had joined the office in January. Court
records show he had been handling several visa and passport fraud cases.
Acting U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg said in a statement that Whisenant was a "great lawyer and wonderful colleague." The
office declined to comment on the investigation.
Amy Moreno is a Published Author
, Pug Lover & Game of Thrones Nerd. You can reach her on Facebook here .
On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing
from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone .
Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a "lead" saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the
morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an "ongoing court case" possibly involving the Clinton
family .
Seth Rich's father Joel told reporters, "If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money
- he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life."
,,, ,,, ,,,
The Metropolitan police posted a $25K reward for information on Rich's murder.
One America News Network (OAN) is offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a suspect in former DNC
staffer Seth Rich 's murder case.
The Herring Networks, Inc. media company OAN joins a number of individuals and groups that are willing to pay for information
that solves the July 10, 2016, killing of Mr. Rich
. The election-season murder continues to spark conspiracy theories based on the suggestion that
Mr. Rich provided DNC data to the anti-secrecy
website WikiLeaks.
"One America News believes solving this case - and bringing
Rich 's murderer to justice - is essential to exposing
the truth for the American people," OAN's Greta Wall
reported Monday. "We are offering a $100,000 reward for any information that leads to the arrest of a suspect in the case.
If you have any information, please email us at [email protected]."
Others offering rewards
include the Washington,
D.C. Police Department ($25,000); WikiLeaks ($20,000); and Republican strategist Jack Burkman ($130,000).
businessman and investor Martin Shkreli is putting up $100,000 for information leading to the arrest of the person responsible for
the murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.
Shkreli, former chief executive officer of Turing Pharmaceuticals and KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Inc., made the announcement via
his Facebook page Friday.
Rich, 27, was the voter expansion data director at the DNC, according to Roll Call, and had been employed for two years. Rich
also worked on a computer application to help voters locate polling stations, and had just accepted a job with Hillary Clinton's
presidential campaign.
According to Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police reports, officers patrolling the Bloomingdale neighborhood heard gunshots at
around 4:20 a.m. on the morning of July 10, 2016. Officers discovered a "conscious and breathing" Rich at 2100 Flagler Place NW.
Police have not yet solved the case, but surmised that Rich was a victim of a botched robbery. Police said that they found his
wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. The band of his wristwatch was torn but not broken. The current theory maintains
that the shooters panicked after shooting Rich and immediately fled the scene.
"You are graduating at a time when there is a full-fledged assault
on truth and reason. Just log on to social media for ten seconds.
It will hit you right in the face. People denying science, concocting
elaborate, hurtful conspiracy theories about child-abuse rings
operating out of pizza parlors, drumming up rampant fear about
undocumented immigrants, Muslims, minorities, the poor, turning
neighbor against neighbor and sowing division at a time when
we desperately need unity. Some are even denying things we see
with our own eyes, like the size of crowds, and then defending
themselves by talking about quote-unquote 'alternative facts.'
"But this is serious business. Look at the budget that was just
proposed in Washington. It is an attack of unimaginable cruelty
on the most vulnerable among us, the youngest, the oldest, the
poorest, and hard-working people who need a little help to gain
or hang on to a decent middle class life. It grossly under-funds
public education, mental health, and efforts even to combat the
opioid epidemic. And in reversing our commitment to fight climate
change, it puts the future of our nation and our world at risk.
And to top it off, it is shrouded in a trillion-dollar mathematical
lie. Let's call it what it is. It's a con. They don't even try
to hide it.
"Why does all this matter? It matters because if our leaders
lie about the problems we face, we'll never solve them. It matters
because it undermines confidence in government as a whole, which
in turn breeds more cynicism and anger. But it also matters because
our country, like this College, was founded on the principles
of the Enlightenment – in particular, the belief that people,
you and I, possess the capacity for reason and critical thinking,
and that free and open debate is the lifeblood of a democracy.
Not only Wellesley, but the entire American university system
– the envy of the world – was founded on those fundamental ideals.
We should not abandon them; we should revere them. We should
aspire to them every single day, in everything we do.
"And there's something else. As the history majors among you
here today know all too well, when people in power invent their
own facts, and attack those who question them, it can mark the
beginning of the end of a free society. That is not hyperbole.
It is what authoritarian regimes throughout history have done.
They attempt to control reality – not just our laws and rights
and our budgets, but our thoughts and beliefs."
Hillary should be in a hut somewhere in the Canadian north
staring at election returns. Her shameless ambition her heedless self seeking industry
and undaunted entitled drive reminds me of the worst results of meritocracy
"... One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere. ..."
"... "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect. ..."
"... sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media." ..."
"... There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised. ..."
"... That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick. ..."
One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can
do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere.
"One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election"
That's a very good point. I would say more: "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create
"dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect.
that all means that it's not only just former #NeverHillary types who still stand by the president. Other
sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of
the national news media."
There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises
they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money
(or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want
to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money
(votes) he runs away from what he promised.
That (short) con works in real estate where he really
don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with
the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will
realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick.
But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters
realize that they have been conned. It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a
stupid mistake - especially difficult for stupid people.
"But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize
that they have been conned."
Not true. I know many who already "get it " ;-)
"That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people
after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place,
so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't
try to do a new trick."
But both Bush II an Barack Obama were reelected. So "bait and switch" game might not be that
fatal for politicians in the USA as it is in some other countries.
I agree that shortermism is the name of the game.
"It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake"
Large part of "alt-right" (anti war right) already abandoned Trump. Those did it first. Paleoconservatives
followed and now are one just step from open hostility mostly because of media attacks on Trump.
Libertarians, especially former Ron Paul supporters, now are openly hostile and their critique
is really biting.
Do not know about evangelicals and other fringe groups, but I doubt that any of them still
have illusions about Trump.
IMHO, the only factor that still allows Trump to maintain his base is unending attacks of neoliberal
media and this set of well coordinated leaks.
"... Democrats may have some difficulty winning elections, but they've become quite adept at explaining their losses. ..."
"... According to legend, Democrats lose because of media bias, because of racism, because of gerrymandering, because of James Comey and because of Russia (an amazing 59 percent of Democrats still believe Russians hacked vote totals). ..."
"... the "deplorables" comment didn't just further alienate already lost Republican votes. It spoke to an internal sickness within the Democratic Party ..."
"... About 2/3 in that election voted early -- before the slam down. ..."
"... I agree with you that Democrats should make unions a priority instead just regurgitating the usual pablum about how they support unions without doing anything. ..."
"... The dem pols alliance outside the south with organized " private sector " unions was the legacy of the new deal and the CIO uprising. That alliance broke down in the 70's with the rise of the cultural liberals after the civil rights and anti war struggles. Union often seen by Clintons as reactionary saw their economic interests pushed aside... ..."
The Democrats Need a New Message. After another demoralizing
loss to a monstrous candidate, Democrats need a reboot
by Matt Taibbi
19 hours ago
... ... ...
The electoral results last November have been repeated
enough that most people in politics know them by heart.
Republicans now control 68 state legislative chambers, while
Democrats only control 31. Republicans flipped three more
governors' seats last year and now control an incredible 33
of those offices. Since 2008, when Barack Obama first took
office, Republicans have gained somewhere around 900 to 1,000
seats overall.
There are a lot of reasons for this. But there's no way to
spin some of these numbers in a way that doesn't speak to the
awesome unpopularity of the blue party. A recent series of
Gallup polls is the most frightening example.
Unsurprisingly, the disintegrating Trump bears a
historically low approval rating. But polls also show that
the Democratic Party has lost five percentage points in its
own approval rating dating back to November, when it was at
45 percent.
The Democrats are now hovering around 40 percent, just a
hair over the Trump-tarnished Republicans, at 39 percent.
Similar surveys have shown that despite the near daily
barrage of news stories pegging the president as a bumbling
incompetent in the employ of a hostile foreign power, Trump,
incredibly, would still beat Hillary Clinton in a rematch
today, and perhaps even by a larger margin than before.
If you look in the press for explanations for news items
like this, you will find a lot of them.
Democrats may
have some difficulty winning elections, but they've become
quite adept at explaining their losses.
According to legend, Democrats lose because of media
bias, because of racism, because of gerrymandering, because
of James Comey and because of Russia (an amazing 59 percent
of Democrats still believe Russians hacked vote totals).
Third-party candidates are said to be another implacable
obstacle to Democratic success, as is unhelpful dissension
within the Democrats' own ranks. There have even been
whispers that last year's presidential loss was Obama's
fault, because he didn't campaign hard enough for Clinton.
The early spin on the Gianforte election is that the
Democrats never had a chance in Montana because of corporate
cash, as outside groups are said to have "drowned" opponent
Rob Quist in PAC money. There are corresponding complaints
that national Democrats didn't do enough to back Quist.
A lot of these things are true. America is obviously a
deeply racist and paranoid country. Gerrymandering is a
serious problem. Unscrupulous, truth-averse right-wing media
has indeed spent decades bending the brains of huge
pluralities of voters, particularly the elderly. And
Republicans have often, but not always, had fundraising
advantages in key races.
But the explanations themselves speak to a larger problem.
The unspoken subtext of a lot of the Democrats' excuse-making
is their growing belief that the situation is hopeless – and
not just because of fixable institutional factors like
gerrymandering, but because we simply have a bad/irredeemable
electorate that can never be reached.
This is why the "basket of deplorables" comment last
summer was so devastating. That the line would become a
sarcastic rallying cry for Trumpites was inevitable. (Of
course it birthed a political merchandising supernova.) To
many Democrats, the reaction proved the truth of Clinton's
statement. As in: we're not going to get the overwhelming
majority of these yeehaw-ing "deplorable" votes anyway, so
why not call them by their names?
But
the "deplorables" comment didn't just further
alienate already lost Republican votes. It spoke to an
internal sickness within the Democratic Party
,
which had surrendered to a negativistic vision of a
hopelessly divided country.
About 2/3 in that election voted
early -- before the slam down.
Re: exciting Democrat issue
Nobody would argue I think that when 1935 Congress passed
the NLRA(a) it consciously left criminal prosecution of union
busting blank because it desired states to individually take
that up in their localities. Conversely, I don't think
anybody thinks Congress deliberately left out criminal
sanctions because it objected to such.
Congress left criminal sanctions blank in US labor law
because it thought it had done enough. States disagree?
States are perfectly free to fill in the blanks protecting
not just union organizing but any kind of collective
bargaining more generally -- without worrying about federal
preemption. Don't see why even Trump USC judge would find
fault with that.
"About 2/3 in that election voted early -- before the slam
down."
Good point, I agree. But Taibbi - who wrote a great
obit of Roger Ailes - still makes a good argument.
I
agree with you that Democrats should make unions a priority
instead just regurgitating the usual pablum about how they
support unions without doing anything.
The dem pols alliance outside the south with organized "
private sector " unions was the legacy of the new deal and
the CIO uprising. That alliance broke down in the 70's with
the rise of the cultural liberals after the civil rights and
anti war struggles. Union often seen by Clintons as
reactionary saw their economic interests pushed aside...
God help the Dems because this man certainly will not
Notable quotes:
"... three House Democrats involved in mapping out the party's strategy to win in 2018 are going to make a pilgrimage to Chicago to seek out the advice of none other than Mayor Rahm Emanuel" [ Fusion ]. Please kill me now. ..."
"... It seems to me that both the AEI comment and Rahm Emmanuel case are evidence of the same basic problem. In both cases the parties or party establishments have actually lost their ability to understand people outside of them. While there was some initial hope that the Trumpquake would shake things up it appears that in both cases the establishments have hardened their navel gaze. ..."
"DNC reports worst April of fundraising since 2009" [
Washington Examiner ]. True, these things fluctuate, but DNC fundraising should be through the
roof, right? Idea: Focus more on Putin.
"In a break from
recent tradition , the Democrats are planning to widely expand the number of districts they plan
to contest in the 2018 midterm elections. But, in a sign that not every tried-and-true Democratic
instinct is being thrown out, they're planning on dumpster diving for help doing it, with Politico
reporting that three House Democrats involved in mapping out the party's strategy to win in 2018
are going to make
a pilgrimage to Chicago to seek out the advice of none other than Mayor Rahm Emanuel" [
Fusion ]. Please kill me now.
(
Some fun Rahm anecdotes here , including the one where he calls "liberals" - that is, anybody
to his left - "f*#king retards." So, phase one would be to unify the party, phase two would be to
get the left out on the trail campaigning for the Democrat Establishment, and phase three would be
to kick the left, which is just what Rahm did after the last wave election (Pelosi, too).
"Florida Democratic Party Exec: Poor Voters Don't Care About 'Issues,' Vote Based on 'Emotions'"
[
Miami New Times ]. "Last night, the party's new second-in-command, Sally Boynton Brown, spoke
in front of the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Broward County. And throughout the exchange, she
steadfastly refused to commit to changing the party's economic or health-care messaging in any concrete
way .
Brown, the former executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party, was hired last month to take
over for the outgoing executive director, Scott Arceneaux. Last night was her first encounter with
local progressives, who are already disgruntled after Stephen Bittel - a billionaire real-estate
developer, gas station franchiser, environmental dredging company executive, and major political
donor - was elected to serve as party chair earlier this year.
Many progressives accused him of buying his way into the job via campaign donations." Read the
whole thing. It's vile.
It seems to me that both the AEI comment and Rahm Emmanuel case are evidence of the same
basic problem. In both cases the parties or party establishments have actually lost their ability
to understand people outside of them. While there was some initial hope that the Trumpquake would
shake things up it appears that in both cases the establishments have hardened their navel gaze.
Consider the AEI. While we have come to expect dismissal of sick people as just numbers or
the "perhaps 1-2 million" this misses the greater points. First is it not merely "1-2 million"
but likely much larger given the broad definition of "pre-existing condition" that is in the actual
bills. Second that is >1-2 million people who have families and friends and communities who up
until now have often been picking up the slack, or trying to. And third, we are stuck quibbling
about the cost of a few million "uninsured" and never ever considering whether or not insurance
is even the right mechanism.
As to the Democrats, they are still sending me emails from James Carville so compared to that
Rahm Emmanuel is practically young hip and in touch.
And as to Rahm Emmanuel, forget the hippie punching isn't Homan square enough? What will he
be in charge of minority outreach?
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but
soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate
to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he
recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Compare this with his unflattering assessment of Hillary released in leaked emails from his Google account. Would it so good if
hillary was elected ?
The fact that NYT and WaPo suffered some reputational damage, if true (I think NYT time expanded its circulation during this period)
is encouraging as they both were in bed with Hillary. essentially a part of Hillary campaign staff. That means more power to the Internet
media. While I don't approve of Trump's cavalier joke suggesting that the Russians find and turn over the emails that were destroyed
by Clinton, I think it's a very, very big stretch to combine the fact that the DNC obviously plotted to undermine Sanders with the failure
of the staff to repel predictable hacking and conclude that the person at fault here is Donald Trump.
"He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails."
-- this is not a suggestion, this is "Podesta strategy", which actually was successfully implemented. russian witch hunt as the mean
to distruct attention from Hillary email and DNC corruption. "Look, a squirrel" type, "turd blossom" style political hack. The extent
to which that narrative is working is an indictment of the US MSM
As for "an "echo system" ... that raised the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats." such echo system
emerge for any society in crisis. This was true for the USSR after 70th, this is true for the USA in 2010th. Neoliberal society is in
crisis, both ideological, political and economical. Neoliberal globalization is under direct attack (Brexit, Trump election)
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Podesta explained that it was one more example of how the Russians were "very active in propagating and distributing fake news,
working with these alt-right sites in conjunction with them." He also cited an "echo system" created by the Russians that raised the
social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats. ..."
"... He pointed out that "legitimate sites" like the Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails.
..."
"... "I think if you contextualize it - if you say that 'The Russians are coming,' and 'The Russians are here' - that can give people
a sense of that they need to be more careful in the way they assess what they're hearing and what they're seeing and what's being peddled,"
he said. ..."
"... He described the period of leaks as "the Soviet days" and griped that the "low burn" of email stories helped revive questions
about Clinton's own private emails. ..."
"... "We hadn't put it to bed completely," he admitted. ..."
Hillary Clinton's former campaign chief John Podesta attacked the First Amendment rights of the free press as he continued to
spin his conspiracy theory of Russia colluding with American news websites to damage Democrats.
During a conversation with the
Washington Post 's Karen Tumulty, he cited the "participation and the support of the alt-right media," naming "guys
like Sean Hannity" and "disgusting" Newt Gingrich for helping spread "fake news" to hurt Democrats. He specifically criticized Hannity
and Gingrich for asking questions about DNC staffer Seth Rich's murder and whether or not it had a connection with Wikileaks.
Podesta explained that it was one more example of how the Russians were "very active in propagating and distributing fake
news, working with these alt-right sites in conjunction with them." He also cited an "echo system" created by the Russians that raised
the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats.
He pointed out that "legitimate sites" like the Washington Post and the New York Times suffered, as other
"alt-right" websites got more traction during the election.
Podesta blamed websites in the United States for publishing emails from Emmanuel Macron during the French presidential election
to influence the outcome.
"The first reports of them came from U.S. alt-right sites back into France," he said. "This is a global phenomena."
He praised the French media for helping censor the information to stop it from damaging Macron's campaign.
"I think unfortunately for us, but maybe fortunately for the world, I think the French press was more sensitive to it," he said,
praising them for helping Macron "win by a landslide" after censoring their reporting on the hacked emails.
He suggested that the American media should have done the same things with his leaked emails.
"I didn't feel like that really happened last fall the mainstream U.S. press was much more interested in the gossip," he said.
Podesta warned the media about Russia's efforts to use the emails to hurt Democrats, pointedly directing them to be more responsible.
He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails.
"I think if you contextualize it - if you say that 'The Russians are coming,' and 'The Russians are here' - that can give
people a sense of that they need to be more careful in the way they assess what they're hearing and what they're seeing and what's
being peddled," he said.
He described the period of leaks as "the Soviet days" and griped that the "low burn" of email stories helped revive questions
about Clinton's own private emails.
"We hadn't put it to bed completely," he admitted.
Despite the pleas of a grieving family, and the growing unease of his own employer, right-wing commentator Sean Hannity insists
he willnot back down from his increasingly problematic claims that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was slain last
summer because he'd leaked information to Wikileaks. His murderers, in this warped version of the story, are presumably liberal operatives
out for silence and revenge.
"I retracted nothing," Hannity said on Tuesday afternoon. The defiant statement was in response to Fox News retracting a story,
published last week, that suggested Rich had been in contact with Wikileaks.
Fox
News posted a statement on its website that said, in part :"The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial
scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since
been removed."
Nobody has done more to promulgate the Seth Rich conspiracy theory than Hannity, who believes that a link between the DNC staffer
and Wikileaks would absolve the Trump administration of charges of collusion with Russia. That suggests, however, a cynically simplistic
understanding of the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. More troublingly, it relies on a wholly invented narrative
about Rich's tragic death, which appears to have taken place during a late-nightrobbery gone horribly awry.
"I feel so badly for this family and what they have been through," Hannity said on his radio show on Tuesday afternoon. A little
later, he hinted at why he has insistently peddled the ugly conspiracy theory: "This issue is so big now that the entire Russia collusion
narrative is hanging by a thread."
That seems unlikely, given the appointment of former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate ties between
the Trump campaign and Russia, which many believe to be extensive and some think could be criminal. A few even believe they may be
grounds for impeachment.
"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves
"Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided
to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who
was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so
many voters across the country ? ..."
"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come
down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when
we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police
release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the highest of marks from internet readers
around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis , as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as
gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership growing at an exponential rate.
Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves
"Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "
If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided
to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie
who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true
for so many voters across the country ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty pool" being played out in
the back room ?.
According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate their son's bizarre murder, it
was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.
(For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director" at the DNC, shot to death on
july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)
In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks
.NOT Russia.
The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had
come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially
when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't
the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ?
We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie nomination.(we all know this)
This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted Bernie running in the general election
against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head". What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might
have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume
Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought
down "the back room" of the DNC.
Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.
"Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT from an investigation into their
OWN "real"criminality .
How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media, by grafting the allegations of
the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the Donald, and Vladimir Putin.
Clever, clever, clever.
Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist") asks some basic questions
about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?
"... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
"... Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom
to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows. ..."
"... Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head?
..."
Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening
Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's
death in their probe into Russian election tampering.
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved.
https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs
to be done properly.
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited
Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep
that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on
my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.
She, and Whitney, include the principals (primary sources) and their witness and actions:
Julian Assange -recipient of Democratic emails. Gavin MacFadyen -alleged recipient of Seth Rich's emails according to law enforcement
source. Craig Murray -recipient of Democratic emails in a DC park.
Now we have another man claiming to be a principal, Kim Dotcom. Says he was a friend of Seth's and worked on the leak. He has
lived in New Zealand since 2010, I believe. The main principal, Julian Assange, just spoke out again on Seth Rich, seemingly in
response to Kim, that informants may have spoken to others, but they don't out leakers.
Anyway, as always, keep your eye on the principals.
Written by: Diana West
Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:23 PM
June 14, 2016 : The Washington Post
reports "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee." On what did the paper
base this claim? The Post cites "committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach."
These "security experts" are with CrowdStrike, a private cyber security firm hired and paid by the DNC.
While reading the following chronology, it is important to bear in mind that the FBI has never examined the DNC computer
network because the DNC prohibited the FBI from doing so. Also, that the FBI, under former Director Comey, not to mention
former President Obama and the "Intelligence Community," thought this was perfectly ok.
In the June 14, 2016 story, DNC chief executive Amy Dacey explained to the Post what happened after she received a call from "her
operations chief" about "unusual network activity" noticed by the IT team in "late April."
That evening , she spoke with Michael Sussman, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann,
a former federal prosecutor who handled computer crime cases, called [ CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry], whom he has known for
many years.
I highlight "that evening" "DNC lawyer" "Perkins Coie" "Crowdstrike" and "many years" to highlight the political nature of this
chain of damage control.Dacey spoke with Sussman, the DNC lawyer, that evening -- instead of, say , the FBI cyber
crime unit that day. As a Perkins Coie partner, Sussmann is with the leadingDemocrat law firm: Perkins Coie has produced an
Obama White House Counsel; a lawyer to ferry that copy of Obama's "birth certificate" from Hawaii to the White House; and it has
represented the DNC, Democrats in Congress, Obama's presidential campaign, and, at that moment in June 2016, the Clinton presidential
campaign.
With all of those Democrat interests in mind, the DNC and Perkins Coie chose to turn to CrowdStrike. Who, what is Crowdstrike?
Here is one hair-raising theory.
It is a fact that CrowdStrike's Moscow-born co-founder
Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident
senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, a globalist, interventionist and swampist think tank, which gave Hillary Clinton its Distinguished
International Leadership Award in 2013.
The political nature of the DNC's choice of a politically connected cyber-security firm itself is not surprising; what is five-alarm-shocking,
though, is that the FBI has never verified the firm's "Russian hacking" findings.
June 22, 2016: John Ashe dies of his throat being crushed by a barbell at his home shortly before appearing in court with co-defendant
Ng Lap Seng in a fraud case alleging payola to the late UN official. As New York Post notes: "Seng was identified in a 1998 Senate
report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to
the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration."
June 27, 2016: Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately in her jet on the tarmac in Phoenix, AZ.
July 5, 2016 : FBI Director Comey holds a press conference enumerating Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified
and secret information, announcing:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment
is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
July 10, 2016 : DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose title is reported as "voter expansion data director," is murdered in the street near
his home in Washington, DC. The police will attribute his murder to robbery, although nothing was stolen from Rich. His murder remains
unsolved.
Here, thanks to William Craddick of
Disobedient Media , is the crime report, which tells us that three of the officers at the scene were wearing body cams.
July 12, 2016 : Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton
July 22, 2016 : It is three days before the start of DNC convention, and
Wikileaks starts releasing 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from
the Democratic National Committee. The emails document the DNC's efforts to sink Bernie Sanders' primary run against Hillary Clinton.
DNC chairmanWasserman Schultz will resign over this election-meddling scandal within the week.
July 23, 2016 : A spate of Trump-Putin stories
begins
to appear about now, including FP's Julia Ioffe's piece titled, "Is Trump a Russian Stooge?" A deflection to "Russian hacking"
from DNC primary-rigging is immediately apparent, at least
on the Left
: "So what was once dismissed out of hand -- that the DNC was actively working against the Sanders campaign -- is now obviously
true, but not a big deal."
July 25, 2016 : Sanders supporters boo DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the stage at national convention event over Wikileaks
revelations of DNC collusion in Hillary Clinton's favor. W-S resigns from the DNC on July 28, 2016.
August 1, 2016: Peter Schweizer publishes "
From Russia with Money,
" a stunning report on Clinton cronyism and corruption detailing multiple and profitable connections between Hillary Clinton,
the Clinton Foundation, John Podesta, and Russia. (
More info on Podesta and his Russian business dealings will followfrom Wikileaks.) Hillary-tanked MSM ignore evidence of "Russian
influence" on Clinton and Podesta both.
On or about August 9, 2016 : During an interview (video above), Julian Assange brings up the recent murder of DNC staffer Seth
Rich while discussing the great risks Wikileaks sources take. Wikileaks will contribute $20,000 to what grows to more $125,000 in
reward money for information leading to arrest of the murderer(s) of Seth Rich. According to private investigator Rod Wheeler, no
one has come forward to try to claim the money.
September 5, 2016: Washington Post
reports DNI James Clapper is leading an investigation into Russian efforts to "sow distrust" in the presidential election and
U.S. institutions.
The Kremlin's intent may not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos and provide
propaganda fodder to attack U.S. democracy-building policies around the world, particularly in the countries of the former Soviet
Union.
U.S. intelligence officials described the covert influence campaign here as "ambitious" and said it is also designed to counter
U.S. leadership and influence in international affairs.
October 7, 2016 : Washington Post: "US government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections."
The story reports on a
joint statement released by the DNI and DHS. The paper only quotes this much:
"The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S.
persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations," said a joint statement from the two agencies. ". . . These
thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process."
Also of October 7, 2016 : The Washington Post releases Access Hollywood/Trump tape, although the
published story is dated October 8, 2016.
Also on October 7, 2016 : Wikileaks releases the
first cache of Podesta emails.
October 14, 2016 : Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin,
tweets the following:
October 17, 2016: Julian Assange accuses a "state party" of severing his internet connection.
October 19, 2016 : Hillary Clinton turns the DHS-DNI statement into"17 intelligence agencies" during a debate with Donald Trump:
CLINTON: We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.
I find that deeply disturbing. And I think it is time -
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.
CLINTON: I am not quoting myself. I am quoting 17, 17 - do you doubt?
TRUMP: Our country has no idea.
October 20, 2016 : At National Review, Fred Fleitz
writes
:
First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies.
Fleitz goes on to quote from the same joint DNI-DHS statement the Post cited so sparingly. The disclosures ...
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere
with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow - the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa
and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that
only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Fleitz, formerly with the CIA, writes: "Saying we think the hacks `are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts' is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks."
October 22, 2016 : Gavin McFadyen died of lung cancer in London on October 22, 2016 at the age of 76. According to a May 2017
Fox News
report , Gavin McFadyen was Seth Rich's Wikileaks' contact.
October 28, 2016 : FBI Director Comey
writes to congressional leaders informing them that "in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence
of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation" of Secretary Clinton's personal email server, and that the FBI will review
these emails for classified information.
November 2, 2016 : Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin,
tweeted the following
reply to a question about the Clinton body count:
November 6, 2016 : FBI Director Comey informs congressional leaders: "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions
that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."
Around November 9 or 10, 2016: According to the April 2017 book
Shattered , Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and chairman John Podesta gather campaign staff in Brooklyn
to set the post-election defeat narrative: Hillary's unsecured email sever was major over-reported story of the campaign, and
Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign.
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency,
rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands
of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, according to U.S.
officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation
to boost Trump and hurt Clinton's chances.
December 14, 2016 : Former UK Amb. to Uzbekistan and Wikileaks associate Craig Murray tells the
Daily Mail that he flew to Washington in September 2016 to receive emails from one of Wikileaks' sources. Both the DNC emails
and the Podesta emails, Murray said, came from inside leaks, not hacks. "He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption
of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "
December 22, 2016: The Washington Post
reports CrowdStrike links Russian hacking of the DNC to Russian hacking of the Ukrainian military. Said CrowdStrike's Alperovitch:
'The fact that [these hackers] would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine
and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling."
This new Russian hacking claim will be widely and loudly debunked by British, Ukrainian and other sources.
December 29, 2016: DHS and FBI release a joint report entitled "Russian Malicious Cyber Activity." The FBI, to repeat, has not
examined the DNC servers to verify Crowdstrike's findings of "Russian hacking," but President Obama goes ahead orders sanctions
on Russia and expels 35 diplomats anyway!
Russia does not respond in kind, which intensifies an air of unreality about the whole exercise. It all feels stagey.
January 10, 2017: For the first time, then-FBI Director James Comey
publicly addresses the DNC-Russian hacking story, affirming that the FBI has not had direct access to the DNC servers or (bonus!)
John Podesta's personal devices, despite "multiple requests at different levels."
Comey told the Senate committee, "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the orginal device or server that's
involved ..." but no worries! " A highly respected private company eventually got access and shared with us what they saw there."
Right then and there, President-elect Trump should have planned to ask Comey to resign over this single act of rank incompetence
(or corruption).
March 15, 2017 : According to
Daily Mail,
"CrowdStrike's Alperovitch cancels interview with VOA, the news outlet that first reported CrowdStrike had misstated data ..."
Also in March of 2017 and also according to
Daily Mail
, CrowdStrike is stonewalling:
CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch and its president Shawn Henry turned down an invitation to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the U.S. election.
'They declined the invitation, so we're communicating with them about speaking to us privately,' said Jack Langer, a spokesperson
for House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes.
"Speaking to us privately..."
(A request: Could Republicans please roll over, pull the trigger and put us out of their misery?)
Also in March 2017: In a May 16, 2017 interview
with Sean Hannity, private investigator Rod Wheeler says that in March, when he began his investigation into the murder of Seth
Rich on behalf of the Rich family, he called the DCPD but didn't hear back from anyone for two to three days. Wheeler says he learned
from the family on May 15 that during that March interim, a high-ranking official at the DNC got the information about his query
and called the Rich family "wanting to know why I was snooping around." (Who in the DCPD called the DNC official and why?)
In this same interview, Wheeler adds that Seth Rich was having problems at work, and that the person he was having problems with
was the same DNC officialwho called the father.
March 20, 2017 : Then-FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers appear before the House Intelligence Committee.
HURD: Have you been able to -- when did the DNC provide access for -- to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?
COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately
shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.
HURD: Director Rogers, did the NSA ever get access to the DNC hardware?
ROGERS: The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job. ..
HURD: ... So director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaks and when -- you have still been
-- never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were -- that were hacked by the Russians.
COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get
access to the machines themselves, but this -- my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.
Again, this shocking dereliction alone is enough to justify Comey's removal -- plus a thorough investigation into exactly how
it was that DNC/CrowdStrike was able to thwart an FBI investigation -- and why Director Comey, not to mention why Barack
Obama and on down, went along with all of it .
Smells, the whole thing, the whole gang, to high heaven.
March 27, 2016: Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin whose Twitter account bases him in Omaha, tweets that former DNC Chairman Donna
Brazile, fired by CNN for leaking debate questions to Hillary, was "here."
April 5, 2017: Alana Goodman of the Daily Mail
reports
CrowdStrike has "quietly retracted" key portions from its debunked Ukrainian report "after the firm was found to have relied
on inaccurate data posted online by a pro-Putin 'propaganda' blogger."
Too bizarre --
The errors prompted both the Ukrainian military and a prominent British think tank to issue public statements disputing CrowdStrike's
data.
The Daily Mail quotes cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr, who, as the paper puts it, explained that "this is part of 'a pattern'
for [Crowdstrike], and raises concerns about its credibility."
Carr:
'They just found what they wanted to find they didn't stop for a moment to question it, they didn't contact the primary source,'
added Carr. 'This is like an elementary school-level analysis.'
Note: It is this same "elementary school-level analysis" that remains the basis of the DNC-"Russian hacking" story!
This is outrageous and alarming on multiple levels. To begin with, if a private firm claims that a foreign power has cyber-attacked
a leading political organization critical to the functioning of the US national election process, how does the US government
not become involved to investigate to ensure that any actions the US government may take in response -- sanctions, expulsions,
to take the real- world example -- to that foreign attack are based on verified findings?
It does not seem possible that the DNC has the authority to rebuff the FBI in a case of a purported foreign strike --
unless the fix is already in. I mean, imagine a private eye putting off the FBI, saying, don't worry, we've got that Rosenberg spy
ring covered, and we'll keep you fully apprised.
It's not really all that different.
There's more.
The Daily Mail:
There remain unanswered questions about the sequence of events which led to the secrets of the DNC being laid bare.
The DNC said it originally hired CrowdStrike in late April last year after discovering suspicious activity on its computer system
indicating a 'serious' hack.
That's right. See entry for June 16, 2016 above.
But according to internal emails, CrowdStrike was already working for the DNC to investigate whether Bernie Sanders campaign
staffers had gained unauthorized access to its voter database.
That five-week investigation appeared to have wrapped up on April 29, 2016. ...
"Already working for the DNC" in this timeframe of still-undisclosed anti-Bernie collusion means, in effect, already working in
support of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign against Sanders. Great source for non-partisan and official intelligence.
And check this out: voter data base, Bernie Sanders staffers. Seth Rich's job at the DNC has been reported as "voter expansion
data director." Related? Should the Seth Rich chronology go back to
alleged dirty tricks in December 2015 involving yet another data breach?
Yes, my head hurts, too. But out of this giant headache may emerge some clear truths. In the meantime, it is extremely notable
that Twitter talk of supression of the investigation into or even discussion of whetherSeth Rich was a DNCsource for Wikileaks and
murdered as a result is coming not only from the MSM, but hard Left and Democrat "data" professionals.
Take, for example, Andrew Therriault, former "Director of Data Science" for the DNC.
Zero Hedge reportsthat Therriault tweeted and deleted the following tweet calling Seth Rich "an embarassment" -- ten months after
his murder.
More recently, Therriault retweeted Rob Flaherty's tweet (below), which includes a link to a petitionagainst the advertisers
of WTTG, which re-introduced the Seth Rich story this past week.
Flaherty, too, is a Democratic operative, data pro, Hillary Clinton supporter, and works for the lavishly
Soros-funded PAC, Priorities USA.
The petition, by the way, written by another hard left activist, Karl Frisch of
Allied Progress,
announces a boycott of WTTG advertisers unless they pull their WTTG advertising until the news station retracts their developing
Seth Rich story.
Think there are some high stakes hiding in the tall Swamp grass? Just keep saying "Russian hacking," "Russian hacking." Everything
will be just fine.
"... Occam's razor's obvious: Seth and Assange, both had opportunity+motive+means. ..."
"... Seth, his family, the MSM, the politically appointed police and others were true believers, who love their god, the Demorat
party, too dearly to accept the truth. ..."
"... There is a trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons. Kim Dotcom had the motive+opportunity+means to enable Seth+Assange. ..."
"... Was it a DNC leak or a Russian hack? Government and media say it was a hack, based on a report supplied by computer-tech company
Crowdstrike, which has close connections to the Atlantic Council - an anti-Russian think tank. Already we have a bias in the reporting,
and the FBI has opted to accept this finding without ever securing the evidence and analyzing the DNC data base itself. Pretty big decision
there... dropping the ball a little? ..."
"... A hack is traceable and the FBI should be able to firm that up, whereas a flash drive could be untraceable. The FBI investigation
was being dragged out and going nowhere - Comey deserved to be fired for that alone. ..."
"... If this is true, James Comey has already lied to Congress in saying that Trump wasn't "wiretapped." In this regard, he is no
different than James Clapper and Brennan, who also denied spying to Congress, until Edward Snowden came out. ..."
Last week, Fox 5 DC's report incited a storm of controversy after formerD.C.
police homicide detectiveRod Wheeler stated that there was tangible evidence on murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer
Seth Rich's laptop suggesting that he was communicating with Wikileaks prior to his death. The story generated a large amount of
outrage, with outlets like the Washington Post and
Vice labelling it a "conspiracy theory" and claiming that it had no basis in
fact. But details regarding the political affiliation of spokespeople and representatives of the Rich family appear to indicate that
the DNC may beprioritizing its own interests, minimizing alleged political elements to the tragedy.
I. Legal Representatives And Spokespeople For Rich Family Have Ties To DNC, Crime Connected Unions
Since Fox 5 DC's report, a number of individuals speaking on behalf of the Rich family have blasted Fox News and Rod Wheeler for
speaking out on the case. Rich family spokesman Brad Baumaninsisted thatanyone who continued to push the story either had a "transparent
political agenda," or were a sociopath. But an August 2016 tweet from Wikileaks
revealed that Bauman is a crisis public relations consultant working with the
Pastorum Group . A media
release from the Pastorum Group reveals that Bauman previously worked for the DNC and theService Employees International Union
(SEIU).
The SEIU has previously been reported by the Wall Street Journal as a "top
spender" for the Democrats, openly endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016and
actively assisted in her campaign. It has been
widely criticized by some groups for the involvement of union members in crimes
including embezzlement, criminal conspiracy, perjury and identity theft.The SEIU is also a client of the
Strategic Consulting Group , which was founded by the Democratic operative
Robert Creamer . In 2016, Creamer was implicated in footage obtained by journalist
James O'Keefe whichrevealed that Creamer was engaging in voting fraud and violentdisruption
of politicalevents, sometimes using his connections to unions who were as clients of his.
Bauman's past professional ties to the DNC and the SEIU raise questions about the vehemence with which he has attacked journalists
reporting on the circumstances of Seth Rich's murder.
On May 19th, Rod Wheeler was sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of
the Rich family byJoseph Ingrisano of the law firm Kutak
Rock LLP . Kutak Rock has a long history of incredibly close affiliation with DNC politicians.The law firm donated$21,850 and$13,400
to President Barack Obama during his 2008 and
2012 campaigns, respectively. Kutak also gave$11,800 to
Hillary Clinton during her2016 presidential bid.
Kutak also has ties to the Rose Law Firm, which was at the center of the infamous
Whitewater Controversy during the 1990's.
Hillary Clinton as well as White House staffer Vince Foster both practiced
law at Rose, though Clinton has sought to distance herself from the firm given the allegations of scandal that surrounded it. On
April 13th,1998, Arkansas Business reported that a number of attorneys from
Rose left the firm for Kutak Rock. Kutak Rock continues to maintain offices
in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Pro-Democrat interests have also taken to Change.org to attack companies
advertising with Fox 5 DC. The boycott campaign is organized by Karl Frisch
, a former senior fellow at propaganda groupMedia Matters for America who spent his time at the organization helping develop "long-term
strategy to target Fox News as a political actor."
II. Rich Family's Statements To The Public Are Inconsistent With Those Of Their Representatives
Despite the instance of representatives to the contrary, the Rich family have released multiple statements expressing gratitude
to individuals privately attempting to help answer questions surrounding Rich's murder and indicating fatigue at efforts from both
sides to politicize the tragedy. On April 24th, Seth Rich's parents released a video
thanking those who had "stepped forward" to help identify their son's killers and donated to the family's GoFundMe. A May 18th
update to the GoFundMe page by Seth Rich's brother Aaron exhibited a general
annoyance at third parties who were using the family for political motives. He asked for help that would allow the family to solve
Rich's murder without having to "rely on aid offered with strings."
Message from Seth Rich's brother criticizing "third parties" for politicizing Rich's murder
The Rich family themselves appears divided on who was responsible for Seth Rich's murder. Rich's cousin,
Jonathan Rich , told Sean Hannity on Twitter that he suspected Rich might have
been in touch with Wikileaks. The topic clearly continues to remain controversial for the family.
III. The Investigation Into Rich's Murder Has Been Marked By Incompetence
Facts about the investigation into Rich's murder continue to raise concerns about the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's
efforts to identify Seth Rich's killers. The public incident report filed after
Rich's death shows that several officers who responded to the scene of the crime were wearing body cameras. But the Metropolitan
Police claimed the footage was "lost" when met with requests to release the videos, which might have provided important clues. A
May 21st, 2017 report by World Net Daily has also established that police failed
to speak with staff at Lou's City Bar (where Rich was last seen alive) to enquire about whether they had any pertinent evidence.
Even stranger, police chief Cathy Lanier resigned just a month after Rich's
death. Her replacement, Peter Newsham , has been plagued by past allegations
of alcoholism and domestic violence. Newsham was also accused of severely mishandling a rape case after the family of an 11 year
old girl alleged that he allowed the victim to becharged with filing a false report despite several medical accounts detailing her
sexual injuries and genetic evidence indicating that she had been abused by multiple assailants.
It is also not clear why police would seize Rich's laptop for an investigation into what was supposed to be a robbery gone bad.
The Washington Post claimed that neither the FBI nor the police were in possession
of Rich's laptop. But this claim contradicts a report by the Washington Examiner
which cited a former law enforcement official who stated that the laptop was examined during the investigation.
Whether the truth about who killed Seth Rich will emerge or not remains to be seen. In the aftermath of Fox 5 DC's claims, Megaupload
founder Kim Dotcom claimed he would provide proof thatSeth Rich was the source
of Wikileaks DNC email release on May 23rd. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
has additionally hinted that while Wikileaks never discloses their own sources, other parties may hold important information
concerning Seth Rich's potential communications with the publisher.
Should information emerge showing that Seth Rich did in fact act as a source for Wikileaks, the intense denials from national
media outlets and the intimate involvement of figures tied to the DNC in the case will undoubtedly fuel renewed allegations of a
politically motivated cover up.
DNC and dem elites have modern history of buying off families, starting with Mary Jo. Kopechne's. Hannity has vowed to keep
this story on the front burner. Hannity should stay out of Ft. Marcy Park and hire a food taster.
To all non believers, I suppose you think that there are very corrupt gov's and leaders in other countries but this cannot
be happening here in murica....
Go back to sitcoms, comic books and the Kardashian's at least you woun't get on the way.
I wonder if anyone (DNC or affiliate) has made payments to the family? I know a few million bucks won't bring their son back,
but it might be enough to keep the family from seeking prosecution in any serious way.
Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman insisted that anyone who continued to push the story either had a "transparent political
agenda," or were a sociopath.
Isn't Brad including himself in his statement! Isn't he a DNC Crisis manager! Wouldn't they ( DNC) consider this a crisis!
He sustained a "small injury" to his liver and "several small bowel injuries" - none of which was fatal.
He was taken to the operating room, where his injuries were treated.
He was then moved to ICU (Intensive Care Unit) where he received blood transfusion. He was stable, his blood pressure normal.
8 hours after Rich arrived at the hospital, the place "swarmed" with law enforcement officers. Everyone, except the attending
physician and a few nurses, was kicked out of the ICU. There were no visiting hours, which is abnormal for ICU.
That morning, Anonymous and the other doctors were instructed not to make rounds (visits) on "the VIP that came in last night"
(Seth Rich).
When Rich died, no one other than the attending physician was allowed to see him. There was no code alert or call for a cardiopulmonary
resuscitation team . Although Anonymous was with a patient in the next room, he/she was blocked from attending to Rich.
At the time, Anonymous couldn't understand why the patient Rich was treated that way and thought the whole thing to be "fishy".
Later, when he found out that the patient was Seth Rich, Anonymous "was terrified".
Here's a screenshot of Anonymous' post (click to enlarge):
4chan deletes its contents at the end of each day, but the thread on which Anonymous had posted was briefly
archived
, which enabled me to copy what Anonymous wrote (see below) before the archived thread was removed.
Below are Anonymous' post and his responses to 4chan readers' queries:
4th year surgery resident here who rotated at WHC (Washington Hospital Center) last year, it won't be hard to identify me but
I feel that I shouldn't stay silent.
Seth Rich was shot twice , with 3 total gunshot wounds (entry and exit, and entry). He was taken to the OR emergently [sic]
where we performed an exlap and found a small injury to segment 3 of the liver which was packed and several small bowel injuries
(pretty common for gunshots to the back exiting the abdomen) which we resected ~12cm of bowel and left him in discontinuity (didn't
hook everything back up) with the intent of performing a washout in the morning. He did not have any major vascular injuries otherwise.
I've seen dozens of worse cases than this which survived and nothing about his injuries suggested to me that he'd sustained a
fatal wound.
Note: "OR" means operating room; "exlap" refers to
exploratory laparotomy -> is a surgical operation
where the abdomen is opened and the abdominal organs examined for injury or disease. It is the standard of care in various blunt
and penetrating trauma situations in which there may be multiple life-threatening injuries; "resected" means cut off or remove.
In the meantime he was transferred to the ICU and transfused 2 units of blood when his post-surgery crit came back ~20. He
was stable and not on any pressors , and it seemed pretty routine. About 8 hours after he arrived we were swarmed by LEOs and
pretty much everyone except the attending and a few nurses was kicked out of the ICU ( disallowing visiting hours -normally every
odd hour, eg 1am, 3am, etc- is not something we do routinely ). It was weird as hell. At turnover that morning we were instructed
not to round on the VIP that came in last night (that's exactly what the attending said, and no one except for me and another
resident had any idea who he was talking about).
Note: "post-surgery crit" is post-surgery critical care, referring to the patient's hematocrit level, i.e., the percentage
of red blood cells circulating in the blood; "
pressor " means "tending to increase blood
pressure"; "LEOs" is law enforcement officers; "not to round" means not to make bedside visits.
No one here was allowed to see Seth except for my attending when he died. No code was called. I rounded on patients literally
next door but was physically blocked from checking in on him. I've never seen anything like it before , and while I can't say
100% that he was allowed to die, I don't understand why he was treated like that. Take it how you may, /pol/, I'm just one low
level doc. Something's fishy though, that's for sure .
Note: "No code was called" means no emergency alert was sounded for a cardiopulmonary resuscitation team ; "/pol/" refers to
"politically incorrect" posts on 4chan .
A commenter challenged Anonymous:
prove you are not a larper. what are the list of medications you administered throughout the entire process?
Note: "a larper" is someone who engages in larp or live action role playing, i.e., someone online pretending to be someone
else.
When he [Seth Rich] arrived to the trauma ward he had LR running, I don't keep up with how much he got but less than 2 liters
before we rolled to the OR.
Note: "LR" is Lactated Ringers (solution), a common fluid replacement for patients who have lost blood or other body fluids;
"PRBC" is packed red blood cells; "FFP" is fresh frozen plasma.
No transfusion was done in trauma; the massive transfusion protocol was started because he was hypotensive on arrival but by
the time the cooler (4u PRBC, 2u FFP) was ready we were on the way to the OR and honestly I don't remember if he got any of it
beforehand; he responded well to just IVF resuscitation so we went ahead with the surgery any just ended up giving him 2 units
afterwards (the crit we got in trauma was returned just after we left and was low, ~24 IIRC but it wasn't communicated to us teamwork
fail for sure but that can happen when we're rushing to the OR)
Note: "hypotensive" means abnormally low blood pressure.
As for the rest of the meds? You'd have to ask anesthesia I guess. He didn't need anything from us in the ICU except a propofol/fentanyl
drip to maintain sedation while intubated but that's pretty par for the course. The important part was that he was hemodynamically
stable and not requiring pressors.
I haven't spoken to the attending who was on staff that night but the other resident I was with that night doesn't remember
it in any clarity (he was called to traumas as part of his rotation but that was ancillary to his ICU -different ICU btw- duties).
Basically he said, "yeah that was weird, right?" At the time we were way more concerned with the rising class / new interns (July
1st is a terrifying time to be a patient lol) to make much notice it always stuck in my head as something super bizarre but it
was a long time before I even realized it was Seth Rich. When he arrived he was assigned by our system a trauma number, not a
name as his patient ID. I only knew him at that time as Tra### (no freaking way that I remember the actual number). When it came
to light who he was a while later I was floored. And terrified.
Nope, nothing in the head so no freaking way we'd CT before going to the OR with a clear intraabdominal GSW. No need to FAST
or anything, just stabilize and go to the OR
Note: "CT" is CAT scan; "GSW" is gunshot wound.
One could always just increase the propofol drip or give him a ton of roc and screw with the vent settings. No idea if that
happened but it'd be easy if you have the right meds and access
He had two holes in his right flank and one in the left upper quadrant. In trauma you always assume by protocol that 3 holes
= 3 bullets but it was pretty clear that he was shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet (eg, his liver injury). I've also seen
enough GSWs to know that the media doesn't get the number right every time.
Yeah, I'm not going to do that. Way too dangerous.
Alright anons it's been swell but I'll be gone for the next few hours for regular residency meeting / journal club BS. Take
everything you read especially from the MSM with a grain of salt as usual but don't stop digging.
hmmm. the WaPo and other MSM, plus the DNC guilty in obstructing justics, conspiracy and murder?
not that the other 10,000 people murdered over the last 8 months are not equally important, but this smacks of murder for profit
and political gain running into tens of billions of dollars from federal contracts via a run for presidency (busted apart thank
god).
Wonder why the FBI isn't involved? Because it's their job to cover up for the swamp. Here's a reminder of how Comey got rich
burying and ignoring scandals http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788
The FBI is as corrupt and against real Americans as the CIA Disband/dissolve both. They do nothing to make our lives better.
For most of the the US's history, we had neither.
Aren't there any decent FBI and/or DC cops around any longer? I guess not. Anyone of those agents with verifiable intel on
this case could blow it wide open by appearing on Hannity and exposing the truth. Come on guys, grow a pair!
In this vid it is described how the new cia members take an oath to the cia and how they and their family will be destroyed
if they brake it. John Kiriakou, CIA whistle blower part
1
They are trying. An FBI source confirmed what the DC Private Investigator claimed. Basically, this FBI agent claimed he saw
Seth Rich's laptop and the emails from the DNC that were sent to Wikileaks. Considering what happened to Seth Rich though, I am
not surprised that this FBI source is staying anonymous.
Occam's razor's obvious: Seth and Assange, both had opportunity+motive+means.
Seth, his family, the MSM, the politically appointed police and others were true believers, who love their god, the Demorat
party, too dearly to accept the truth.
There is a trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons. Kim Dotcom had the motive+opportunity+means to enable Seth+Assange.
Comey, at best Inspector Clouseau, is a corrupt political hack with a long history of covering for the Clintons beginning with
New Square's 4 rabbis and the Marc Rich pardon. Clinton/DNC apparatchiks arranged Seth's murder.
Seems to me, as an independent observer of the political morass this great USA has devolved into, that Seth was obviously dispatched
by the same 'team' that took care of Vince Foster, Ron Brown and several others.
What truly is astounding appears to be the fact that those 'behind the scene' of this obvious Democrat's problem solving methodology
appear to be the most vocal purveryors of the anti-Putin agenda claiming that he is Evil because he murders his political opponents!
Diabolical, is it not?
Saul Alinsky Diabolical. Projection has been Hillary's, Obama's and the DNC's play plan all along. The Alt right Media has
put a kink in their play book.
Here's my take on the situation, with thanks to DuneCreature:
Was it a DNC leak or a Russian hack? Government and media say it was a hack, based on a report supplied by computer-tech
company Crowdstrike, which has close connections to the Atlantic Council - an anti-Russian think tank. Already we have a bias
in the reporting, and the FBI has opted to accept this finding without ever securing the evidence and analyzing the DNC data base
itself. Pretty big decision there... dropping the ball a little?
A hack is traceable and the FBI should be able to firm that up, whereas a flash drive could be untraceable. The FBI investigation
was being dragged out and going nowhere - Comey deserved to be fired for that alone.
Mike Whitney is an independent journalist who frequently writes for a left-wing website (Counterpunch) and has no love for
Donald Trump. However, I think he describes the present situation pretty well. A lot of the discussion here is just a red-herring.
Neither the media, nor government agencies, are digging into the real facts. (Mike Whitney's Bottom Line " The government has
a reliable witness (Craig Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far,they've showed
no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?")
There's roughly $250,000 in reward monies now for further information on what happened in the murder of Seth Rich (the reported
DNC leaker). He apparently wasn't robbed, and the running narrative is that the DC police have not investigated further on orders
from above (the mayor, who apparently is on good terms with Hillary, I believe). Lots of stories are surfacing, one says that
Seth was not seriously injured, but the DC police "outside staff" took over his care and reported him dead in the morning. Reportedly,
one of the higher-ranked police officers had ties to the DNC through his wife. Another big question is where is Seth's computer
(supposedly seized by the DC police, although that is not normal for a reported robbery). While it is still early to tell what
happened to Seth Rich, it doesn't smell good. Also see Kim Dotcom ref below.
In the bigger picture, Freedom Watch was apparently the organization that brought the Obama administration's surveillance of
the Trump administration personnel to Trump's attention. Freedom Watch negotiated an immunity agreement for Dennis Montgomery,
a CIA contract agent with much higher seniority than Edward Snowden, with the US government. Freedom Watch is a highly respected
operation and there's lots of information from this whistleblower if it ever surfaces.
Freedom Watch's whistle-blower info had been "blown-off" by most government agencies until House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Devin Nunes got a hold of it and reported it to Trump. Reportedly, the information shows that the Obama administration was spying
on 156 judges, including the Supreme Court, and congress, etc -Trump and many others. This information has apparently been in
the hands of James Comey for several years.
If this is true, James Comey has already lied to Congress in saying that Trump wasn't "wiretapped." In this regard, he
is no different than James Clapper and Brennan, who also denied spying to Congress, until Edward Snowden came out.
The whole Trump impeachment movement is based on zero evidence and is a cold coup to nullify the last election. It's just like
something you'd see in the banana republic CIA is trying over throw. The Deep State hate him because: 1) if he wants to do deals
with Russia instead of waging war and destroying the Russian Federation; 2) he's against a lot of the trade deals and already
undone the TPP; and 3) Trump is undermining the whole climate change /Paris Accords narrative.
Aside from that Trump is showering the Predator Class with unprecedented filthy lucre.
So Here's where I come down (as stated by Mike Whitney)
"Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?"
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't
mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smoke screen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole
flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government
in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they
have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) And what's more surprising,
is that the Democrats have aligned themselves with these deep state puppet masters. They've cast their lot with the sinister stewards
of the national security state and hopped on the impeachment bandwagon. But is that a wise choice for the Dems?
Author Michael J. Glennon doesn't think so. Here's what he says in the May edition of Harper's Magazine:
"Those who would counter the illiberalism of Trump with the illiberalism of unfettered bureaucrats would do well to contemplate
the precedent their victory would set. "
Montgomery's info has been out for a while and had been sent to some members of CONgress and possibly the AG. Its buried so
deep, it would be recovered in china about now. NOTHING will ever reach the sheeple from the MSM on this.
Yes, I know it's confusing for everyone. ... Me too.
That is the way the Intelligence Community wants it because they can run any number of 'cover-ups', rescue operations (bail
out valuable assets, hide fucked up illegal behavior, damage enemies, plant and or destroy evidence, etc.) during a good raging
shit storm of bogus intel and accusations.
That's why the CIA wants to own/control all the media.
We are all paddling up stream. ... Only a scant few will have the time, energy and moxy to sift though all the bullshit and
the IC is counting on it to stay in control.
Trust me, all the bad information and false narratives are making my head hurt too. ....... Nothing pisses me off anymore than
going down some rabbit hole for a day or two only to find out it really is just where some rabbit lives.
The trouble is we have to do it or we will lose to the pirates and I think George Webb is trying hard to point out the consequences
of losing that battle.
This ain't a game or made for TV movie. ........ This is going to put some people in very REAL GRAVES. ........ Assuming the
body is found.
But yep, good work, Northern Flicker. .. Thank you, for your efforts.
Just because you can't hear explosions and gunfire doesn't mean you can blow this off as not a 'war' .... It is a war. It just
hasn't gone hot yet.
Keep compiling evidence and SPREAD the info and knowledge around all you can. ....... Your kids and neighbors asses depend
on it. .. No shit!
And, hey, if we can survive this you'll have a good scrapbook to show your grand kids. .. You were in the Spy vs. Spy vs. We
The People War of 2017. .. If not, you probably won't have grand kids anyway.
Live Hard, Just Blur My Mugshot A Little For Me In Your Picture Album, ... You'll Be So Glad You Did, Die Free
Riding your viewership post coat tails, DC. I wish this was a cute, witty, glib and popular retort.
But my anger, my fears, my gut turmoil for the future is exacerbated by my growing feelings of betrayal by the DS and all it's
machinations. Our Salesman's latest travel to Flipville was the final chapter for me. Perhaps just another planned chapter in
the enemy's playbook of division pitting one whatever after another whomever.
Saudi Arabia>Israel>the pope>Brussels>G7? For the children and their children's children to find peace in this time? So is
this the true "global warming" ?? Going hot ?
Your stock on ZH is rising,DC, IMO. Good posts, good mix. Agreed:
1) real people are about to die. (clarify For the idiot posters) -> "not over there stupid, right at your own murican soil
for a change". It is right outside your door. will it be the poor and weak with nothing left from the theft or will it be some
of many criminal DS members and traitors running this 100 year shitshow? Know your enemy. 2) will the deliverers of ultimate justice
be seen in history as villains or will they be remembered as martyrs to the founding principals of individual liberty? Agreed:
there will be graves on both sides, the only truth in every conflict. 3) what will be the tipping points the self-serving untouchables
(in their minds) are systematically and randomly exterminated like rats? Dying vets? Dying and homeless boomers? The next bail
out? Trigger happy mellinials who finally "get it", like "Dude, we are screwed for the next 40 years to the debt serfdom matrix".
4) does the 97 even remember what individual liberty is-is ??
I plead guilty of the whine and bitch, piss and moan, post videos and links to vent ad.nauseum, hide on ZH et.al., hoping someone
will do something. Fuck man, I have voted for 30 years against this colonial expansion / debt serfdom, home and abroad. A 100%
personal failure rate.
"Vocal" puking throughout man's history accomplishes little. I had some flicker of hope two years ago that the 99 people could
regain a voice. Now, I believe all that is left for liberty's redress is .338 = 666-1
Today is the personal re-start to finalize preparations placed on temporary hold after two years of praying that history will
NOT REPEAT. Your post was in part the tipper along with being force fed that Israel, the Vatican and Saudi were pinnacles of truth,
virtue and justice locked arm and "arms" with western powers to fight terror and bring freedoms to the world. My own final Orwellian
straw. I no longer give a shit about the news cycle even though I can easily separate the truth out of the chaff. Or CAN I ??
Voting, the truth, the American experiment ? I no longer think this matters if you just look at history and it's only clear message
left for us to individually re-discover. It IS time to finish my half completed plans for for the day that will come..... Flipville
becomes Tipville and 3% mobilize, collectively or individually again.
Damn it all. It always comes down to who will survive or perish. I thought for this little instant in time we had learned "civilization"
and the big picture of "the greater good- FOR ALL".....
Marie, if it shall be cake..... make mine a delicious chocolate with two scoops of iced cream. In about fifteen years or less,
with nothing left to lose, you and your family will serve your last insult. Plan on it. For those who care to consider..... your
individual plans are yours forever.
I just wanted to share and visit, thanks for listening.
Good night, and good luck.
"We now return you to our Regular Programming". (never has that common phrase been so deadly and true)
Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between
the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has
become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
"... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks
informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
"... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
"... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the
Washington Post reported . ..."
Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC
staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017
A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - -
special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - -
Russia
should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become
the focus of
conspiracy theorists .
In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - -
proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump
confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails
to WikiLeaks.
Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington.
In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - -
insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the
area, according
to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.
"This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety,
told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that
doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."
On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.
In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with "
high confidence " in a public
report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks,
which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary
Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.
This week, the Russian embassy in the UK
shared the conspiracy on Twitter,
CNN reported
, calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers
to take notice".
The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract
its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family
said
in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the
world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".
On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently
assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks
something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.
"Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians,
it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.
"He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."
Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact
with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that
he did not have any evidence himself.
"Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told
CNN.
The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case,
the
Washington Post reported .
"... Of course, if it's true that WikiLeaks' emails came from a DNC insider it would end the "Russian hacking" narrative that has been perpetuated by Democrats and the mainstream media for the past several months. Moreover, it would corroborate the one confirmation that Julian Assange has offered regarding his source, namely that it was "not a state actor." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the plot thickened a little more over the weekend when Kim Dotcom confirmed via Twitter that he was working with Seth Rich to get leaked emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C. Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone. ..."
"... This raises several questions. First, if Kim Dotcom knew that Seth Rich was, in fact, the WikiLeaks source, why is he just now coming forward with such information ? Second, while Seth Rich may explain the DNC leaks we still don't know who is responsible for the "Podesta Files" which we're certain will continue to be attributed to "Russian hackers." ..."
"... Which leads to the most important queistion of all: is this all just another fake news diversion, or is there more to the Seth Rich murder? ..."
Last week,
Fox News dropped a bombshell report officially confirming, via anonymous FBI sources, what many
had suspected for quite some time, that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was the WikiLeaks source for
leaks which proved that the DNC was intentionally undermining the campaign of Bernie Sanders. In
addition to exposing the corruption of the DNC, the leaks cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job as
Chairwoman.
Of course, if it's true that WikiLeaks' emails came from a DNC insider it would end the "Russian
hacking" narrative that has been perpetuated by Democrats and the mainstream media for the past several
months. Moreover, it would corroborate the one confirmation that Julian Assange has offered regarding
his source, namely that it was "not a state actor."
Meanwhile, the plot thickened a little more over the weekend when Kim Dotcom confirmed via
Twitter that he was working with Seth Rich to get leaked emails to WikiLeaks.
Which was followed up by the following posts on 4Chan's /pol/ subgroup that high-ranking current
and former Democratic Party officials are terrified of the Seth Rich murder investigation.
"Anons, I work in D.C.
I know for certain that the Seth Rich case has scared the shit out of certain high ranking current
and former Democratic Party officials.
It appears that certain DNC thugs were not thorough enough when it came time to cover their tracks.
Podesta saying he wanted to "make an example of the leaker" is a huge smoking gun."
The post went on to claim that a "smoking gun in this case is out of the hands of the conspirators"
which has resulted in near "open panic" in DC circles.
"The behavior is near open panic. To even mention this name in D.C. Circles [sic] will bring you
under automatic scrutiny. To even admit that you have knowledge of this story puts you in immediate
danger.
If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C.
Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone.
I have strong reason to believe that the smoking gun in this case is out o [sic] the hands of
the conspirators, and will be discovered by anon. I know for certain that Podesta is deeply concerned.
He's been receiving anonymous calls and emails from people saying they know the truth. Same with
Hillary."
And here is the original tweet:
An Anon working in DC says that he's seeing people in a panic like never before about
#SethRich .
This raises several questions. First, if Kim Dotcom knew that Seth Rich was, in fact, the
WikiLeaks source, why is he just now coming forward with such information ? Second, while Seth Rich
may explain the DNC leaks we still don't know who is responsible for the "Podesta Files" which we're
certain will continue to be attributed to "Russian hackers."
Which leads to the most important queistion of all: is this all just another fake news diversion,
or is there more to the Seth Rich murder?
Nothing will happen. They got dirt on everyone, and everyone will be black mailed, strong armed
into not talking.Just theater, enjoy but remember its all for not.
Agreed. I read it long ago. Decided to do it again and couldn't. One can only take so much
evil and deception at a time. Mankind will not change and with that thought, you can easily see
howthe book of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation tie in to what we are witnessing - Peace in the
middle east? I still have the book, and may read it again but I prefer to focus on good rather
than evil knowing full well what evil is capable of and the true war we fight.
Think about where Trump is and is going. Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Pope, NATO. Egyptian president
states Trump may be able to do the impossible. I know we have a lot of thought provoking discussions
of all things here and my suggestion is the "Fairy in the sky" types at least read those mentioned
books above and consider current events. Even if you don't believe in God, you must admit that
evil (define it as needed) exists and always has. If evil exists, why wouldn't God? And off to
the races!!!!
Not sure about that. Sessions has the contents of Comey's office and computers. Probably why
he was fired while in CA. The next few weeks will definitely be interesting.
"... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives criticize the party. ..."
"... Problem I have with the corporatist democrats is they're trading away the working class gains of the new deal in order to appease the centrist Republicans. Meanwhile the Centrist Republicans are breaking towards the fascist right wing of the party. ..."
"... Corporatism and financialization are the cornerstones of wealth consolidation and political capture on the one hand and reduced competition, wages, and innovation on the other hand. ..."
The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama blew
the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.
If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing
wrong. The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.
Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that
the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives
criticize the party.
Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class
and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats
push appeasement policies.
Problem I have with the corporatist democrats is they're trading away the working class gains
of the new deal in order to appease the centrist Republicans. Meanwhile the Centrist Republicans
are breaking towards the fascist right wing of the party.
So not only are working class people losing their gains, but those gains are being traded away
for nothing.
My problem is that and more. We should have been headed in the opposite direction these last fifty
years.
Public daycare and universal pre-K would have been a good idea in the sixties.
Now they
are so long overdue that it is pathetic.
Corporatism and financialization are the cornerstones
of wealth consolidation and political capture on the one hand and reduced competition, wages,
and innovation on the other hand.
"... Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics both she and her husband have represented. ..."
"... And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues. ..."
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton: Listening to the youth vote doesn't always
lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are
making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics
both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial
crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income
inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton
personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses
for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush
administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where
were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats
did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused
to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary gambled that Democrats would understand
that she'd outraged conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats' electoral viability
going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know
me . They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to preserve what they believe is their
claim on the middle that they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered
under Bill Clinton's presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new prisons and more
police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted, America when Bill Clinton left office
had the world's highest incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black drug inmates
that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation
that inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be "brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade? From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and
her party cohorts have consistently supported these anti-union free trade agreements, until it
became politically inexpedient. Debt? Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven
efforts to choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what they offered" -
gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done, given the political reality of the
times. But one also can become too easily convinced of certain political realities, particularly
when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do, fighting for the best deal that's there
to get for ordinary people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own definition of that, while taking tens
of millions of dollars from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question. She has been playing the inside game
for so long, she seems to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who often doesn't
know what the truth is, but instead merely reaches for what is the best answer in that moment,
not realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant attitude about the email scandal are almost
more unnerving than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just because her detractors
are politically motivated, as they always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The
Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes
me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the Espionage Act, it's only a matter
of time before you get in real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer, Democrats may
soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills
to make sure he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that matters, right? In that case, there's
plenty of evidence suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV free-coverage
machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton. This would largely be due to the passion and energy
of young voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental
progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a
part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who promise they can deliver change while
also taking the money, mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution"
that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical
road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption. Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993!
Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon.
While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign
nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting
the bombing costs.
"new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise
they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
"... Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks
and Walmart. ..."
"... According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft
proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he
recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers
and lawyers. ..."
"... Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's
performance. ..."
"... So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself
became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953. ..."
"... The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election. ..."
"... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that
the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives
criticize the party. ..."
Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.
Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.
Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has
fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think
Goldman Sacks and Walmart.
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart."
This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed
separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely
aligned with Banking and insurance.
CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement
arm for financial corporations.
According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946
to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence
Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street
investment bankers and lawyers.
Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young
agency's performance.
The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers. For nearly a year, the
committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.
According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of
the agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the
New York social register.
So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles
himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.
The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president
was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National
Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv
But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect
truth...
The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.
If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing
wrong.
The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.
Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left
that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when
progressives criticize the party.
Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class
and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats
push appeasement policies.
"... Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics both she and her husband have represented. ..."
"... And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues. ..."
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton: Listening to the youth vote doesn't always
lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are
making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics
both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial
crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income
inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton
personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses
for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush
administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where
were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats
did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused
to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary gambled that Democrats would understand
that she'd outraged conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats' electoral viability
going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know
me . They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to preserve what they believe is their
claim on the middle that they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered
under Bill Clinton's presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new prisons and more
police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted, America when Bill Clinton left office
had the world's highest incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black drug inmates
that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation
that inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be "brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade? From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and
her party cohorts have consistently supported these anti-union free trade agreements, until it
became politically inexpedient. Debt? Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven
efforts to choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what they offered" -
gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done, given the political reality of the
times. But one also can become too easily convinced of certain political realities, particularly
when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do, fighting for the best deal that's there
to get for ordinary people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own definition of that, while taking tens
of millions of dollars from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question. She has been playing the inside game
for so long, she seems to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who often doesn't
know what the truth is, but instead merely reaches for what is the best answer in that moment,
not realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant attitude about the email scandal are almost
more unnerving than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just because her detractors
are politically motivated, as they always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The
Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes
me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the Espionage Act, it's only a matter
of time before you get in real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer, Democrats may
soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills
to make sure he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that matters, right? In that case, there's
plenty of evidence suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV free-coverage
machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton. This would largely be due to the passion and energy
of young voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental
progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a
part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who promise they can deliver change while
also taking the money, mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution"
that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical
road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption. Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993!
Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon.
While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign
nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting
the bombing costs.
"new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise
they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
"... The exposure of this story takes the mask off the exponents of the Russian conspiracy theory. Their sanity is now in question,
as is their loyalty. ..."
For the past several months, Democrats have based their "Resist 45″ movement on unsubstantiated assertions that the Trump campaign
coordinated with Russian intelligence officials to undermine the 2016 Presidential Election thereby 'stealing' the White House from
Hillary Clinton. Day after day we've all suffered through one anonymously sourced, "shock" story after another from the New York
Times and/or The Washington Post with new allegations of the 'wrongdoing'.
But, new evidence surfacing in the Seth Rich murder investigation may just quash the "Russian hacking" conspiracy theory. According
to a new report from
Fox News , it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to WikiLeaks and not some random Russian cyber
terrorist, as we've all been led to believe.
According to Fox News, though admittedly via yet another anonymous FBI source, Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin
MacFadyen, an American investigative reporter and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time. According to Fox News
sources, federal law enforcement investigators found 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments sent between DNC leaders from January 2015
to May 2016 that Rich shared with WikiLeaks before he was gunned down on July 10, 2016.
The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his
home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated
within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.
"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
Then, on July 22, just 12 days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party
officials conspiring to stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the party's presidential nominee. As we've noted before, the DNC's efforts
to block Sanders resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as DNC chairperson.
Expect the Comey-Russia hysteria to escalate as the Seth Rich matter ripens. The DNC is eyeing the 2018 midterm elections and
hoping that they can keep the focus off their problems (Hillary, Podesta, ad nauseam). How will they snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory yet again? CNN and MSNBC are preparing to levitate over the issues.
@Ivy Expect the Comey-Russia hysteria to escalate as the Seth Rich matter ripens. The DNC is eyeing the 2018 midterm elections
and hoping that they can keep the focus off their problems (Hillary, Podesta, ad nauseam). How will they snatch defeat from the
jaws of victory yet again? CNN and MSNBC are preparing to levitate over the issues.
Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would astonish most
people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
Three days after the Seth Rich murder Comey had the information (IF he didn't already know) gleaned from Rich's laptop that
he had been in correspondence with Wikileaks, yet went along with the canard that the DNC was hacked by the Russians till the
very end. Assange's confirmation that Russians had no connection to the LEAK was also ignored, because they wanted Assange painted
as a criminal.
His murder is very troubling. Nothing was taken so it seems he was targeted. Assassinations taking place in the US should be
of great concern to everyone. This shouldn't be allowed to go down the memory hole. Does the trail lead to Clinton or other domestic
spook groups?
Only scanned the article quickly, but I'm very confident an untold number of political decisions in America are made by political
violence and threats of violence, blackmail, bribery, and so on. There are good people in politics, even in my preternaturally
corrupt area, but they have to be tough as nails, and that can wear you out. We may be closer to Tinpot-istan in our political
culture than Norman Rockwell, but–Chrissake–where are the mainstream media in this Seth Rich case? I'm just a casual reader of
the story, but I'd like to know if this was a political assassination.
I suspect there's as much evidence in the Seth Rich matter as there is in The-Russians-Did-It theory. So let's have congress
drop all other business and "investigate" this Rich matter.
"According to a new report from Fox News, it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to WikiLeaks and
not some random Russian cyber terrorist, as we've all been led to believe."
Does it occur to Durden that there may be SEPARATE WikiLeaks, one allegedly from Rich and one from another source?
@Corvinus "According to a new report from Fox News, it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to
WikiLeaks and not some random Russian cyber terrorist, as we've all been led to believe."
Does it occur to Durden that there may be SEPARATE WikiLeaks, one allegedly from Rich and one from another source?
@SteveRogers42 Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would
astonish most people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
@Alfa158 The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. They did offer a reward for
information on the murder of Seth Rich, which implies, but does not state, that the DNC leaks came from Rich.
The Hillary e-mails could have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur.
Then on top of all that fog, other conflicting information is that the DNC lost control of the e-mails due to Podesta falling
for a phishing probe, even after his IT people warned him not to respond to it.
Yet another journalist claims he was the guy who forwarded the e-mails to Wikileaks and got them from a DNC staffer, but not Rich!
I think I'll go take a nap for about 5 years and you can wake me up after it is all sorted out.
@SteveRogers42 Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would
astonish most people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
@anon Is there a specific combination on DNA of Negroes that carries the "pathological liar" trait?
What is that DNA pattern?
Does it appear only on NEGRO DNA or has its presence been noted on non-Negro DNA?
A majority of Black callers to C Span declare, with gospel certainty, that "Trump is a liar, has been all his life."
Does that mean that Trump carries Negro DNA?
Or that Trump is a Negro?
Or that the code for lying can be present in non-Negroes?
Or that Negroes, being "pathological liars," lie about Trump being a liar?
Is that last statement disproved if it happens that Trump does, indeed, lie?
My but it does get complicated when blanket, prejudiced generalizations are slung about.
I'm not impressed. For quite some time there has been a credible witness to the fact of an insider leaked the DNC mails that
doesn't require going through anonymous FBI sources or climbing over a Rich family in denial:
"I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's
a leak, not a hack; the two are different things" -wikileaks associate and former British foreign service officer Craig Murray
So why would 'tyler durden' toss all of this doubt inducing crap from the faux news channel into the stew of it? It's been
black & white, case closed for quite some time.
@Ronald Thomas West I'm not impressed. For quite some time there has been a credible witness to the fact of an insider leaked
the DNC mails that doesn't require going through anonymous FBI sources or climbing over a Rich family in denial:
"I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's
a leak, not a hack; the two are different things" -wikileaks associate and former British foreign service officer Craig Murray
So why would 'tyler durden' toss all of this doubt inducing crap from the faux news channel into the stew of it? It's been
black & white, case closed for quite some time.
@Corvinus One can have reasonable doubt that Craig Murray "knows" who leaked them since he has self-interest and self-preservation
in mind.
Mr. Murray made this statement--"A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals"
involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign
hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power
to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited,
or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks."
Except if the "Deep State" is playing for keeps and is hell-bent on removing Trump, then they are going to play it close to
the vest in certain matters and wait until they have the absolute goods to nail him to the cross. So it's not as "simple" as Mr.
Murray makes it out to be. Arrests and/or extraditions are most likely made when there is hard-core evidence, which is required
in this case given Trump status and popularity among his base. They have ONE bullet in their chamber and have to get the KILL
SHOT. The CIA has their attack dogs out en masses to smoke out the culprits. If it is revealed that in the two grand juries that
Trump's crew are joined at the hip with the Russians and/or engaged in shenanigans, then Republicans will have to think about
cutting their ties to Trump given the importance of the mid-term elections.
@Ronald Thomas West Clearly you're just way too smart for ordinary folk with common sense; kind of like the IQ 180 that believes
Jesus will return and straighten everything out. Meanwhile, I'll take Murray at his word.
JHC .. we do it/have been doing it (eg) meddling in foreign elections, wars, whacking the occasional candidate since the Spanish-American
War and say "its okay, it's in the national interest."
What's the point with the supposed Russia-US election bashing? Ie, it's okay and national interest legal for the US to meddle
and others not?
May 17, 2017 The Seth Rich Story Changes Once Again
Less than 24 hours after Private Investigator Rod Wheeler claimed that "investigation up to this point shows there was some
degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," the story has changed. Wheeler is now claiming that he had no additional
evidence to suggest that Seth Rich contacted WikiLeaks prior to his murder.
14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency
Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and China
- as well as attacks in the US and South America. There are reports of infections in 99 countries. A string of ransomware attacks
appears to have started in the United Kingdom, Spain and the rest of Europe, before striking Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines
on May 12. According to Kaspersky Laboratory, Russia, Ukraine, India and Taiwan were hit hardest. Mikko Hypponen, chief research
officer at the Helsinki-based cybersecurity company F-Secure, called the attack "the biggest ransomware outbreak in history".
It is not known who exactly was behind it.
@Corvinus "Clearly you're just way too smart for ordinary folk with common sense...:
I'm merely offering my analysis from multiple sources.
"kind of like the IQ 180 that believes Jesus will return and straighten everything out."
Exactly. It is faith. One can question that belief, but you nor I actually know.
"Meanwhile, I'll take Murray at his word."
In order to maintain his narrative, absolutely. But you may be missing key things along the way. We'll see how it all plays
out. The two grand juries being convened on the Trump Administration will be telling.
@Agent76 May 17, 2017 The Seth Rich Story Changes Once Again
Less than 24 hours after Private Investigator Rod Wheeler claimed that "investigation up to this point shows there was some
degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," the story has changed. Wheeler is now claiming that he had no additional
evidence to suggest that Seth Rich contacted WikiLeaks prior to his murder.
@Ram Three days after the Seth Rich murder Comey had the information (IF he didn't already know) gleaned from Rich's laptop
that he had been in correspondence with Wikileaks, yet went along with the canard that the DNC was hacked by the Russians till
the very end. Assange's confirmation that Russians had no connection to the LEAK was also ignored, because they wanted Assange
painted as a criminal.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
@Corvinus One can have reasonable doubt that Craig Murray "knows" who leaked them since he has self-interest and self-preservation
in mind.
Mr. Murray made this statement--"A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals"
involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign
hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power
to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited,
or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks."
Except if the "Deep State" is playing for keeps and is hell-bent on removing Trump, then they are going to play it close to
the vest in certain matters and wait until they have the absolute goods to nail him to the cross. So it's not as "simple" as Mr.
Murray makes it out to be. Arrests and/or extraditions are most likely made when there is hard-core evidence, which is required
in this case given Trump status and popularity among his base. They have ONE bullet in their chamber and have to get the KILL
SHOT. The CIA has their attack dogs out en masses to smoke out the culprits. If it is revealed that in the two grand juries that
Trump's crew are joined at the hip with the Russians and/or engaged in shenanigans, then Republicans will have to think about
cutting their ties to Trump given the importance of the mid-term elections.
@anon Is there a specific combination on DNA of Negroes that carries the "pathological liar" trait?
What is that DNA pattern?
Does it appear only on NEGRO DNA or has its presence been noted on non-Negro DNA?
A majority of Black callers to C Span declare, with gospel certainty, that "Trump is a liar, has been all his life."
Does that mean that Trump carries Negro DNA?
Or that Trump is a Negro?
Or that the code for lying can be present in non-Negroes?
Or that Negroes, being "pathological liars," lie about Trump being a liar?
Is that last statement disproved if it happens that Trump does, indeed, lie?
My but it does get complicated when blanket, prejudiced generalizations are slung about.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
@Alfa158 The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. They did offer a reward for
information on the murder of Seth Rich, which implies, but does not state, that the DNC leaks came from Rich.
The Hillary e-mails could have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur.
Then on top of all that fog, other conflicting information is that the DNC lost control of the e-mails due to Podesta falling
for a phishing probe, even after his IT people warned him not to respond to it.
Yet another journalist claims he was the guy who forwarded the e-mails to Wikileaks and got them from a DNC staffer, but not Rich!
I think I'll go take a nap for about 5 years and you can wake me up after it is all sorted out.
@Corvinus "The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. The Hillary e-mails could
have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur."
Exactly. So Zerohedge is being a White Knight here for Trump. It is possible that Rich could have supplied those documents,
but it is also possible that the Russians was involved. We don't know for sure.
Why doesn't Assange release at least some of the e-mails from Seth Rich to Wikileaks?
According to the standard version of the story, Rich did not email the pilfered DNC data to Wikileaks. Rather, he met in
DC with Craig Murray--a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a personal friend of Julian Assange--and gave him the information
on a flashdrive of some type. Murray then flew back to Britain and gave the drive to Assange in person.
@Don Bass ......We don't know for sure.....
Sure, we do. Wikileaks has stated emphatically and categorically the leaks - and they were leaks, not " hacks", were not sourced
from the Russians.
What also know - for sure - is that the "Russians hacked our elections" psy-op/misdirect was constructed (workshopped) by the
Podesta + David Brookes media matters "team" immediately after the HRC election failure.
@Don Bass ......We don't know for sure.....
Sure, we do. Wikileaks has stated emphatically and categorically the leaks - and they were leaks, not " hacks", were not sourced
from the Russians.
What also know - for sure - is that the "Russians hacked our elections" psy-op/misdirect was constructed (workshopped) by the
Podesta + David Brookes media matters "team" immediately after the HRC election failure.
Well, it must have been the Russians that hacked into the NY Times and published that damning article about Hil and Libya.
It was a rather complete exposé of incompetence and savagery. Note; the New York Times! And where did Trump live? Pretty conclusive;
Trump and the Russians victimizing poor Hil and the voice of liberals in one dastardly hack.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
@Dahlia There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up...
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway...
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story... Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Gavin MacFadyen seems to have had a relationship with Craig Murray, and both had/have a relationship with Julian Assange. Seth
Rich being in contact with Gavin MacFadyen greatly lends credibility to Craig Murray's account.
(Here, both are mentioned together in the book "Ghost Plane: The True Story Story of the CIA Torture Program"
https://books.google.com/books?id=NLzB7YXDHNUC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=gavin+macfadyen+craig+murray+cia&source=bl&ots=KKy1_V2atM&sig=1CYGRZjnOxmcRIGk9RNx1iQhWcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigk-7br_3TAhXo7oMKHTOrCT0Q6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=gavin%20macfadyen%20craig%20murray%20cia&f=false)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
In reference to the leak of the DNC emails, Murray noted that "Julian Assange took very close interest in the death of Seth
Rich, the Democratic staff member" who had worked for the DNC on voter databases and was shot and killed on July 10 near his
Washington, D.C., home.
Murray continued, "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the capture of his killers. So, obviously
there are suspicions there about what's happening and things are somewhat murky. I'm not saying – don't get me wrong – I'm
not saying that he was the source of the [DNC] leaks. What I'm saying is that it's probably not an unfair indication to
draw that WikiLeaks believes that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the leaks whether correctly
or incorrectly. "
It may be worth noting that conspiracy theories have sprung up around other Democratic figures, but Julian Assange hasn't brought
them up. Just took a strong interest in this one.
Final comment in this string, so readers can check out Craig Murray's site. Maybe Ron Unz can get a hold of him?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes,
very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it
is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation
for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity
successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Can't say it enough: Discount anybody who doesn't reference Julian Assange or Craig Murray (and Gavin MacFadyen if the national
Fox News stands by its sources and I believe they do) when opining on Seth Rich or the Democratic emails.
I saw that Dave Weigel is planning on writing a piece on the Seth Rich conspiracy
The #1 thing fueling it is the Media ignoring Assange and his associates emphatically stating that it was insiders, not Russia,
involved with the Democratic leaks. These people received them, and long after the election when they have no possible motive,
still vehemently deny that it was Russia. Craig Murray spoke out in December. They have perfect credibility, and at this stage,
no motive that could be suspect. But they continue to be utterly, completely, ignored while the Russia circus runs on. So, a bona
fide Bernie supporter is murdered and Julian Assange took extreme interest How do people *not* question what is going on?
My spidey sense tells me that Seth Rich was a provider of intelligence to Julian Assange, but he really does not know who killed
him. I think Assange holds out some hope that it was a random one-off thug thing, but deep down, suspects it's not. The guilt
would be tremendous. But, he doesn't know. Strongly suspects. Tortured with guilt.
@Dahlia There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up...
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway...
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story... Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Gavin MacFadyen seems to have had a relationship with Craig Murray, and both had/have a relationship with Julian Assange. Seth
Rich being in contact with Gavin MacFadyen greatly lends credibility to Craig Murray's account.
(Here, both are mentioned together in the book "Ghost Plane: The True Story Story of the CIA Torture Program"
https://books.google.com/books?id=NLzB7YXDHNUC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=gavin+macfadyen+craig+murray+cia&source=bl&ots=KKy1_V2atM&sig=1CYGRZjnOxmcRIGk9RNx1iQhWcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigk-7br_3TAhXo7oMKHTOrCT0Q6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=gavin%20macfadyen%20craig%20murray%20cia&f=false)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
@Dahlia Final comment in this string, so readers can check out Craig Murray's site. Maybe Ron Unz can get a hold of him?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes,
very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it
is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation
for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity
successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Can't say it enough: Discount anybody who doesn't reference Julian Assange or Craig Murray (and Gavin MacFadyen if the national
Fox News stands by its sources and I believe they do) when opining on Seth Rich or the Democratic emails.
@Eagle Eye Seth Rich was quite young and perhaps not 100% wise to the ways of the world.
Is it conceivable that he passed the DNC emails to Comey's FBI FIRST as evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and THEN handed another
copy to Wikileaks as backup?
Perhaps Rich went to Wikileaks only after Comeys' FBI gave him the brush-off?
But I must say something ....Every recent article pertaining to Seth Rich, including Mike's , misses the MEAT of the entire
story.
The MEAT of the story is to be found in Seth Rich's JOB.
What did he do, Dahlia ?
He was a VOTER DATA DIRECTOR for the DNC....for gosh sakes!
If the story begins anywhere, it begins HERE.
Seth Rich's story begins when we recognize the high probability that Seth came across SUBSTANTIAL and REPEATED irregularities
in the VOTER DATA, tilting the outcomes in favor of Hillary.
This is the crux of the case.
It is also fair to assume that Seth Rich , given his role as "data director" , was able to COLLECT these voter data discrepancies,
and collate them into a fool proof evidentiary format.
Its the DATA which Seth found , that is the key... ...its the MEAT of the story.
But the DATA and the repeated systemic irregularities which he became aware of, could have been glitches in the system for
all he KNEW.
This is where we get to ......the POTATOES.
What are the potatoes?.....the potatoes are the EMAILS which show an INTENTIONALITY behind the DATA irregularities......and
expose them not just as "glitches" in the system,but as potentially deliberate and "treasonous" voter fraud.
A very serious case of multiple felonies by the DNC machine, and its party bosses, could be made if you have both the MEAT
(the data)and the POTATOES(the emails) of the case.
But you need BOTH, one without the other is not enough.
Givens Seth's JOB, the high probability he had the DATA in HAND, may well be why he was shot in the back at four in the morning
on July 10th, 2016.
If anyone wishes to solve this case..(or prosecute it)..they need to find the DATA CHIP....because
while the emails may show an "intentionality" to usurp the voters say in the DNC nomination , the DATA provides the PROOF.
May there be no doubt on this,.... everyone "involved" in these "dirty shenanigans" wants that data "exterminated" for all
time, .....and the entire story SHUT DOWN.
Seth Rich , given his role as "data director" , was able to COLLECT these voter data discrepancies, and collate them into a
fool proof evidentiary format.
This explanation - that Seth Rich had direct evidence of massive vote fraud - has always seemed most likely to me. The leaks are
secondary.
Again, he most likely went to the FBI and/or the U.S. media FIRST, but was betrayed by them leading to his murder. He ALSO
passed the data to Wikileaks.
So let's estimate the NUMBER of fraudulent votes controlled by the DNC. There are several categories:
(1) Illegal aliens registered to vote through La Raza, SEIU and similar DNC fronts.
(2) Other spurious voter registrations, e.g. dead voters, double voting (different addresses), completely fictitious voter
registrations concocted by complicit SEIU staff at registrars' offices.
(3) Zombie votes - technically correct voter registration, but the vote is actually cast by the SEIU, e.g. residents of nursing
homes, mental hospitals, military votes (which often mysteriously are not delivered to the military voter),
Given the period of time during which this has been operative, and the need to make a serious nation-wide impact, it seems
reasonable to estimate that the DNC controls about 3-7 million illegal votes nationwide .
The largest number would be in California. Although California overall is a blue state, there are conservative pockets and
some conservative candidates came close to the Democratic candidate in statewide and local races.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
@JackOH I read the links. My understanding is that some cops will go rogue without instruction and on their own initiative
to jump the queue for advancement. There's not much deep-think to it. The political benefactor won't know any more than something
like "the problem was taken care of".
Seth Rich. Is there someone in the food chain who can apply pressure to find a credible suspect and, if possible, a motive?
Again, I'm just a casual reader, but the failure to get to the truth of the Seth Rich killing seems to empower a whole lot of
political mischief.
@JackOH SR42, your references are exactly what I was getting at in my comment #12 above.
I never took seriously the notion that American political decisions are made by violence and other criminal activities until
I got a very minor rough-up by a crooked cop for my smalltime local politicking. That cop later got a cushy government job under
the influence of a local Mr. Big whom I'd offended. Karma kicked in, and that cop's alcoholism and boorish behavior got him canned.
I never quit writing, but I was pretty damn scared for a while.
In all the categories of potential voter fraud you cited.
But I would imagine the vote "switching" from Bernie to Hillary, or the mysterious "disappearance" of a substantial percentage
of "Bernie votes" in key districts and perhaps certain states, too, is what caught Seth's eye.
But it could be all of it....and more too...for all we know....Without the data to look at..it's all just speculation.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
My own experience, which included a failed blackmail attempt against me, and, possibly, the failed solicitation of a bribe,
taught me something about American political process. I asked myself why in the hell are a few important local people getting
their knickers in a twist over a not very important guy who's doing no more than writing a lot and doing local radio a lot? The
only answer I came up with was they believed, falsely , I was staging a run for political office, that I was reasonably
persuasive and therefore a threat of some sort, and they wanted me pre-emptively in the bag. BTW-I did consider legal action against
some of these slobs, but effective legal process costs money I didn't have.
FWIW-I'm unhappy, too, about the hair-tearing speculation over the Seth Rich case. The only way I can think of to put much
of that speculation to rest is to find the killer and make the case against him.
I'd heard something echoing this a couple days ago, but found it so unbelievable. Then, Dave Weigel, et al., knowing for a
fact that statements from Julian Assange, Craig Murray, and the late Gavin MacFadyen are the reasons for interest in Seth Rich's
murder, completely write them out. They don't exist.
William Binney, arguably one of the best mathematicians ever to work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA officer
Ray McGovern, have argued that the emails must have come from a leak because a hack would be traceable by the NSA.
I'd forgotten this so many people including Scott Ritter of "Iraq has no WMD" fame have said similar.
But seriously, if you don't believe Assange or Murray who have firsthand knowledge, William Binney rests the case: leak not
hack.
Doesn't mean the murdered DNC operative was involved with leaks or that even if he was, that's why he was killed, but one can't
be closed-minded.
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
"... But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical." ..."
"... Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore. ..."
"... "new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons. ..."
"... Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993! Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon. While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign nations. 26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war. ..."
"... "new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting the bombing costs. "new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.' ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton
Listening to the youth vote doesn't always lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
.. the millions of young voters that are rejecting
Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned,
even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider
politics both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have
been the Iraq invasion, the financial crisis, free trade,
mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality,
debt and income inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party,
often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the
wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a
succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this
was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the
Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones
spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to
launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason
many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be
tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party
refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of
supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary
gambled that Democrats would understand that she'd outraged
conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats'
electoral viability going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a
2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know me .
They know my support for the Iraq War has always been
insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to
preserve what they believe is their claim on the middle that
they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated
itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered
in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered under Bill Clinton's
presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new
prisons and more police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted,
America when Bill Clinton left office had the world's highest
incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black
drug inmates that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped
for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation that
inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be
"brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade?
From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and her party cohorts have
consistently supported these anti-union free trade
agreements, until it became politically inexpedient. Debt?
Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth
Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven efforts to
choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of
money Hillary has taken to give speeches to Goldman Sachs and
God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what
they offered" - gets right to the heart of what young people
find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done,
given the political reality of the times. But one also can
become too easily convinced of certain political realities,
particularly when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of
dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do,
fighting for the best deal that's there to get for ordinary
people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own
definition of that, while taking tens of millions of dollars
from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question.
She has been playing the inside game for so long, she seems
to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who
often doesn't know what the truth is, but instead merely
reaches for what is the best answer in that moment, not
realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant
attitude about the email scandal are almost more unnerving
than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just
because her detractors are politically motivated, as they
always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often
were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats
like Hillary have been saying, "The Republicans are worse!"
for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses
everything. It makes me nervous to see Hillary supporters
like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but
that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the
Espionage Act, it's only a matter of time before you get in
real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer,
Democrats may soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from
Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills to make sure
he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that
matters, right? In that case, there's plenty of evidence
suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV
free-coverage machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton.
This would largely be due to the passion and energy of young
voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a
choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice
they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so
profoundly a part of the problem that she can't even see it
anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who
promise they can deliver change while also taking the money,
mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an
entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution" that bars
corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of
success, the only practical road left to break what they
perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption.
Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we
should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill
put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993! Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her
internal neocon. While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world
he would decide who should run sovereign nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US
is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B
for the pentagon each year not counting the bombing costs. "new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went
off the ranch" and broke the promise they made to the US'
spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
"... The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about. Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday]
that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence
that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was in contact with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000 reward
for information leading to the capture of his murderers. ..."
"... "An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living
in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News. "'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal
investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled
case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department." ..."
"... Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making
an example of a suspected leaker." It kind of makes you think, doesn't it? ..."
Two stories are now dominating the headlines: one is something the Establishment wants you to pay attention to, and the other
is something they want to bury. First off, to the former:
The Washington Beltway is in an uproar over the latest Deep State attempt to tar the President of the United States as a Russian
agent: they're
claiming Trump gave super-duper Top Secret information –provided, it turns out,
by the Israelis – to the Russians during a meeting with the Kremlin's Foreign Minister and their ambassador at the White House.
There are two problems with this story: if the anonymous former and currently serving "intelligence officials" cited by the
Washington Post were really concerned about the damage done to our "sources and methods," they would never have leaked this story
in the first place. Secondly, everyone in the room at the time, including National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, denies it.
Far from proving Trump is either the Manchurian candidate and/or is playing fast and loose with our national security, it merely
shows – once again – that the "intelligence community" is out to depose him by any means necessary. Add to this Israel's amen corner,
which is now screeching that Trump "betrayed" Israel.
The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about.
Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday] that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by
a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was
in contact with WikiLeaks.
Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000
reward for information leading to the capture of his murderers.
Fox News is reporting that Rich's computer
shows "44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between DNC leaders" passed between Rich and WikiLeaks. They cite not only
Rod Wheeler , a former Washington DC homicide
detective hired by the Rich family to solve the case, but also a "federal investigator" who corroborates Wheeler's claims:
"An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was
living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.
"'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked
email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker." It kind
of makes you think, doesn't it?
I've said from the beginning that 1) There is no convincing evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, or fooled John Podesta
into giving out his email account password, and 2) It was most likely an inside job. While it may be an overstatement to say that
this latest story confirms it, it certainly calls the Russian conspiracy theory into serious question.
Yet both the House and the Senate have launched investigations designed to prove "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin – to say nothing of the FBI probe. Will the same attention be paid to the Rich-MacFayden correspondence?
Of course not.
The Rich family is denying that there's any evidence their son was in contact with WikiLeaks: but their official spokesman – yes,
they have one – is one Brad Bauman , a self-described
" crisis consultant " for the Democrats. Which
is very appropriate, since these new revelations do indeed constitute a crisis for the Democrats, who have based their entire post-election
strategy on a
flimsy
conspiracy theory that has been
debunked
by cyber-security experts (the ones who
aren't in the pay of the
DNC, that is)..
Wheeler says that a local police officer in Washington "looked me straight in the eye" and told him they had been ordered to "stand
down" on Rich's case. As for the "mainstream" media, they don't have to be told to stand down – they're doing it instinctively.
But no worries! Antiwar.com was founded to blast through the "mainstream" media wall of silence. That's our job, and we've
been doing it for over 20 years. But we can't continue to do it without your help. This Russia conspiracy theory is just plain bonkers,
and is clearly the creation of political opportunists and Deep State spooks who have a vested interest in pushing it.
Well, we have a vested interest in the truth. And so do you. That's why supporting Antiwar.com should be near the top of your
agenda right now: because a site like this has never been more necessary.
But it doesn't come free! We depend on you, our readers, to donate the funds we need to continue. So don't let the "mainstream"
media pull the wool over America's eyes – make your tax-deductible donation
today.
Postscript: By the way, the Fox News story on the Seth Rich-Wikileaks connection, by reporter Malia Zimmerman, went through
several interesting iterations since its original publication. See
here .
"... When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force". ..."
"... That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs. ..."
"... ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." ..."
"... That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat. ..."
"... There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous. ..."
Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that
we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.
And unless some kind of New Deal Capitalism is restored there is no alternative to the neoliberalism
on the horizon.
But the question is: Can the New Deal Capitalism with its "worker aristocracy" strata and the
role of organized labor as a weak but still countervailing force to corporate power be restored
? I think not.
With the level of financialization achieved, the water is under the bridge. The financial toothpaste
can't be squeezed back into the tube. That's what makes the current crisis more acute: none of
the parties has any viable solution to the crisis, not the will to attempt to implement some radical
changes.
When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties,
it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust
of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as
an "occupying force".
That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call
it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and
common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual".
Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections.
At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some
even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate
who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination.
The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar,
ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become
so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.
... ... ...
The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over
the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated
purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many
elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise
in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag
is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.
... ... ...
Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively
after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting
decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied
by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and
corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings
accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer
, was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests
in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial
transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating,
and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises,
and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of
the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and
fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.
...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid
of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before
the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk
about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday
Night Massacre."
That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even
minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.
... ... ...
There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly
problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself.
But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the
Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.
IMHO Trump betrayal of his voters under the pressure from DemoRats ("the dominant neoliberal
wing of Democratic Party", aka "Clinton's wing") makes the situation even worse. a real Gordian
knot. Or, in chess terminology, a Zugzwang.
He raised income taxes for the top 1.5% and dramatically lowered capital gain tax. As rich get
bulk of their income from capital gains and bonds he lowered taxes for rich. Is this so difficult
to understand ?
As for "Russian troll" label, that only demonstrates your level brainwashing and detachment
from reality. Clinical case of a politically correct neocon. People like you, as well as "Washington
swamp", underestimate how angry people outside, let's say, top 20% are -- angry enough to elect
Trump.
This boiling anger is now an important factor in the USA politics. That's why the US neocons
feels do insecure and resort to dirty tricks to depose Trump. They want the full, 100% political
power back.
Even the fact that Trump conceded the most important of his election promises is not enough
for them. Carthago delenda est -- Trump must go -- is the mentality. But if it comes to the impeachment,
"demorats" (aka neoliberal democrats) might see really interesting things, when it happens. It
might well be that this time neocons/neolibs might really feel people wrath. I might be wrong
as psychopaths are unable to experience emotions, only to fake them.
ZJ: So let's move to foreign policy. You were one of the few Democrats on the Hill who sort of
opposed the strikes on Syria, against the Syrian government by President Trump. You opposed them
on the substance, not just on the process arguments. But of course we know these conflicts, they
didn't start under President Trump, they are largely continuations of what happened under President
Obama. Do you feel for instance that Obama's drone program in Pakistan or the support, for instance,
the Saudi war in Yemen have also helped terrorists recruit and have also harmed U.S. interests?
RK: I'm opposed to the policy in Yemen where we're providing arms to Saudi Arabia, which is actually
aligned with Al Qaeda in a proxy war against Iran with the Houthis. Seventeenmillion Yemenis are
facing famines and many of the Yemenis equate the Saudi bombs with U.S. bombs. It's not helping create
more peace. It's creating more generations of hate. And the Saudis are aligned with Al Qaeda which
has taken responsibility for the underwear bomber and for attacks on synagogues in Chicago. So our
policy there is muddled and isn't actually helping contain terrorism. I think that I've articulated
a foreign policy that says the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Libya was a mistake, the escalation
in Afghanistan was a mistake, that we really need to have more restrain in our foreign policy, not
do more harm and recognize John Quincy Adams. We shouldn't
go out to slay monsters
. We should give people who are seeking freedom our prayers, our voice, but we don't want tobe
engaged in interventions around the world which has actually led to the spread of terrorism and isn't
making us safer.
ZJ: With respect to what the Justice Democrats are talking about with building a new economy,
I'm curious, you've talked a lot about antitrust policy and competition policy. Some people would
say that would rub up against powerful industries. One of those in your own backyard is Silicon Valley.
Should we be applying this antitrust policy to an industry some people are now calling the
new Wall Street
?
RK: We should be applying the antitrust policy. I don't think Silicon Valley is Wall Street. But
I do think that there needs to be antitrust enforcement, especially on the Internet Service Providers.
Four Internet Service Providers - AT&T, Charter, Time Warner, Comcast - that are basically dividing
up the map is one of the reasons that consumers are paying more for internet access. And I think
there ought to be an antitrust division with the FCC and they ought to enforce the law regardless
of industry. Whether that's airlines, or technology, or banking I don't think anyone is exempt from
antitrust enforcement.
ZJ: How would you rate the past few presidents on antitrust policy and which president do you
think should be the model when it comes to antitrust enforcement?
RK: I think Harry Truman was very strong on antitrust, the Truman Commission looked after some
of the monopolistic behavior, before Truman became president, of monopolistic practices applying
to the Defense Department. Of course Theodore Roosevelt. I think antitrust enforcement needs to
be significantly strengthened.
Matt Stoller has
done excellent work on it, and it's an area of a concentration of economic wealth that has not been
addressed sufficiently inthe past few administrations.
ZJ: Speaking about howthe Justice Democratsseeks to transform the Democratic Party, we saw sort
of a debate when there was the DNC chair race about the role of big donors in the Democrats. Do you
believe, for instance, that the DNC should accept contributions from lobbyists? That was something
that was a rule under Barack Obama - that it would not accept them but that rule was lifted under
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
RK: I disagreed with the lifting of the rule. I believe that the DNC should not be accepting corporate
PAC money or lobbyist money. And I spoke out very strongly when the rule was lifted saying that was
a mistake.
ZJ: Another resolution that was debated at the DNC - and actually a
similar resolution was debated at the RNC, and both of them failed - was basically to say that
if you're a corporate lobbyist, you should not be allowed to be a voting member of the DNC. Do you
think that's an appropriate rule?
RK: I think that's a fair rule that we shouldn't be having corporate lobbyists as part ofDNC voting
members.
"It Is What It Isn't: Fake News Comes of Age as Ideology Trumps Evidence"
Love it!
"All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying, with
photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian
battalions even though he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof
would have made his name a household word. Well, he is a household word,
although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean."
*Rimshot*
" the author persists with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the
American presidential election to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning So
what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the
release of damaging information about her which was true and accurate. "
What won the election for Trump was the Democratic Treatment of the poor
white class, whose votes the Democrats took for granted. Clinton consultant,
James Carville, admitted that people vote based on the economy when Bill
Clinton won. But when Hillary lost, for Carville it suddenly became about
Russia, Russia, Russia, akin to Jan yelling Marcia, Marcia, Marcia on the
Brady Bunch. How does an analyst sink to the level of a school girl?
Because the Democrats ignored nearly all of the warning sings, struggled
internally, and needed someone to blame. Russia is an easy target for blame
in US politics. Accepting responsibility for the defeat would have meant a
purge of the Democratic elite from their party's leadership. When Scott
Walker won Wisconsin, the Democrats ignored it. Look at the map of Wisconsin
in Walker's Gubernatorial Victory in 2014, and compare that with Trump's
Presidential Victory in 2016. They're almost identical. The poorer whites
became, the more they voted for Trump.
The DNC has been ignoring the Rust Belt for decades. That's how Clintons
missed Obama's meteoric rise. And in this election, the poor whites have had
enough of voting for a party that mocks them, and fucks them economically.
They simply needed a leader that could get revenge for them on the DNC.
Enter Trump. Did he bullshit? Most certainly, but they did not care. The DNC
was focused on getting Virginia, Nevada, making inroads into a few other
states; holding their base was simply too plebeian.
And it was this shift that happened, rather than the leaks, rather than
Russia, rather than Comey, rather than anything else, that cost the
Democrats the Presidency. This simple shift of a voting block. That's why it
wasn't just Pennsylvania; it was Wisconsin and Michigan:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"The theme expresses itself in several ways - primitive vs. advanced,
tough vs. delicate, masculine vs. feminine, poor vs. rich, pure vs.
decadent, traditional vs. weird. All of it is code for rural vs. urban."
What held the rust belt states was cities like Chicago, and poor whites
turning out. That didn't happen in this election, because"
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their
cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey,
remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big
hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and
avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV
shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled
rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion
in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about
a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New
Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering
people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites.
"Are you assholes listening now?"
On Cultural Integration:
"the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family
member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in
town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when
they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you
ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant
you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I
think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they
acted exactly like us."
An Issue with Priorities:
"Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead
children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena
Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, "But those
white Christians are the real problem!" Terror victims scream in the street
next to their own severed limbs, and the response from the elites is to cry
about how men should be allowed to use women's restrooms and how it's cruel
to keep chickens in cages The foundation upon which America was undeniably
built - family, faith, and hard work - had been deemed unfashionable and
small-minded. Those snooty elites up in their ivory tower laughed as they
kicked away that foundation, and then wrote 10,000-word thinkpieces blaming
the builders for the ensuing collapse."
Most importantly, on the economy:
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step
outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking
doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went
to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly
collapsed. See, rural jobs used to be based around one big local business -
a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town dies. Where I grew up,
it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the
hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been. The roof of our high
school leaked when it rained. Cities can make up for the loss of
manufacturing jobs with service jobs - small towns cannot. That model
doesn't work below a certain population density."
On hopelessness:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor,
or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town,
there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and
churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means
waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all
of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The
"downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in
Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of
these towns that look post-apocalyptic. I'm telling you, the hopelessness
eats you alive.
And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and
type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has
replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as
a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities
is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate
of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians
act like they care about the inner cities."
This frustration was built up over decades. Not overnight. Not because of
an October Surprise. Not because of leaked emails, and certainly, not
because of Russia. And unless the DNC is able to grasp the basics, or the
RNC fucks up the economy, Republicans will keep on winning the presidency.
It's just that simple.
Take a look at the early footage on election night. The Democrats thought
they were going to win, even after the email release. Even after the
scandals, they thought they had the election in the bag. And that's because
you don't miss an entire electoral class overnight either. On a final note,
there's no such thing as White Privilege; it's a lie made up to take away
our Rights, just like certain cities took away the Rights of minorities. The
Rights against search and seizure is a Right, not a Privilege.
Thanks for the link to the David Wong article. I'd read it before
(possibly linked to at John Michael Greer's Archdruid Report blog) but
thoroughly enjoyed reading it again.
As we might expect from the speech's location on Roosevelt Island, Clinton explicitly claims FDR's
mantle. From the introductory portion of her remarks:
[CLINTON: It is wonderful[1]]To be here in this beautiful park dedicated to Franklin Roosevelt's[2]
enduring vision of America, the nation we want to be.
Moreover, she not only claims FDR's mantle, she claims Roosevelt's Four Freedoms (history;
text):
You know, President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms are a testament to our nation's unmatched aspirations
and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad. His legacy lifted up a nation and inspired
presidents who followed.
And quoting directly from FDR's Four Freedom's speech:
CLINTON: President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and every American
answered. He said there's no mystery about what it takes to build a strong and prosperous America:
"Equality of opportunity Jobs for those who can work Security for those who need it The ending
of special privilege for the few (cheers, applause.) The preservation of civil liberties for all
(cheers, applause) a wider and constantly rising standard of living."
(Interestingly, Clinton's quotes are not the actual Freedoms; we'll get to that in a
moment.) After some buildup, she then goes on to structure her speech around four policy areas (which
I've to say is refreshing, although not refreshing enough, as we shall see). Here they are, organized
into a single list instead of being scattered through the speech:
CLINTON: If you'll give me the chance, I'll wage and win Four Fights for you.
The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.
Now, the second fight[3] is to strengthen America's families, because when our families
are strong, America is strong.
So we have a third fight: to harness all of America's power, smarts, and values to maintain
our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity.
That's why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing
our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.
Before l take a look at the talking points that Clinton places under these four heads, let me
quote Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, so we can compare and contrast them to Clinton's. The context is
different; Clinton's is a campaign speech, and Roosevelt is addressing Congress, as a re-elected
President, in his State of the Union speech, in 1941, before our entrance into World War II (hence
the references to "everywhere in the world," and "translated into world terms").
Here's FDR:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four
essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of[4] speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings
which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the
world.
The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction
of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position
to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
Notice the extreme specificity and material basis of FDR's language: Freedom from want;
freedom from fear. You know, today, in your very own life, whether you are in want or in
fear. You don't have to ask anybody else, and it doesn't take some sort of credential plus a processing
fee to figure it out. Now contrast Clinton: "[M]ake the economy work for everyday Americans." What
the heck does that even mean? Certainly
nobody knows what "everyday Americans" means. This is focus-grouped bafflegab emitted by Democratic
consultants who are
slumming it on the Chinese bus instead of the Acela because optics. Could we be in fear or in
want after the economy "works"? Who knows? And if Clinton believes we won't be, why not say that?
With that, let me poke holes in some of the policies under Clinton's Four Four Well, Four Whatever-the-Heck-They-Are,
since FDR's "Freedom of" and "Freedom from" construct seems to have been disappeared from Clinton's
reversioning of FDR's material. I understand that the Clinton campaign, in a White House-style policy
shop operation,
will be rolling out more concrete material
in
the next 513 days, so I'll focus only on major gaps and contradictions. (The talking points won't
necessarily be in speech order, though the headines will be.)
"Make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top"
CLINTON: "I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not
quick trades or stashing profits overseas. (Cheers, applause.)"
CLINTON: "We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing
tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan."
First, I suppose it's OK to appropriate Republican rhetoric, Third Way fashion - "tax
relief," "red tape" - but it sure seems odd to do so after claiming Roosevelt's mantle. Second, we've
got entire industries (Uber; AirBnB) whose business model is to gain market share by breaking the
law, and I'd like to know what Clinton thinks about ignoring "red tape" entirely. And that's not
just a theoretical concern for small business, since the so-called "sharing economy" - Yves calls
it
the "shafting economy" - threatens them as well. (What does it mean for local restaurants and
Farmer's Markets that food plus a recipe can now be delivered
via an app?)
CLINTON: "To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons.
And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."
First, note the shift from "everyday Americans" (whatever that means) to "middle class" (whatever
that means) and "the poor" (I think we know what that means). Because Clinton cannot
really define who her programs target, it's not possible to determine who will actually benefit from
them; hence, "mean something" is vacuous. People can project, of course, but 2008 should have taught
us the danger of doing that. Second, there are well-known policies that provide concrete material
benefits to wage workers, and which it would be easy for Clinton to support, if she in fact does
so. The first is raising the minimum wage, not to Obama's pissant $10.10, but to the $15 that so
many on the ground are pushing for. Silence. More radically, we have programs like the Basic Income
Guarantee or the Jobs Guarantee (or both). Programs like this would be of great benefit especially
to those who have been cast out from our permanently shrunken workforce, and will in all likelihood
never work again. These programs target millions, and so who benefits is easy to see. Silence.
CLINTON: "There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing."
There are leaders in finance who are walking the street but who should be in jail. It's hard
to see how "confidence" can be restored for "everyday Americans" until elite criminals no longer
have impunity. Of course, taking a stand like that would make life hard for Clinton with the Rubinite
faction of the Democratic Party, along with many Wall Street donors, and many contributors to the
Clinton Foundation, but corruption isn't my problem. It's Clinton's. So, again, silence.
"Strengthen America's families"
CLINTON: "I believe you should look forward to retirement with confidence, not anxiety."
First, note again how abstract Clinton's words are. Where FDR says "freedom from fear," Clinton
says "not anxiety." Where FDR says "freedom from want," Clinton (with Wall Street) says "confidence."
Second, and as usual, what do Clinton's words even mean? Let me revise them: "I believe
Social Security benefits should be raised, not lowered, and that benefits should be age-neutral.
It's unconscionable that the younger you are, the worse off you will be when you're old. I also believe
that Social Security benefits should begin at age 60, so more can retire from the workforce, and
more young people enter." This is not hard. It doesn't take a think tank to work out.
CLINTON: "[I believe] that you should have the peace of mind that your health care will be there
when you need it, without breaking the bank."
What does that mean? Well, we know what it means. It means tinkering round the edges
of ObamaCare, keeping the sucking mandibles of the health insurance companies firmly embedded in
the body politic, and
not bringing our health care system up to world standards.
CLINTON: "I believe you should have the right to earn paid sick days. (Cheers, applause.)"
"Reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy"
CLINTON: "We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our
elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people. (Cheers,
applause.)"
CLINTON: "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's
decision in Citizens United. (Cheers, applause.)"
However, the shout-out to a specific policy advocated by Move to Amend might make one reflect
on the curious lack of specificity so prevalent elsewhere in the speech.
CLINTON: "I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That's why I've proposed universal,
automatic registration and expanded early voting. (Cheers, applause.)"
There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level. (For example, on immigration,
she does support "a path to citizenship," though curiously not an end to mass incarceration, or reforms
to policing.) But over-all, I think any grand vision disappears in a welter of bullet points, vague
language, and a resolute unwillingness to present policies that would visibly benefit all
Americans, instead being tailored to the narrow constituencies of the sliced up version of America
so beloved by the political class.
Here's a random factoid you can use to frame whatever policy options a candidate presents. I keep
track of #BlackLivesMatter shootings on my Twitter feed, and most of them come with pictures of the
scene. The pictures come from all across the country, as we might expect, and I have started looked
at the backgrounds: Invariably, there are signs of a second- or third-world level of infrastructural
decay and destruction: Cracked sidewalks, potholed roads, sagging powerlines, weed-choked lots, empty
storefronts, dreary utilitarian architecture just as soul-sucking as anything the Soviets could have
produced.
... ... ...
ekstase, June 14, 2015 at 3:57 pm
"To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And
to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their
way into it"? It is supposed to be a fair system, not one in which some people have been crippled
by cheaters, and therefore need to work their way out of the unfair position they have been put
in. The logic seems off.
tongorad, June 14, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way
into it"?
"Have a chance:" The old "skin in the game" routine. Everyone deserves the chance to risk their
skin. Nice, eh? "Work their way into it:" Divide and conquer. The deserving poor and middle class
vs undeserving.
jrs, June 14, 2015 at 11:53 pm
one also has a chance to win the lottery if one plays it. Well one does not a good chance but
a chance.
Lexington, June 15, 2015 at 1:26 am
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way
into it"? Because in America some win and some lose, but the losers deserved it because they lack
ability, persistence, a strong work ethic, or otherwise have some serious character flaw that
prevents them from succeeding. In American everyone who deserves success gets it. Or in the shorthand
of American political discourse, it's about equalizing "opportunity", not "outcome".
Hillary isn't promising that under her presidency everyone in America will have economic security
and some basic allotment of human dignity – that would have after all be defiling the altar of
"meritocracy" at which America's elite worships – but those who deserve it will.
As for the others, well America will always need fast food workers, convenience store clerks
and Walmart greeters. In any case those sorts of people have no right to aspire to a station in
life higher than the one for which one providence suited them.
craazyboy, June 14, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Might be interesting to compare it to Senator Obama speeches. Many parts seem hauntingly familiar,
but 8 years and 500 plus days does overly tax my memory. Then maybe compare it to a Reagan speech.
Maybe it's my long term memory kicking in.
But that may be more work than it's worth.
Oh geez. Today is gym day. The Fox News TV is there. I can smell the fumes bubbling up from
the swamp pit already. Hillary Clinton has embraced FDR and gone bungee cord jumping completely
off the far, far, left cliff. Gawd help us.
Bernie, don't let Hillary sit in your lap. Let's try and keep this believable.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, June 14, 2015 at 6:45 pm
We have 1400 billionaires in this country (up from 700 when the "Crisis" began) and we can't
find one, NOT ONE, with a functioning moral compass who is willing to do the least little thing
for the actual *people* in this country by supporting a real alternative candidate to Fascist
War Monger 1 (Hilary) or Fascist War Monger 2 (Jeb).
Forget Grandpa Buffet and his homely homilies while he steals off with insider deals on Goldman
preferred, or BillG, who does some good things but then goes and leads the Better Than Cash Alliance
(an attempt to get everyone in the developing world to run up debts on a MasterCard). Mark, Elon,
Peter don't you have even one remaining moral bone left that will make you save us from these
charlatans?
David, June 14, 2015 at 6:49 pm
" hatchet-faced austerity enforcer.."
In the links this morning, you castigated someone for making sexist comments about Hillary.
You said,
"..it's dumb, because emphasizes the personal characteristics of candidates as opposed to their
political ones."
Other than that, I enjoyed the article.
Blue Guy Red State, June 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm
Bernie Sanders resonating with some very Tea Party friendly members of my extended family,
along with various traditional lefties like me (aging Boomer and former Independent who move right
to join Democratic Party in 1980s) and Millenial offspring. Summer family camping trip might get
interesting!
Sen. Sanders is making more sense to more people because we've tried trickle-down, tax-cutting
Reaganomics for 35 years, and it's been a disaster across the board unless you're filthy rich.
(And the filthy rich live on the same planet as the rest of us, breathe the same air and drink
the same water too.)
People are ready for REAL hope and REAL change; this will give Sen. Sanders a lot more traction
than the MSM and both GOP and Democratic bigwigs expect. Good.
Synoia, June 14, 2015 at 8:25 pm
S.S. Clinton, the beginning of a Titanic voyage.
I cannot perceive of anything concrete coming form a second Clinton presidency, except more
and more constituents thrown under the bus, the space already crowded with groups so discarded
by President Obama.
I'm for Bernie.
craazyman. June 14, 2015 at 8:48 pm
Now that Hillary is officially running for President, it's time to ask the tough questions.
The tough questions separate a vanity candidate who just want media attention from the hardened
policy field marshall who has to make the tough decisions in the face of strenuous opposition.
If Hillary is for real, she might get elected, so its not too early to think of the Top 10 Questions
for President H.R. Clinton at her first press conference.
... ... ...
Question #6: This is a multiple choice question!
How many hedge funds does it take to destroy society?
a) less than 100
b) just one
c) they can't take you anyway, you don't already know how to go
d) what kind of question is that?
Question #5: Are Republlcans completely crazy or do they just seem like it?
... ... ..
drum roll please . . . .
Is Bruce Jenner still a roll model for America's athletic youth and if not, why not?
^ ^ ^
Holy smokes those are tough questions for any body, much less a US president. but they need to
be clever if they're the President don't they!
Ed Walker, June 14, 2015 at 10:10 pm
Fun factoid. Sunday Paper has different headline than current article up on web. Here's the
headline from the paper:
Sounding Populist Themes, Clinton Pledges to Close Gap in Wealth.
And here's the headline from the web right now:
Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap
"Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said drug companies that would benefit
from a Pacific trade pact should sell their products to the U.S. government at a discount in her
strongest comments yet on an issue that has divided her party."
"Clinton's comments amount to an implicit rebuke of President Barack Obama's efforts to secure
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a nod toward liberal critics of the deal as she campaigns
to win the Democratic nomination for the November 2016 presidential election."
"I have held my peace because I thought it was important for the Congress to have a full debate
without thrusting presidential politics and candidates into it," she said at a campaign stop in
Burlington, Iowa. "But now I think the president and his team could have the chance to drive a
harder bargain."
"Clinton did not say whether she would support or reject the deal. But she criticized several
aspects of the agreement "
"Our drug companies, if they are going to get what they want, they should give more to America,"
Sanctuary, June 15, 2015 at 1:51 am
I was in Cuyahoga County in 2004 and I can tell you unequivocally, they (the Republicans) played
every dirty trick in the book and stole that election. They were calling people up and telling
them that Democrats vote the next day, Republicans vote on that day and/or calling people up and
"informing" them of the incorrect polling location to go to, closing down polling locations or
not starting them for several hours past the mandated time.
The 2000 morass I blame on Gore, since by no stretch of the imagination should that election
have even been close enough that a few million votes undercounted or prevented would have swung
the election. That he chose to buy into the Republican memes about Clinton, act guilty, and run
away from him, was his own bad judgment.
When you act guilty in the US, you ARE guilty. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Say what
you want about the Clinton's, that is one lesson they always understood.
Jerry Denim, June 15, 2015 at 2:55 am
"There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level."
Seriously?
"We need more from Clinton - more from all candidates. Much, much more. "
Really?
I know Hillary once again is the front runner, the presumed nominee and the only Democratic
candidate for "serious" respectable grown-ups and as such must receive her share of the horse
race coverage. I also know the tone of this post was basically critical and skeptic.
That said, I find such an earnest micro-parsing of Clinton's utterly meaningless, consequence-free
campaign rhetoric by a respected, important and principled site such as this does Clinton an undeserved
service by lending her legitimacy at a time when she should be shouted down and shamed for being
the lying, compromised, money-grubbing, scruple-less corporate sock puppet that she is.
If the political elites learned anything from Obama (a.k.a. Bush 3.0) it's that you can lie
through your teeth on a daily basis and along with some help from our red vs. blue propaganda
machine media still convince gullible voters who identify with team blue's brand to continue to
support a team blue Prez, and vote for him/her even if he/she betrays regular Americans and kicks
them on a daily basis as long as he/she smiles and says he/she is committed to popular and happy
things on camera. Hillary can say whatever the hell she wants right now and it doesn't mean a
thing. She doesn't hold elected or appointed office.
She can make socialist, FDR type promises till the cows come home while still raking in billions
in corporate money, foreign money, and libertarian billionaire asshole money because they know
just like Obama she will break every populist campaign promise before she's even sworn in as President.
A President Hillary and her entourage would continue business as usual because they has a proven
track record of being pro-establishment, pro-Wall Street, Washington-consensus, Neo-con hawks.
Believing anything else is utter madness.
Save your analysis and commentary for a Socialist with a better track record like Bernie Sanders
or some other long-shot, third party candidate. Carefully parsing the words of a lying pol like
Clinton is about as sane and as useful as trying to divine meaning in a pile of dogshit and then
claiming you have a legal and binding contract with your bank. We don't need more from Clinton
we need less. Way less. We need her to shut up and go away, we know who and what she really is.
Since Clinton doesn't look like she plans on shutting up or going away anytime soon I think she
should either be – a.) Ignored, or (b.) Shouted down and shamed. Just like Obama I can't take
a single word she speaks seriously with her track record.
TedWa, June 15, 2015 at 7:45 pm
I just wish posters here would stop thinking about and posting about Bernie Sanders as if he's
a 3rd party candidate. I'm old enough to remember when progressive democrats like Bernie ran things.
He's more of a traditional democrat than Hillary can even dream about being. There is no throwing
the race to the Republicans by voting for and supporting Bernie – he's running as a democrat and
running as a challenger to neo-liberal Hillary and neo-liberal politics and only 1 of them can
make it to the final democratic nomination. Get it? Only one of them. This is not going to be
a 3rd party race! I know wrapping your head around Bernie as a democrat is hard for some of the
younger among us that don't remember a time when neo-liberalism didn't rule the roost, but that
is what he is and that is how he's running. There is no 3rd party candidate
Thank you for your time.
How does Hillary's level playing field rhetoric work in her own life? Let's look at how her
daughter has fared in her own struggles to live a middle class life.
Lord Butler of Brockwell, the Master of University College, said: "Her (Chelsea's) record at
Stanford shows that she is a very well-qualified and able student. The college is also pleased
to extend its link with the Clinton family."
In 2003, Clinton joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in New York City.
In the fall of 2006, she went to work for Avenue Capital Group, a global investment firm focusing
on distressed securities and private equity.
In 2010, she became Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation.
In November 2011, NBC announced that they hired Clinton as a special correspondent, paying
her $600,000 per year. Clinton memorably interviewed the Geico Gecko in April 2013.
Since 2011, she has also taken a dominant role at the family's Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
Foundation, and has had a seat on its board.
Just thought I'd add a link to Professor Harvey Kaye talking to Bill Moyers about FDR's Four
Freedoms.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/fighting-for-the-four-freedoms/
So inspiring. The opposite of HRC. I appreciated this article very much I don't see how anyone
who watched or read the HRC text and has a passing familiarity to the Four Freedoms speech can
see any relationship between the two whatsoever except at the most superficial level, meaning
HRC used the word "Four".
Hilary Clinton said on Tuesday she takes "personal responsibility" for her loss to
Donald Trump in the
2016 presidential race.
But the former Democratic nominee also blamed Russian interference in the US election and the
release just before the election of a
letter by the FBI director, James Comey , pertaining to the investigation into her emails, saying
such factors deprived her of an otherwise expected victory.
Run against Trump? Elizabeth Warren will certainly stand and fight Read more
"I take absolute personal responsibility," Clinton said of her November defeat during a sit-down
with CNN's Christiane Amanpour at an event titled Women for Women in New York. "I was the candidate,
I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls
that we had."
The former secretary of state nonetheless maintained she was on track to become the first female
president of the United States when a series of obstacles altered the trajectory of the race.
"It wasn't a perfect campaign. There is no such thing," she said. "But I was on the way to winning,
until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on 28 October and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the
minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off."
Clinton was referring to the decision by Comey to disclose – 11 days before election day – that
the FBI was reviewing newly
discovered emails in relation to the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while
at the helm of the Department of State. Just days later, Comey concluded the emails were mostly personal
or duplicates of what the government had already examined prior to clearing Clinton of any criminal
charges.
"... To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. ..."
"... The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism. ..."
"... One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top. ..."
"... Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries. ..."
"... Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries. ..."
"... The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked. ..."
"... The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans ..."
"... When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out. ..."
Excellent interview. Personally I've been listening to so-called alternative media for a very
long time now, more or less since about I finished school (I was reading books by Erich Fromm,
Hans A. Pestalozzi and others at that time) and I read occasionally alternative newspapers and
magazines.
But this has rather dramatically changed now. In fact I more or less completely abandoned the
so-called mainstream media, because at least in my opinion a big part of the mass media here in
Germany has begun to turn into agencies for very radical and destructive policies designed in
part by Brussels and in part by the German government. It doesn't matter which political issue
you look at: The so-called refugee crisis, economical topics, the rise of right wing extremism
in Germany and so on: A big part of the mainstream media systematically shifts attention away
from the really interesting issues.
Take for example the stream of refugees coming to Germany and other European countries. It
could have been a starting point for the German media to discuss what the real reasons for this
so-called crisis are: For example the German, British, French and other weapons exports and what
they are used for. Or the ecomical policies of the European Union, which severely damages the
economies of countries like Senegal or Burkina Faso. But this just doesn't happen. When you turn
on the publicly financed radio stations you hear them discussing technical terms of Germans policies
shutting down the European borders to stop the flow of refugees, but almost no word about what
this means for the desperate people who end up there. It's a very shocking experience to basically
see that even publicly financed media (which we are supposed to be proud of) stay diligently within
the limits of discussion, which according to Noam's and Edward Herman's work you would expect
for commercial media.
Of course you can find journalism here which does not follow these restrictions, but in case
of the publicly financed radio and news programmes you mostly have to wait until late in the evening
(when most of the working population doesn't watch TV or listen to radio anymore) or turn to newspapers
which are sold at only very few places. The media is in a terrible condition here nowadays, at
least in my opinion.
coldflame 1 day ago
philosophers theory says that human cultures demonstrate severe & increasingly polarizing
cycles where the rich get richer & the poor get poorer until the poor are so extremely desperate
that a revolution is inevitable....Then there is a massive redistribution of wealth & things
even out for awhile & then the cycle begins again.
It seems to me that this theory is massively sped up by technology & industry & finance
abuses.
My guess about it is that the power-wacko-wealthy will abuse science & technology to destroy
many billions of people, leaving various levels of slaves to serve them & theirs. Ultimately
it won't work for them but the ego of humanity is so short-sighted & narcissistic that it's
very hard to imagine otherwise. God I hope I'm wrong. We do have a chance at solving major
problems of energy, extinction, food, education, so let's hope for the best.
Siddharth Sharma 3 days ago
Chomsky hits the nail on Bernie's campaign. The energy behind the campaign is great, but it's
very likely to die after the election. Which Bernie also understands as his major hurdle. He has
stated many times, about creating a political revolution, and said that Obama's biggest mistake
was, that he let the mass movement that elected him die.
Bernie wants people to be actively involved in politics, and take rational decisions. When
asked how he intends to tackle Republicans while pushing for his progressive reforms, he replied(on
the lines of), if his campaign was successful there won't be many Republicans to deal with. While
I hope that to happen, it's rather optimistic of Bernie to think so.
Many people are completely missing the point of his campaign, rather worshiping him as an idol,
without understanding the ideals that he stands for. Sanders supporters need to be more mature
and serious, as electing him President will not be a panacea; much will remain to be done.
Callme Ishmael 5 hours ago
Chomsky is always off the mark on American Libertarianism. To begin with, the Libertarians
are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression
principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. His argument about environmental destruction
are countered by arguments by Libertarians about private property and prosecution of fraud and
the behavior of informed consumers in a free market. The corporation itself is based on an
anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation
is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism.
The master-servant relationship is not advocated by most Libertarians. That's absurd. And why
does he think there wouldn't be any private bus systems? And no empathy or private forms of welfare?
One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished
people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress
and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations
to monopolize and move wealth to the top.
Rodrigo Rodrigues 3 days ago
Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries.
Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries.
The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President
Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked.
He admitted he didn't deserve the prize at the presentation. He went on to praise militarism,
and gave tepid support for preventive wars, a war crime. I would like to know Chomsky's opinion
on Donald Trump being a candidate .
EnnoiaBlog 2 days ago (edited)
"The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty
much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans.' -- Noam Chomsky, in interview with Abby
Martin, Oct. 24ish 2015.
MY HERO!!!!!!!
Chris Neglia 1 day ago (edited)
10:00 -- "If a major financial institution gets in trouble, the government will bail it out,
which happens repeatedly--only during the illiberal periods [not free / rights lacking] incidentally.
There were no major failures during the 50s and 60s. When the illiberal policies began to
be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises
and every time the public bails them out.
>>> Well that has consequeces. For one thing that means the credit agencies understand these
corporations are high value beyond the level of what they actually do because they're gonna be
bailed out. So they get good credit ratings, means they can get cheap credit, means they can get
cheap loans from the government, they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because
if something goes wrong the tax payer will take care of it.
>>>> Net result is: that amounts to practically all their profits. Is that Capitalism?"
"... It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency. ..."
"... Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion.. ..."
"... I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend ..."
"... Before he was even elected, an executive from Citigroup (the corporate owner of Citibank) gave Obama a list of acceptable choices for who may serve on his cabinet. The list ended up matching Obama's actual cabinet picks once elected almost to a 't' ..."
"The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive $400,000 to speak at a health
care conference organized by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad
behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency.
That governing failure convinced millions of his onetime supporters that the president and
his party were not, in fact, playing for their team, and helped pave the way for President Donald
Trump. Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that
the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the
concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion..."
If Progressives Don't Wake Up To How Awful Obama Was, Their Movement Will Fail
...............
" I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend
.
I did that because, in what was easily the single most important and egregious WikiLeaks email
of 2016, we learned that Wall Street was calling the shots in the Obama administration before
the Obama administration even existed.
"... Meanwhile the center left spent their time and energy attacking the messengers - calling Sanders "unserious" - while mansplaining that their minimal reforms and tinkering was improving lives and people should be eternally grateful. ..."
"... No wonder so many voters don't trust the Democratic party. ..."
"Working-class Americans didn't necessarily understand the details of global trade deals, but
they saw elite Americans and people in China and other developing countries becoming rapidly wealthier
while their own incomes stagnated or declined. It should not be surprising that many of them agreed
with Trump and with the Democratic presidential primary contender Bernie Sanders that the game
was rigged."
Meanwhile the center left spent their time and energy attacking the messengers - calling Sanders
"unserious" - while mansplaining that their minimal reforms and tinkering was improving lives
and people should be eternally grateful.
No wonder so many voters don't trust the Democratic party.
No, their pro-business attitude is part of the problem. They've bought into conservative propaganda:
see Bill Clinton's welfare deform for instance.
Thomas Frank -
................
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at
the economic disasters that have befallen the Midwestern
cities and states that they used to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part
of the country is the utterly predictable fruit of the
Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal
leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that
working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely.
Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then
turned around and told working-class people that their
misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education,
that the only answer for them was a lot of student loans and
the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this
they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of
the Midwest, in the manner of the New York Times, is not the
answer to this problem. Listening to the voices of the good
people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the
answer, either. Cursing those bad people for the stupid way
they voted is an even lousier idea.
What we need is for the Democratic party and its media
enablers to alter course. It's not enough to hear people's
voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to
change. They need to understand that the enlightened Davos
ideology they have embraced over the years has done material
harm to millions of their own former constituents. The
Democrats need to offer something different next time. And
then they need to deliver.
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at the economic
disasters that have befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used
to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn.
Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring
that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what happened
last November a little more likely.
Would Trump supporters elect him again now? For some Trump voters
in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, their new president has already done more
than Obama – but others have had enough Every time our liberal leaders deregulated
banks and then turned around and told working-class people that their misfortunes
were all attributable to their poor education, that the only answer for them
was a lot of student loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time
they did this they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest,
in the manner of the New York Times , is not the answer to this problem.
Listening to the voices of the good people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan
is not really the answer, either. Cursing those bad people for the stupid way
they voted is an even lousier idea.
More obscene tax cuts for the rich, windfall deals for cronies, unparalleled
corruption, and utter and complete betrayal of the 99% (NO affordable healthcare,
war on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), and a LOSS of decent jobs engineered
by perhaps the most demagogic liar and despot wannabe' in recent times,
and YOU have the stones to talk about a 'Davos mindset'?
Double-speak and distortion worthy of those you apparently serve.
Good luck. The Dems just don't want to get it and unless individual Dems
start acting on their own for the good of all of us, who in the past were
strictly loyal to the party, then they'll lose again. What BC did with NAFTA
and his total disregard for decimating entire regions of the country by
doing so, with nothing to replace those jobs with but a snotty attitude,
will haunt them until they wake up. Sadly, for us, this isn't likely as
they will think once again that people will vote for whoever they toss up
just because Trump is so "deplorable". No one wants 4 more years of Trump,
not even those who voted for him.
Frank is still trying to turn American blue collar workers into European
style class warfare socialists.
Many (if not most) of the traditional jobs are not comng back, and only
a few are in China.
AUTOMATION.
Neither party can do anything about that.
We'd better start thinking about a much bigger labor force than available
jobs
A Tax on every Robot sufficient to fund a modern Welfare State and a Universal
Basic Income is what some propose to address this development. A 20 hour
work week doing community service work helping ones fellow citizens in some
constructive way?
Remember that a lot of people voted for Trump or abstained from voting altogether
(thereby basically giving the vote to Trump, as it turns out) because we
refused to vote for Hillary. Wisconsin voted for Bernie in the primaries.
I firmly believe that it was an intense distrust of Mrs. Clinton, and not
overwhelming faith in the promises and abilities of Donald Trump, that made
our state show red on Election Day. If Bernie hadn't been cheated out of
the race by her bottle blondiness, I'm relatively certain that he probably
might have won in a race against Uncle Don.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn."
Yup! And the means doing away with public sector unions in their present
form, it means securing the borders, it means getting big banks and wall
street under control, it means dropping the left wingnut social policies
and getting the government out of peoples lives, not the other way 'round.
Ain't gonna happen.
The liberal/progressive leftist totalitarians are in charge of the party,
and unless they change their ways, as previously described, they are going
to wander in the wilderness for a very long time.
The Democratic Party has gradually become the party of the status quo and
business as usual instead of the progressive-- working people's party--
it use to be under Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. Even Obamacare is a concept
originally conceived by the Republicans to force all Americans into the
arms of the private health insurance companies.
Instead of more trickle down economics, Democrats should be trying to
focus on creating a worker's paradise in order to re-energize the American
economy:
1. A 32 hour work week (overtime beyond 32 hours):
2. Up to six weeks of annual Federally mandated paid vacation
3. Reduction of individual income tax to just 1% for individuals that
make less than $60,000 a year
4. Employer payment of all Federal payroll taxes for all employees that
make less than $60,000 a year
5. A $1000 a year workers rebate from the Federal government if you work
full time or part time or employ full time or part time workers
6. Federal infrastructure program providing matching funds for cities
that want to build affordable urban-- rental housing-- for senior citizens
and the working class families and individuals, who don't own their own
home who make less than $60,000 a year.
7. Federal and employer financed medical savings accounts for all American
citizens
8. High tariffs (15% to 100%) on all imports coming in from nations that
are not free and democratic (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Low
tariffs (1% to 10%) on imports from nations that are free and democratic.
How Democrats could have ever gone along with allowing a fascist state like
China to have full and free trading access to the American economy is almost
incomprehensible (and it also cost Americans more than 3 million jobs)!
Lets review the key points of Democratic politics as they now pronounce
it (through words and action)
1 - Save the planet - translation - regulate any and all forms of energy
to be too expensive then subsidize renewable energy. This means a few major
companies will win huge government contracts to put up windmills while,
power plant operators, miners, natural gas workers and countless supporting
industries go dark.
2 - Identity Politics - Translation - Vast swaths of America are understood
only in context of their race, gender (chosen or otherwise) or political
perspective. They will be administered according to an as yet unpublished
preference chart favoring some over others. Meaning that individuals don't
matter and needs don't matter. Only that you fit into some defined category
where political messaging will tell you why your oppressed and that only
democrats can free you.
3 - Free Trade Agreements - In short - how to off shore manufacturing
to cheap labor countries. That one is very simple.
4 - Sanctuary Cities - People who arrived into this country illegally
will be protected from deportation, even identifcation as illegal regardless
of the law. This reduces the cost of labor for less skilled workers and
drives up costs - which drive up taxes to provide services. In point of
fact California is in the process of creating a single payer healthcare
system that will provide free (only if your don't earn and income) healthcare
to anybody in California - no questions asked.
What is missing? Jobs. There are zero plans to bring back jobs. The coasties
don't care about manufacturing. They only buy the highest quality imports
with the right labels on them anyway. Their answer - why more government
"programs" designed to robe Peter to pay Paul. Job training for jobs that
don't exist where people live, and often disappeared years ago.
Meritocracy?
The best of the best of the best?
Not for the Smugatocratic World Rigging Nepotistic 'Davos' Elite!
(Busy "Late Night" Offices)
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 1" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth My Dear Boy I really need you to do me a solid
you remember my Granddaughter Brittany?
Seth Myers
Ummm .Not really .?
Who is this?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
No matter .You met her last year at Davos
Seth Myers
Ahhh .I didn't actually go to Davos last year?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Well she just graduated from Emerson Gawd knows what they learn there?
AAAAAANYWAAAYS .
this whole "Clinton Kerfuffle" has kind of put us in a little bind
Seth Myers
Oh really?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
And Britt had her dear little heart set on interning with Hilly and Billy
Seth Myers
Oh....She did?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Now, she'd really like to work on your show
Seth Myers
My show?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Oh .She's a really good writer
Seth Myers
Writer .Wow .Why not just host?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
You think? Well, maybe?
K Thanks Gottah Run Love Yah' Bunches Britt will just be so thrilled!
See you at Davos .
Seth Myers
Wait I'm not go
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 2" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth .My Dear Boy I really, really need you to do me a solid you remember
my Granddaughter...Gemma?
Speaking of "Davos Ideology", it would help if people like Al Gore and Leo
Dicaprio didn't fly there on private jets to lecture people back home about
their carbon footprint. Midwesterners notice stuff like that. "Incongruities",
I believe, would be Mr. Frank's chatterati term for it.
Blue collar workers understand the laws of supply and demand just as well
as Harvard trained economists. The Democratic party's embrace of open borders
and amnesty is the exact same position as the Chamber of Commerce. Nearly
15% of America is foreign born and many of those people are competing with
citizens for jobs. Business loves it for holding down wages and the DNC
loves it for the future reliable Democratic voters.. Tech, medicine, and
higher education noticed how this policy has squeezed blue collar wages
and are manipulating H1B and other visa programs to do the same thing to
their 100k+ professional workers. The DNC loves the visa programs as well
mostly because of their addiction to big tech and other Silicon Valley donors.
I think the DNC is trying to come up with a policy to do the least possible
to attract these blue collar voters and still keep their billionaire new
economy donors happy.
Example, "Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned
around and told working-class people that their misfortunes were all attributable
to their poor education, that the only answer for them was a lot of student
loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this
they made the disaster a little more inevitable." Aside from Bill, democrats
are the party that believes in regulation and have many times fought republicans
from destroying them. What's happening now is just a return of republican
priorities. Lower regulation on nearly all business to include the financial
industry and the same old trickle down theory that has only increase income
and wealth inequality. Additionally, it was the Reagan administration that
began making higher education more a business that required student loans
to attend.
Special interests are intertwined with the Dems as much as they are with
Repubs now, that's what's changed. The article speaks of the neoliberal
policies that are destroying the Democratic party (deregulation, pro-corporate/anti-worker
policies).
Yes, Republicans do those things and always have, but the point is that
the Dems now do them too. And they need to step away from neoliberal policies
like that if they want to be relevant again.
A major cause of the deindustrialization of the US Midwest is offshoring
jobs. That isn't the fault of the Democrats.
In fact, while Trump jabbers about "bringing the jobs back to the US,"
he and his daughter Ivanka continue to manufacture their clothing lines
in such as Bangladesh, China, and Mexico. "Made in the America" is yet another
of his slogans fed to the stupid.
But I guess that Trump is a hypocrite and liar is the fault of the Democrats
too.
The problem with the rhetoric of this article is that it slings the usual
labels -- "neoliberal" -- without a clue as to their meaning. But that's
the nature of right-wing propaganda.
Well, like it or not, the main point that the democrats have been hollywoodized
and cannot bring themselves to go somewhere that arugula is not sold, is
true. As for making clothing in China, who knows what clothing manufacturers
there are left in the USA and whether they can do what is needed. You don't
know that.
The deindustrialization of the US is the result of corporate policies.
And while Trump jabbers about bringing jobs back to America, he and his
daughter continue to manufacture their clothing lines in countries where
they can pay the least in wages for the most in production. Chinese manufacturing
of Ivanka's now-relabeled clothing line pays $60.00 for a 57-hour week.
Obviously the author of this article either doesn't know those facts,
therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, or he makes no mention of
it in order to dishonestly bash the Democrats, who are NOT doing manufacturing
in Bangladesh, China, and other third-world countries.
Thomas Frank reveals the rage middle-class Midwesterners feel towards Democrats
and entrenched politicians. Over the past decade, he voiced this warning,
but it fell on deaf ears. Only one major television commentator dared to
express similar warnings, Ed Schultz, formerly of MSNBC. Schultz was removed
from MSNBC and forced off MSM. Frank was a frequent guest and commentator
on his and other main television news shows. Since the election, the major
broadcast news no longer invites Frank. Democracy, journalism and political
expression are diminished.
"I have spent the last three weeks driving
around the deindustrialized midwest And what I
am here to say is that the midwest is not an
exotic place. It isn't a benighted region of
unknowable people and mysterious urges. It isn't
backward or hopelessly superstitious or hostile
to learning. It is solid, familiar, ordinary
America, and Democrats can have no excuse for
not seeing the wave of heartland rage that
swamped them last November" [Thomas Frank,
The Guardian
]. "The wreckage that you see
every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the
Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time
our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy
trade deal, figuring that working-class people
had "nowhere else to go," they were making what
happened last November a little more likely."
Moreover:
The way I see it, the critical test for
our system will come late next year. The
billionaire great-maker in the Oval Office
has already turned out to be an incompetent
buffoon, and his greatest failures are no
doubt yet to come. By November 2018, the
winds of change will be in full hurricane
shriek, and unless the Democratic Party's
incompetence is even more profound than it
appears to be, the D's will sweep to some
sort of mid-term triumph.
But when "the resistance" comes into
power in Washington, it will face this
question: this time around, will Democrats
serve the 80% of us that this modern economy
has left behind? Will they stand up to the
money power? Or will we be invited once
again to feast on inspiring speeches while
the tasteful gentlemen from JP Morgan
foreclose on the world?
The Democrat establishment has already given
its answer: That's why Clinton supporter and #MedicareForAll
hater Ossoff has $8 million dollars to appeal to
suburban Repubicans in Geogia 6, and Sanders
supporters in Kansas (Thompson) and Montana
(Quist) get zilch. Of course, the Democrat
establishment is profoundly incompetent, as
Shattered
proves, so they may well blow
2018, as well as 2016.
"The First 117 Days of Chuck Schumer" [
RealClearPolitics
].
A bill of particulars drawn up by a Republican,
but still very funny.
Realignment and Legitimacy
"'Fallen! Fallen Is Babylon The Great!'" [Rod
Dreher,
The American Conservative
]. Shout-outs to
Chris Arnade, Anne Coulter, and Ian Welsh. We
live in strange times.
Given the overall
low opinion of the electorate with regards to politicians in general and specifically
to each of our two major political parties, then there is little that any political
candidate can do to win elections, but there are limitless things that any establishment
political candidate can do to lose them. Donald Trump found the sweet spot in
that racket.
Democrats
are probably in a frantic search for some glib, authentic-sounding huckster
to play the role of a populist agent for change in the 2024 election...and
then immediately reverse course upon taking office to serve the interest
of the bankers, defense contractors, globalists, etc...in the mold of
Macron, Pena-Nieto, Obama and Trump.
One of the keys to success in
presidential politics these days is to be an outsider without much of
a track record in politics, so that the fraud is hard to detect.
The future lies with outsiders, who are authentic-sounding frauds.
"Democrats
are probably in a frantic search for some glib, authentic-sounding huckster
to play the role of a populist agent for change in the 2024 election..."
[Whatever happened to 2020? Look, I am all set for a liberal sounding
huckster in 2020. So, don't write me off just yet.]
"...The future lies with outsiders, who are authentic-sounding frauds."
[That would seem to be the natural course of evolution from where
we are today. I do believe in the more distant future, too distant for
me but not for my grandchildren, then populism may congeal at a point
from which it evolves towards greater democracy. However, there is a
lot for the wisdom of crowds to learn and unlearn before the train arrives
at that station.]
Democrats'
cupboard is bare. Time Kaine is the default, and the Obama/Clinton faction
will defend its control at all cost...and will have the same success
as Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry.
I understand that a key indicator is
an invitation to Bilderberg, which now publishes much of its list of
attendees. Clinton got invited in 1991, Blair in 1993, and Macron in
2014.
Maybe,
we will see. The Republican Party has done well enough working with
a bare cupboard for decades. Events drive the news cycle and the national
dialogue. Political parties just try to see how deep into the bottom
of the barrel that they can scrape and still get by with their triangulated
pandering and defamatory memes.
"Democrats
are probably in a frantic search for some glib, authentic-sounding huckster
to play the role of a populist agent for change in the 2024 election..."
Michelle Obama for 2020! Or Oprah Winfrey. I'll be astonished if Dem
"strategists" don't seriously push for one of these two "solutions".
Actually,
I would be for either one, but prefer Denzel Washington if given a choice.
Of course Morgan Freeman has more presidential experience. He has not
only play the role of POTUS, Morgan Freeman has played the role of God.
That's hard to beat. I'm easy enough. That still gives me no reason
to call anyone that sees it different a racist xenophobe without having
said one word to them first.
"... If the corrupt neoliberal centrist globalization loving job killing status quo democrats do not reform, Bernie supporters might jump ship and form their own party. We will see where you guys are then ..."
"Lies, damn lies and the deep state: Plenty of Americans see them all:
Poll"
By GARY LANGER...Apr 27, 2017...7:00 AM ET
"Nearly half of Americans think there's a "deep state" in this country,
just more than half think the mainstream media regularly report false stories
and six in 10 say the Trump administration regularly makes false claims.
Just another day in the world of alleged sneaky stuff.
Each of these claims has gained attention since the 2016 campaign and
the start of the Trump presidency, and this ABC News/Washington Post poll
finds that each has lots of takers.
Start with the "deep state," described here as "military, intelligence
and government officials who try to secretly manipulate government policy."
A plurality, 48 percent, think there is such a thing. Fewer, 35 percent,
call it a conspiracy theory, with the rest unsure."...
I am heartbroken too, but if you think the right wing has some sort of monopoly
on this, you're part of the problem, and not part of the solution. Hell,
the Dems rigged their own primary, lied about it, got caught, and then simply
shrugged it off as what everyone does. Elections are now meaningless, and
the Democrats couldn't care less. OK, but if that's their attitude, I'd
suggest they try rigging all those down-ballot races they've made a habit
of losing of late.
Anyone who dares to question the status quo neoliberal corporatist corrupt
policies should just shut up?
Clear evidence that the status quo has become so corrupt and beholden
to special interest money that they will try to silence dissent from even
their own ranks.
If the corrupt neoliberal centrist globalization loving job killing
status quo democrats do not reform, Bernie supporters might jump ship and
form their own party. We will see where you guys are then .
The internet is the only reason these people are relevant, in the real
world none of them has ever done anything to try and make the changes they
support. I doubt whether any of them has even voted.
the democrat party just got decimated - presidential, both houses of
congress, state, local everywhere. And you think this is an academic debate?
You must be a clueless academic OR IYI (intelligent yet idiot) as Taleb
calls you guys.
Shattered depicts a calamity of a campaign. While on the surface, Hillary
Clinton's team were far more unified and capable than their counterparts
in 2008 had been, behind the scenes there was utter discord. The senior
staff engaged in constant backstabbing and intrigue, jockeying for access
to the candidate and selectively keeping information from one another. Clinton
herself never made it exactly clear who had responsibility for what, meaning
that staff were in a constant competition to take control. Worse, Clinton
was so sealed off from her own campaign that many senior team members had
only met her briefly, and interacted with her only when she held conference
calls to berate them for their failures. Allen and Parnes call the situation
"an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority, petty jealousies,
distorted priorities, and no sense of general purpose," in which "no one
was in charge."
'For example, late in the Obama administration the board that is supposed to oversee the US
Postal Service had zero members out of the nine possible appointments. The reported reason is
that Senator Bernie Sanders put a hold on all possible appointees, as a show of solidarity with
postal workers. If it isn't obvious to you how Sanders preventing President Obama from appointing
new board members would influence the US Postal Service in the directions that Sanders would prefer,
given that President Trump could presumably appoint all nine members of the board, you are not
alone.'
'Shattered' Charts Hillary Clinton's Course Into the Iceberg
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Donald J. Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton in November came as a shock to the world. Polls,
news reports and everything the Clinton campaign was hearing in the final days pointed to her
becoming the first female president in American history.
In their compelling new book, "Shattered," the journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes write
that Clinton's loss suddenly made sense of all the reporting they had been doing for a year and
a half - reporting that had turned up all sorts of "foreboding signs" that often seemed at odds,
in real time, with indications that Clinton was the favorite to win. Although the Clinton campaign
was widely covered, and many autopsies have been conducted in the last several months, the blow-by-blow
details in "Shattered" - and the observations made here by campaign and Democratic Party insiders
- are nothing less than devastating, sure to dismay not just her supporters but also everyone
who cares about the outcome and momentous consequences of the election.
In fact, the portrait of the Clinton campaign that emerges from these pages is that of a Titanic-like
disaster: an epic fail made up of a series of perverse and often avoidable missteps by an out-of-touch
candidate and her strife-ridden staff that turned "a winnable race" into "another iceberg-seeking
campaign ship."
It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and "spirit-crushing" campaign that embraced a flawed
strategy (based on flawed data) and that failed, repeatedly, to correct course. A passive-aggressive
campaign that neglected to act on warning flares sent up by Democratic operatives on the ground
in crucial swing states, and that ignored the advice of the candidate's husband, former President
Bill Clinton, and other Democratic Party elders, who argued that the campaign needed to work harder
to persuade undecided and ambivalent voters (like working-class whites and millennials), instead
of focusing so insistently on turning out core supporters.
"Our failure to reach out to white voters, like literally from the New Hampshire primary on,
it never changed," one campaign official is quoted as saying.
There was a perfect storm of other factors, of course, that contributed to Clinton's loss,
including Russian meddling in the election to help elect Trump; the controversial decision by
the F.B.I. director, James Comey, to send a letter to Congress about Clinton's emails less than
two weeks before Election Day; and the global wave of populist discontent with the status quo
(signaled earlier in the year by the British "Brexit" vote) that helped fuel the rise of both
Trump and Bernie Sanders. In a recent interview, Clinton added that she believed "misogyny played
a role" in her loss.
The authors of "Shattered," however, write that even some of her close friends and advisers
think that Clinton "bears the blame for her defeat," arguing that her actions before the campaign
(setting up a private email server, becoming entangled in the Clinton Foundation, giving speeches
to Wall Street banks) "hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn't recover," ensuring
that she could not "cast herself as anything but a lifelong insider when so much of the country
had lost faith in its institutions."
Allen and Parnes are the authors of a 2014 book, "H R C," a largely sympathetic portrait of
Clinton's years as secretary of state, and this book reflects their access to longtime residents
of Clinton's circle. They interviewed more than a hundred sources on background - with the promise
that none of the material they gathered would appear before the election - and while it's clear
that some of these people are spinning blame retroactively, many are surprisingly candid about
the frustrations they experienced during the campaign.
"Shattered" underscores Clinton's difficulty in articulating a rationale for her campaign (other
than that she was not Donald Trump). And it suggests that a tendency to value loyalty over competence
resulted in a lumbering, bureaucratic operation in which staff members were reluctant to speak
truth to power, and competing tribes sowed "confusion, angst and infighting."
Despite years of post-mortems, the authors observe, Clinton's management style hadn't really
changed since her 2008 loss of the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama: Her team's convoluted
power structure "encouraged the denizens of Hillaryland to care more about their standing with
her, or their future job opportunities, than getting her elected." ...
you would rather rely on some "free lunch" fairy tale tools
like NGDP targeting because the simpler version, QE, has
worked so well that we have Trump in the white house.
"QE, has worked so well that we have Trump in the white
house."
That's good !. Sounds like a plausible explanation
what has happened to me. Obama was the key to Trump election.
Looks like Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on
which a frustrated American public could project their
desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.
Is this from some alternate reality where Obama was elected
to a third term? Can I go there too?
And the issue is not
being able to create reserves on the monetary side, but being
able to actually stimulate the economy by increased federal
spending on the fiscal side. At the ZLB, there's no demand,
so more money supply...ho, hum!
Tax cuts don't cut it because they send money to people
who will speculate with it instead of spending it to
stimulate production and get a financial multiplier going.
And this business of "run out" of money is some conflation
of GOP fantasy with the federal borrrowing 'limit' which may
have no force in law anyway. Obama didn't force the issue,
though I think he should have. In any case, it'll be
interesting to watch the GOP self-immolation over the
so-called 'debt limit'. The big question-to bring popcorn or
marshmallows?
Since losing the presidency to a Cheeto-hued reality TV
host, the Democratic party's leadership has made it clear
that it would rather keep losing than entertain even the
slightest whiff of New Deal style social democracy.
The Bernie Sanders wing might bring grassroots energy and
– if the polls are to be believed – popular ideas, but their
redistributive policies pose too much of a threat to the
party's big donors to ever be allowed on the agenda.
Official Dems Abandon Sanders Ally in Key Kansas Race, and
Dems Lose
By Bob Dreyfuss | April 11, 2017
UPDATE II: Politico notes, in reporting on the race that
the GOP won by single digits: "The DCCC did not spend a dime
in this race. Again: Trump won this district by 27 points."
Outside progressive groups did mobilize for Thompson, but the
official Democratic Party did squat. So, Mr. Tom "50 State
Strategy" Perez,
"It is a class party, and they act on that class's behalf
and they act in that class's interests and they serve that
class. And they have adopted all the tastes and manners and
ideology...
It's just that class is not the working class. It's not
the middle class. It's the professional class - affluent,
white-collar elites.
They can't see what they're doing. This is invisible to
them, because it's who they are."
............
Writer Thomas Frank shifts through the wreckage of the
Democratic Party in the Trump Era, and finds a group of
failed politicians unable to see the deep unpopularity of
their own policies, or a path beyond serving the narrow
interests of the elite professional class they've served
since the Clinton years - with a generation of disastrous
results.
They want to be the party of business, not the job class.
That's why Hillary spends her time giving speeches to Goldman
Sachs and Larry Summers gives talks to Mexican bankers and
investors not Mexican union workers or activists.
"The new ANES data only confirms what a plethora of studies
have told us since the start of the presidential campaign:
the race was about race. Klinkner himself grabbed headlines
last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a
Trump supporter in the U.S. was to ask "just one simple
question: is Barack Obama a Muslim?" Because, he said, "if
they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time
that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than
Clinton." This is economic anxiety? Really?"
But wouldn't you guess that those same 89% of Trump voters
that say Obama is a Muslim would have also voted for almost
any Republican candidate (for any and every office, not just
POTUS) and would certainly never vote for any Democratic
candidate under any circumstances for any office whatsoever?
The margin of voters between Democratic and Republican
candidates in most (but not nearly all thanks to gerrymanders
and deep red states) elections is smaller than the remaining
11%. What percentage of Fox News regular viewers think that
Obama is a Muslim? Are there any deep blue states remaining?
why was democratic turnout so low with a randian troll as the
GOP nominee? Could it be that neglecting the marginalized by
kissing up to butthurt white people is not a winning
strategy...
Bernie Sanders's economic policies were not "kissing up to
butthurt white people."
Leftwing economic policies help
white and black and brown working people. Everyone. It's
weird for you to troll this way when you say that Sanders and
Warren are centrist sellouts.
You, JohnH and BINY are the most confused people here.
From the 1940s through the 1980s as the middle class grew,
we saw successful popular movements like the civil rights
movements, feminism, gay rights, peace movements,
environmental movements etc.
The legacies of those movements continue to this day as we
saw a black man elected President and re-elected despite the
racism of voters. We see gay marriage legalized and marijuana
legalized.
you can "loony left" me all you want sanjait, but my
guess is that the democratic party will have to choose
between working with the left or being undermined by it.
The Klinkner anecdote is meaningless.
This does not say that 89% of Trump voters believe Obama is a
Muslim; it says that 89% of (white) people who believe this
are Trump voters.
The article as a whole supports a point
that EMichael has been making here for months.
Had we run this operation
with no tip off to the Russians, all of those planes would
have been destroyed. That would be a smart military move.
Trump cannot pull off even the obvious.
As Krugman points out, taking out 65 "deadly" planes is
nothing. It would change nothing.
Doesn't change anything.
Trump has no long-term strategy. All of Obama's ex-advisers
cheered the bombing. Obama pushed back against the "deep
state" foreign policy establishment. Hillary would have
embraced it, probably leading to more war.
In my view - we should not have done this at all. But if one
is going to do a hawkish act, one should not be so incredibly
incompetent. That is what I said from the first moment. But
do misrepresent what I said. It is what you do 24/7.
What did this missile attack really accomplish? Krugman's
point is simple. Nothing in terms of the situation in Syria.
A reckless and incompetent reaction to an awful Sarin gas
attack. But Trump looked tough and his poll numbers will get
a boost. So it was all for political purposes at the end of
the day.
Not a smart way to run foreign policy. Unless one
is a jingoist.
But PGL is mad that the U.S. military gave the Russians a
heads up. Allowed the Syrian janitor to avoid being bombed.
His wife and children probably are grateful.
Would it
matter if the airport had been completely destroyed including
the janitor? Not at all.
That's what PGL doesn't get.
Bill Clinton did this sort of thing during the Lewinsky
scandal, bombing Iraq off an on again, accomplishing nothing
but distracting attention.
His sanctions however killed hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi children and wrecked Iraq. Albright said it was worth
it.
Now Iraq is an awesome country of sweetness and light,
kind of like Germany and Japan after World War II.
"... He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign events. ..."
"... At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. ..."
"... Trump won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept federal funds to pay for his general election contest. ..."
"... Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. ..."
"... There still is a difference between the two parties, which was on philosophical rather than ideological grounds never a very stark contrast to begin with. ..."
"... The Constitution itself needs a bit more work. Campaign finance, reasonable Congressional term limits, gerrymandering, ranked (a.k.a., preferential or instant runoff) voting, and popular petition/referendum powers for the electorate to overturn SCOTUS decisions would in combination make our republic far more democratic than it is now. That would require a national solidarity movement to impose its will on the two party system, perhaps by not re=electing anyone until the work is done. ..."
[Your initial premise is well taken. Trump spent a lot of his own money and used a lot of his
own resources, but relied more on small donors than Hillary did.]
He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the
primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates
by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets
and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his
own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign
events.
At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors
giving $200 or less.
Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly
skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, Trump won the presidency despite having
raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept
federal funds to pay for his general election contest.
Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama
raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors
who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own
networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012. She spent
heavily on television advertising and her get-out-the-vote operation, but in the end, her fundraising
edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves...
[OTOH, elections do still matter. There still is a difference between the two parties, which was
on philosophical rather than ideological grounds never a very stark contrast to begin with.
Bankers and proto-industrialist to the North and slave-owners to the South was the original
demarcation of the split in triangulating the electorate. When slave-owners became an extinct
species then Republicans mostly ran the whole show for a while, but Democrats eventually acquired
enough business from immigrants and unions while reinventing the plantation economy in Jim Crow
to remain in the game. When the Republican Party gave those pesky progressives the boot then the
Democratic Party had a progressive moment itself during its pick up game generally known as the
New Deal, but then that passed on to identity politics, which was a lot cheaper product to sell
than better wages for labor.
Politics under the US Constitution has always been an uphill struggle. So, let's not quit while
we are losing. Primary elections need to get more attention and participation. The Tea Party has
really changed primaries for the Republican Party albeit a change of questionable merit. In VA
(my state) the Tea Party seems to have benefited the Democratic Party far more than Republicans,
but local results may vary.
The Constitution itself needs a bit more work. Campaign finance, reasonable Congressional term
limits, gerrymandering, ranked (a.k.a., preferential or instant runoff) voting, and popular petition/referendum
powers for the electorate to overturn SCOTUS decisions would in combination make our republic
far more democratic than it is now. That would require a national solidarity movement to impose
its will on the two party system, perhaps by not re=electing anyone until the work is done.]
"... Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. " ..."
"... Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave EVERYTHING to the banksters, period! ..."
"... And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation! ..."
"... We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech. ..."
"... The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted for Bernie. Twice. ..."
"... Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of them. ..."
"... You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then why did they twice vote for Obama? ..."
"... I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change is daunting. ..."
"... The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future." ..."
"... Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party. ..."
"... I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left aggressively. ..."
"... Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY. ..."
"... I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt. ..."
"... Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate. ..."
"... This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew". ..."
"... I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing of religious tolerance. ..."
"... And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along. ..."
"... Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe 'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't make one automatically a racist. ..."
"... Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians. Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk retreat from any debate. The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN . ..."
"... Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways? Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense to them? ..."
"... Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success, a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism. ..."
"... a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people. ..."
"... This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it. ..."
"... replace corrupt tax farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) ..."
In an earlier post, "Political Misfortune: Anatomy of Democratic Party Failure in Clinton's Campaign
2016" (parts
one and
two ) I looked why Clinton lost (summarized by two political cliches: "It's the economy, stupid"
and "change vs. more of the same", with Clinton representing "more of the same," as in "America is
already great"). I should write a post on how Trump won, but I'm not yet ready to tackle that yet
( exit polls here ).
My goal in this short post is far more modest: I want to introduce the idea that Trump voters took
their votes seriously, and that their motivations were - dare I say it - more nuanced and complex
than typical liberal narratives suggest (Jamelle Bouie's
"There's No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter" is a classic of the genre[1]). To do this, I'll
look at things Trump voters actually said, using some material from Democracy Corps (
"Macomb County in the Age of Trump" )[2] on Obama voters who flipped to Trump, and more material
from Chris Arnade. Both sources can be said to be reasonably representative, given that Democracy
Corps used a focus group methodology[3], and Chris Arnade was been traveling through the flyover
states for two years, talking to people and taking photographs. I'm going to throw what Trump voters
said into three buckets: Concrete material benefits, inequity aversion, and volatility voting.[4]
Concrete Material Benefits
One concrete material benefit is no more war and a peace dividend.
Arnade :
I found a similar viewpoint in communities such as West Cleveland: Donna Weaver, 52, is a waitress,
and has spent her entire life in her community. "I was born and raised here. I am not happy. Middle
class is getting killed; we work for everything and get nothing. I hate both of the candidates,
but I would vote for Trump because the Iraq war was a disaster . Why we got to keep
invading countries. Time to take care of ourselves first ."
"Bring the jobs back, bring the jobs back to the States." "He's trying
to create jobs , trying to keep jobs in the United States." "I just like
the talk about bringing the jobs back." "To me, it's going to get us our jobs
back, he's going to boost our economy, boost their economic growth for families, to bring
our future generations up."
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is
Democracy Corps :
10. [Trump will fix health care. The cost of health care dominated the discussion in these
focus groups . They say Trump "promised within the first hundred days to get rid of Obamacare"
and fixing the health care system is one of their great hopes for his presidency. They speak of
the impossibly high costs and hope Trump will bring "affordable healthcare" which will "help [us]
raise our families and make us be prosperous."
The experience of Trump voters is our health care system is similar to the experiences of many
commenters here.
Democracy Corps :
"My insurance for the last three years went up, went up, went up. Started out for a family
of four, I was paying $117 a week out of my paycheck. Three years later I'm paying $152 a week
out of my paycheck. I don't even go to the doctor for one. I don't take medicine."
Such a deal. And here's a lovely Catch-22:
"They cut my insurance at work My doctor, because my back is bad, said, 'Well, cut your hours.
You can only work so many hours.' Now I have to work more hours, take more pain pills, to get
my insurance back, and now they're telling me I can't get it back for another year."
Inequity Aversion
Here's a description of "inequity aversion" from
the New Yorker , as shown in the famous experiment from Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal with
female capuchin monkeys:
[T]hey found that monkeys hate being disadvantaged. A monkey in isolation is happy to eat either
a grape or a slice of cucumber. But a monkey who sees that she's received a cucumber while her
partner has gotten a grape reacts with anger: she might hurl her cucumber from her cage. Some
primates, Brosnan and de Waal concluded, "dislike inequity." They hate getting the short end of
the stick. Psychologists have a technical term for this reaction: they call it "disadvantageous-inequity
aversion." This instinctual aversion to getting less than others has been found in chimpanzees
and dogs, and it occurs, of course, in people, in whom it seems to develop from a young age.
So who's getting the short end of the stick? One perceived inequity is immigration in the context
of scarcity[5].
Democracy Corps :
"Well I mean we're all talking about illegals, I made a straight up post that in America we
have hungry, we have veterans, we have mental illness, we have so many problems in our own
country that we at this point in time just can't be concerned with, I feel bad but our country's
in dire straits financially." "I mean we need to take care of home first . We need
to take care of the veterans, we need to take care of the elderly, we need to take care of the
mentally ill, we need to take care everyone instead of us worrying about other people in other
countries, we need to take care of our house first. Get our house in order then you
know what, you need this and this and then we'll help you."
A second perceived inequity is bailouts for bankers and not for the rest of us.
Democracy Corps :
[Obama] brought the country to a macro recovery by the end of his term, but not a single person
in these groups mentioned any economic improvements under his presidency, even after the president
closed the 2016 campaign in Detroit making the case for building on his economic progress. They
have strong feelings about him, but in the written comments only one mentioned anything about
the economy in positive impressions – specifically that he saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy
– and just five mentioned anything economic when elaborating their doubts. Some described him
as a steward for the status quo: "I think he just maintained. He didn't really do much for the
country. And he let a lot of jobs go." Some did recall the bailout of the banks even though the
crisis "affected millions or people," leading them to think he favored the elites – "the wealthy,"
"the richer people," "the big wigs," and "the lobbyists." They know he "didn't help the lower
class, he didn't help the middle class" people like them, they insisted over and over.
And:
Taking on the reckless banks told them who you are really for. Some said they were "really
irritated about the reckless banks" and "protecting consumers from Wall Street and reckless banks
was very important." They recalled that "we lost our home because of that" and "with the bailout
all the money went to the banks and it affected millions of people. And, then, a short time later,
the banks were back to these huge bonuses" and "there's never really punishment for them."
Trump voters may not vote the way I want them to, but after having spent the last five years
working in (and having grown up in) parts of the US few visit, they are not dumb. They are doing
whatever any other voter does: Trying to use their vote to better their particular situation (however
they define that) .. Frustrated with broken promises, they gave up on the knowable and went with
the unknowable. They chose Trump, because he comes with a very high distribution. A high volatility.
As any trader will tell you, if you are stuck lower, you want volatility, uncertainty. No matter
how it comes. Put another way. Your downside is flat, your upside isn't. Break the system.
The elites loathe volatility. Because, the upside is limited, but the downside isn't. In option
language, they are in the money.
People don't make reckless decisions because things are going well. They make them because
they have reached a breaking point. They are desperate enough to trying anything new. Especially
if it offers escape, or a glimmer of hope. Even false hope.
That might mean drugs. Politically that might mean breaking the system. Especially if you think
the system is not working for you. And viewed from much of the America the system doesn't work.
The factories are gone. Families are falling apart. Social networks are frayed.
Lori Ayers, 47, works in the gas station. She was blunt when I asked her about her life. "Clarington
is a shithole. Jobs all left. There is nothing here anymore. When Ormet Aluminum factory closed,
jobs all disappeared." She is also blunt about the pain in her life. "I have five kids and two
have addictions. There is nothing else for kids to do here but drugs. No jobs. No place to play."
She stopped and added: "I voted for Obama the first time, not the second. Now I am voting for
Trump. We just got to change things ."
"I felt like it was – it's time for a change, not just a suit to change, it's time for
everything to change . Status quo's not good enough anymore." "Just a lot of change, no
more politics as usual. Maybe something can be changed." "I was tired of politics as usual, and
I thought if we had somebody in there that wasn't a Clinton or wasn't a Bush that would shake
things up , which he obviously has, and maybe get rid of the people who are just milking
the office and not doing their job. I'm hoping that he's going to hold people more accountable
for the job that they're doing for us."
Conclusion
The
Democracy Corps pollsters conclude - and I should say I'm quite open to the idea that they were
trying to sell the Democrat Party on a strategy the party was ultimately not willing to adopt, as
shown (for example) by the Ellison defenestration - as follows:
Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base. We can learn an immense
amount from listening and talking to the white working class independent and Democratic Trump
voters, particularly those who previously supported Obama or failed to turnout in past presidential
contests.
Clearly, I agree with this conclusion. It's also clear that a Democratic Party that had come out
for #MedicareForAll, wasn't openly thirsting for war, and was willing to bring the finance sector
to heel would win a respectful hearing from these voters. (At this point, it's worth noting that
the Democrats, as a party, are even less popular than Trump and Pence . So I guess focusing like
a laser beam on gaslighting a war with Russia is working great.) Whether today's Democrat party is
capable of seizing this opportunity is at the very best an open question; the dominant liberal framing
of Trump voters as Others who are motivated solely by immutable and essentially personal failings
and frailties - racism; stupidity - would argue that the answer is no.
NOTES
[1] This is not so say that no Trump voter was motivated by racism (or sexism). However, that
is a second post I'm not ready to tackle, in part because I find the presumption that liberal Democrats
pushing that line are not racist (
"İ cried when they shot Medgar Evers"
) at the very least open to question, in part because the assumption seems to be that racism is an
immutably fixed personal essence (in essence, sinful), which ignores the role of liberal Democrats
in constructing the profoundly racist carceral state ("super-predators"). However,
this passage from a Democracy Corps focus group gives one hope:
But despite all that, Macomb has changed. Immigrants and religion were central to the deep
feelings about how America was changing, but black-white relations were just barely part of the
discussion. Detroit was once a flash point for the discussion of racial conflict, black political
leaders and government spending. Today, Detroit did not come up in conversation until we introduced
it and Macomb residents see a city "turning around for the good" and "on an upswing" and many
say they like to visit downtown. Even the majority African American city of Flint provokes only
sympathetic responses. They describe the area as "downscale" and "poor" and lament the water crisis
and the suffering it caused.
[3] "Democracy Corps conducted focus groups with white non-college educated (anything less than
a four-year college degree) men and women from Macomb County, Michigan on February 15 and 16, 2017
in partnership with the Roosevelt Institute. All of the participants were Trump voters who identified
as independents, Democratic-leaning independents, or Democrats and who voted for Obama in 2008, 2012
or both. Two groups were among women, one 40-65 and one 30-60 years old. Two groups were among men,
one 35-45 and one 40-60 years old."
Stephen King has an interview with a panel of fictional Trump voters . They sound quite
different from the voters of Macomb county, and I don't think the difference is entirely accounted
for by geography, much as I respect Stephen King, who has done great things for the state.
[4] A fourth possibility is that Trump voters were engaging in altruistic punishment, where people
"punish non-cooperators
even at cost to themselves ." (Personally shushing a cellphone user in the Quiet Car instead
of calling in the conductor is a trivial example.) Altruistic punishment would provide an account
for why Trump voters (supposedly) don't vote "in their own interests," but I couldn't find examples
in the sources I looked at.
[5] Democracy Corps puts legal immigration, illegal immigration, and refugees in the same bucket
as, to be fair, some voters seem to. I think they are three different use cases. In my personal view,
we need to accept refugees, particularly those from wars we ourselves started. For legal and illegal
immigration, the United States should put United States citizens first. I would love to emigrate
to Canada to work there and take advantage of its single payer system, or to any of a number of countries
where the cost of living is half our own. However, if I travel and overstay my visa, even as an "economic
refugee," I would expect to pay a fine and be forced to leave. I don't see why my case is any different
from any other illegal immigrant in this country. Canada does not have an open border. Nor need we
(except to the extent our goal is
beating down wages ,
especially in the working class, of course ).
Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump
is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given
his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. "
I am neither racist nor sexist, and do not appreciate being called that. My staff was 30% black,
over half female and everyone got along. Don't penalize or demonize me for trying to do the right
thing, and then expect me to vote for your platform.
Anyone but Hillary as she is the anti-Christ with corruption, debt, war and entrenched bureaucracies
bent on their own sick agendas. I know Trump is crazy, but less than alternatives.
Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America
realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave
EVERYTHING to the banksters, period!
And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that
only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic
of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign
visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation
of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation!
I hear your frustration, but why take that out on the democratic candidate? All of your gripes
should be directed at the 1%. The moneyed oligarchs, like the Koch brothers, that have used their
money to buy politicians and shape policy to suite their needs. They are ones that hire immigrants
with H1Bs, they are ones that dictate wages. They took away healthcare coverage and pensions.
They choose to close factories and open up in China and Mexico. Why did we vote for elected officials
for the last 40 years that passed legislation to allow this?
Again, why do people reward Republicans with the presidency, both houses of congress, and state
legislatures when the republicans, starting with Regan, busted unions and fought for deregulation,
free trade, and globalization. These things happen under Republicans and Democrats.
America is a capitalist society. Private business exists to make profits. Why an American $40
an hour for a job that can be done in China for $4? What can government do to stop that? Would
the people really vote for the policies needed to achieve that? Show me one politician office
that is willing to return to a Reagan era tax structure.
We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for
people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American
was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy
at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech.
Squanto and twenty other Indians were kidnapped by Thomas Hunt and sold as slaves in Spain
in 1614. He somehow escaped and made his way to England and then back to New England. This is
how he learned English well enough to translate for the Pilgrims in 1620. The first documented
delivery of African slaves to the Massachusetts Bay Colony was in 1638, eight years after the
Colony's formation. [All my info above comes from 'New England Bound'.]
There had been slavery directed by Europeans in the Caribbean for a hundred years prior to
the European settlement of New England. Columbus's first words upon seeing the natives of Hispaniola
were: 'They will make fine slaves'.
The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST
Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their
needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted
for Bernie. Twice.
forwarded far and wide with prefix "For those interested in why actual people actually do things,
who aren't placated with comforting thoughts that all those who disagree with them are irredeemable
racist know-nothings."
"Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base."
Well put. Still haven't received anything other than a flummoxed look from any Clinton apologists
when I asked if *all* the 2012 Obama voters that went Trump are racists.
I see the U.S. political duopoly as a Juggernaut. The tea party, a grass-roots movement toward
the common man, was subsumed by the Kochs into an battering ram to destroy moderate Republicans
and those not hopelessly bought-off.
The Occupy Movement, which I credit with paving the way for Bernie, simply ran into the Democratic
Establishment Wall.
No to single-payer, yes to ACA. No to federal tuition assistance, yes to student loans. No
to deficit spending to improve the economy, yes to austerity. And, heaven forbid we tax the wealthy,
or run a socialist (gasp) for president. We came close to defeating that wall in 2016. We can't
stop now.
so much of flyover country is comprised of single-issue voters. Not all, of course, but I would
rank the prevalence of those issues as 1) abortion 2) gun rights. I believe #1 here dominated
the thinking of Trump voters. There was no chance in hell they were going to let Hillary Clinton
have a shot at nominating SC justices over the next 4 years.
Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think
Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of
them.
You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted
for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then
why did they twice vote for Obama?
without knowing the nuances of the counties in question, my hypothesis would be that turnout
was lower for Clinton-voting democrats as compared to Obama-voters in those counties while Republican
voters was the same or perhaps a bit higher. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that single-issue
voters aren't voting for the Democratic candidate in any national election and I interpret your
point as to suggest that they switched their votes ( voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 but Trump in
2016).
I'm not saying this is the only reason, just that IMO it's a vastly under-appreciated one.
It's expressly about why Trump voters say they voted for Trump: your "single-issue" hobby horse
isn't in evidence.
You do, however, raise an interesting question: in these swing counties I'll try to find the
time to look at how much of the swing came from collapsing turn out rather than actual Obama to
Trump votes.
I personally know at least three people who voted Obama and then Trump and none are "single-issue",
all I would put in Lambert's/Arnade's "volatility voters" class.
But I'll grant that's not a meaningful polling set.
I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted
for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone
all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the
corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing
I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change
is daunting.
The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically
for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better
man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can
win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future."
Lots of the people who sat out 2016 rather than vote for Clinton will probably continue to
sit out for Booker/Harris/Clinton (shudder) - whatever neoliberal gets coughed up. They aren't
going to become activists. They're too exhausted, disgusted or drugged.
It has nothing to do with complacency. Activists have been pushing for decades for better choices.
If we had had our way, Bernie Sanders would now be president, busily browbeating Chuck Schumer
into passing his free college bill, having already shoved Improved Medicare for All through the
Congress.
Lambert was very clear, and you don't seem to be disputing his evidence. The Democrats lost
their voters because they killed, jailed, starved and immiserated their voters. Democrats stole
their homes, pensions and jobs. Democrats said they were deplorable and showed they thought they
were disposable. Enough of their voters understood their self-interest well enough not to vote
for their oppressors, whether they came out for Trump or just stayed home. That is how Clinton
lost and Trump won.
Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became
a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party.
Trump, despite being widely disliked at least was offering the economically devastated an opportunity
potentially to improve their lives. That was assuming that he kept his promises. Most people voted
for him out of despair knowing that even if he did not keep his promises, they would have lost
nothing since Clinton would not have either.
As for the wealthy Democrats? They wanted the bottom 90% to preserve their "upper class" and
"upper middle class privilege". That's what this is about. They want the people making less than
30,000 a year to vote the same way as big city Liberals making more than 130,000 a year.
I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done
much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the
constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called
out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left
aggressively.
Bernie Sanders's style of class politics - and his program of mild social-democratic redistribution
- did not gain much favor in New Canaan, Connecticut (where he won 27 percent of the vote)
or Northfield, Illinois (39 percent). For some suburban Democrats, Sanders's throttling in
these plush districts virtually disqualified him from office: "A guy who got 36 percent of
the Democrats in Fairfax County," an ebullient Michael Tomasky wrote after the Virginia primary,
"isn't going to be president."
Clinton was their candidate. By holding off Sanders's populist challenge - and declining
to concede fundamental ground on economic issues - the former secretary of state proved she
could be trusted to protect the vital interests of voters in Newton, Eden Prairie, and Falls
Church. They, more than any other group in America, were enthusiastically #WithHer.
To some extent, Clinton's appeal even carried over to wealthy red-state suburbs. In Forysth
County outside Atlanta, and Williamson County outside Nashville - the richest counties in Georgia
and Tennessee - Clinton lost big but improved significantly on Obama's performance in 2012.
But wealthy, educated suburbanites were never going to push the Democrats over the top all
by themselves. Despite Clinton's incremental gains, in the end, most rich white Republicans
remained rich white Republicans: hardly the sturdiest foundation for an anti-Trump majority.
The numbers show it.
As for the Liberals freaking out, they can be split into a few categories:
1. The ones who profited economically from the status quo, like the professional 10%ers. They
don't want someone who is going to rock the boat. The Fairfax County Jacobin article captures
them brilliantly. They hated Bernie Sanders.
2. The SJWs, intersectionalists, second generation feminists, and other identity politics groups.
They are not all wealthy, but unifying them is their identity politics ideology.
3. The hardcore Democratic partisans who "vote blue no matter who".
The Liberals want to pretend like it was racism or sexism or Russia that prevented their "chosen
one" from winning. In reality it was economics and the fact that people could see what Clinton
really was. For all the talk of the most progressive platform ever, Clinton was really the anti-thesis
of Bernie Sanders.
Did they really think their identity politics was going to fool anyone? We saw upper middle
class well off people lecturing less well off Bernie Sanders supporters this election to check
their "white privilege", even though the Sanders supporters were often poor and had their future
destroyed by the economic policies that neoliberal politicians like Hillary Clinton advocated
for.
I think it is because they don't want to appeal to working class people, because if they did,
they would have to serve them.
This election has been a real eye-opener as to who our allies and opponents are in this class
struggle. I think that in the coming years we will see a Liberal Left split of sorts. The best
possible outcome is a third party or even better the Democrats going the way of the Whigs.
The question is, how to build such a party? There is clearly the votes. Bernie showed that
and the left might even find some common ground with Trump voters. Keep in mind they are paleoconservatives
who are anti-war, want manufacturing and good benefits. By contrast the Clintons are pro war and
economically have more in common with the GOP Establishment than the Trump "economic despair base".
Excellent comment thank you, I agree the opportunity is there.. the question of how to mobilize
seems to be the problem. Trump is a total unknown, and who knows what the midterms will bring.
The fact the bernie got as many votes as he did as an old, socialist, by no means charismatic
jew gives a lot of hope for the future, as well as the demographic that voted for him (mostly
young).
These paradigm shifts are generational and take a lot of time, and for some reason that remains
unclear it still seems like Trump is necessary right now. Perhaps some internal political destruction
is needed before we can get a clear handle on the path forward.
This Trump voter liked and listened to Sanders early on. But as his profile and possibilities
rocketed, he abandoned his anti immigration platform.
Immigrants from anywhere - yes anywhere – in a zero sum economy don't benefit the working middle
class. It's not racist, but realistic. Someone had "the talk" with Bernie and his speeches became
more and more party line.
And his voters should have jumped to Trump, but for the hysteria from institutional DC insiders
in both parties. Trump is no knuckle dragging Cheney Goper.
He's fighting the bad guys on both fronts. With no help from natural allies too afraid to bolt
the herd and call out the enemies of the middle class.
Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right
and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists
like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart
Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY.
All Americans should be rallying around the first president to shake up the party identity.
Bernie had his chance and caved to party insiders. He is no hero.
I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of
his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections
hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt.
Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate.
This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards
its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you
hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew".
The answer always is that the other side is all about the hate, even if they clearly don't
hate the people they're accused of hating, because what they're saying is "discursive", and, you
know, sooner or later it will be hate, because people just can't help themselves
I actually got called a self hating Jew when I identified myself of Jewish descent and backed
MintPress News in an argument that she was having with a Pro Israel person. It utterly killed
and undermined his position me doing that and he just turned on and attacked me.
I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s
I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being
accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious
what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing
of religious tolerance.
And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or
Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful
bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along.
Racism, racism, racism, sexism, sexism, sexism, transgenderism, transgenderism, transgenderism
- this commenter is the perfect example of the purely ignorant American today (assuming she/he/it
is an American) - everything robotically repeating the Identity Political meme, no thinking or
independent thought allowed.
Nope, you just don't want to ever address the plight of the American worker, now do ya????
Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every
time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe
'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades
running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't
make one automatically a racist.
Trump's going to have to work real hard to out deport Obama who has by far the record in that
department.
Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians.
Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk
retreat from any debate.
The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN .
One does not "call these ways of thinking" anything, especially not words that are so overused
as to have lost all meaning except as a kind of profane slur. Rather, one characterizes ways of
thinking in all their complexity and examines their origins and likely political outcomes and
affiliations, as Lambert has done. One describes them and tries to see if they are justified in
the context of the lives as lived by their thinkers; how they are adaptive, and how they are maladaptive-not
judging ex cathedra , based on utterly inadequate information, not to mention an almost
complete moral imbecility, whether they are "orthodox" or "heretical" according to the schema
of rainbow righteousness, and then categorizing them with what has now deteriorated into a grade-school
epithet, rather than the damned ideology it once connoted.
Yea I think many of them may not be justified though, but may be based on the world view of
the voters. In other words it may be what they believe is true even it isn't.
For example they might think they are all losing their job to immigrants and in a few cases
this might be true, but I don't think statistics bear this out as a major source of job loss compared
to say outsourcing. So if they think the reason the job market is so bad is because of immigrants
that's not necessarily racist per se but it may be inaccurate.
"So what should does call these ways of thinking if not racist and/or sexist?"
You should call them: "Nobody cares about racism and sexism, because banksters, insurance companies,
defense companies and other crony capitalists use tools like you to distract from their robbing
the public blind."
You are part of the problem, so I don't care about you. FU.
Whom should they have voted for to strike against bigotry? Hillary "bring black criminals to
heel"/against gay marriage until 2013/"the future is female" Clinton?
"Besides, shouldn't one ask these voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly
sexist actions caused little or no offense to them? Did I miss that somewhere?"
Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways?
Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense
to them?
Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success,
a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed
the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism.
I am not satisfied with this whole "white innocence" subtext
The subtext is there for you to impute. It seems like the only way you can be convinced that
it is not there is for the interviewees to be explicitly condemned as racist because they voted
for a racist. You and others who hold your stance overlook the fact that there were only two candidates,
not several, including Trump's non-racist twin, to vote for, and so you have to deal with truly
awful tradeoffs. Should I assume you are an imperialist because you voted for someone who helped
install a military regime in Honduras??
Would you consider yourself a "social justice warrior"? Your comment certainly reads as if
a "social justice warrior" could have written it.
Are you a Race Card Identyan? The Race Card has been played so often it is wearing out. In
fact, it has worn all the way out for many people. The intended targets of this guilt-inducement
gambit may no longer feel the guilt you seek to induce. And where there is no more guilt, there
will be no more obedience. And where does that leave you?
You sound like a typical Clinton-Brock Democrat. Today's Mainstream Democratic Party would
be a good fit for you. If you aren't already in it, you might consider joining it.
Politics has been fractal for the past 30-35 years. Same old input-output on an ever expanding
iterative footprint. It's old. It's tired. It'd not serving most voters. It's economically hurting
most voters. Bernie and Trump showed promise of breaking the fractal iteration and replacing it
with something new. Maybe better. That's what people voted for, imo.
Oh no no no no.. you do not get away with crap like "shouldn't one ask these
voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly sexist actions caused
little or no offense to them".
Show me one that said Trump's stuff wasn't offensive. And your phrasing is either
deliberately or just stupidly messed up. "[C]aused little or no offense to them". I'm a white
male, saying bad things about black females will get me near about ready throttle you but it
"caused little or no offense to" me because that would be insanely presumptuous on my
part. I have a heartache about how people are put upon due to race and or sex but that
oppression sure isn't something I can claim as mine.
>ignores the discursive nature of racist attitudes and beliefs and how easily they can
transmute into a self-justifying politics
Do these people have money? No. Do their kids have job prospects? No. I think that is
enough to legitimatize what they are saying, I don't care if their very next breath is "them
n-words get all the stuff". They are far from perfect, but it is just *so* funny how the most,
tell you to your face racist will then say "oh but Jim down at work is OK". They are just
people, plenty of warts. Get off your high horse, bet you have a number of warts of your own.
a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions
all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people.
This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious
meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it.
Odd that you would attack the "Listen Liberal crowd," given that Thomus Frank was mostly critical
of the Democrats. I am not attacking, just want to learn more about your perspective.
I'm just guessing, but I think that casino implosion is referring to his distaste for the people
that Frank discusses in that book, not his distaste for people like Frank.
I don't know who/what casino implosion meant to address herm's comment to, but I will just
guess that by "Listen Liberal" crowd, heeshee meant the crowd about/against/to whom "Listen Liberal"
was written.
Turns out Trump Voters are Human.
Here, looking into the myths behind "Trump voters" might be constructive. The biggest myth is
that they are tust political troles. In the course of deconverting from Catholism to Atheism,
abserveed that many of our political beleifes are formed under the same structures as one's religous
beleifes. Thoughts about the "free market" are heald just as strongly as stronly as devotion to
Jesus.
Even those who deconvert from their religion, often bring their political belifes with them
into the Athiest community. Often without having them challanged.
And this is the point. One deconverts from a religion because it is challanged by science.
But political beleifes are rarly chalanged.
One exception was in 2007, when the economey colapsed. Many peoples convictions in the "free
market" were directly challanged by reality. And on the political stage they saw McCain talking
about freee markets as if nothing had happend. Conservatives were confused and looking for answers.
They thoght Obama had them.
But Obama also dubbled down on the free market narative. This was a huge mistake because part
of that narative is that all Liberals are socialists. And socialism is evil. So yay, Trump is
Obama's legacy.
Trump voters are human. This means they are far smarter than people give them credit, even
without a GED. They vote acording to the information and evidence they hae been presented with.
But we live in a world where that narative has been carfuly mananged and tended too. Democrats,
rather than chalanging that system, felt they could simply build their own and construct their
own naraive. Hence we get "Russia Russia Russia!" And this is not convicing to conservative votes
who already know the one "true" narrative,
I live in Macomb County. My precinct, my neighbors, voted for Trump. They hate NAFTA. They
hate free trade with China. They hate H1B visas. These are people to whom $100,000 plus a year
union factory job was nothing. We all knew people who had them. Those jobs built this county.
Period. So Clinton never stood a chance here.
They were willing to give Trump a chance. And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed
a fast food CEO to head up the labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working
class in America keeps him up at night.
The other option available to us was the fast coffee CEO as Labor Secretary. McJobs were more
or less baked into the Establishment lineup on "both" sides. It's almost as if the real decisions
were made long before the election and concealed from us, and elections are held to manufacture
the image of just consent to the proto-feudal system.
To Teleportnow:
And from this distance, even I could see that nothing, other than PR, was going to be done about
any of them by either R or D candidate. There I go again, flogging the same dead horse.
And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the
labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him
up at night.
We're fortunate that Puzder's nomination was withdrawn. It's a pity that the same didn't happen
to Pruitt's nomination (Trump supporters are just as vulnerable to pesticides, lead, mercury,
and other poisons as other people), or Mnuchin's nomination (many Trump supporters have been abused
by corrupt bankers or mortgage processors like Mnuchin and his recently divested OneWest Bank).
You are absolutely correct about Trump's lack of concern for the plight of the American working
class. Not that Obama or Clinton care much about them, either.
Obama's betrayals of his core voters were disguised in the smoke of financial collapse where
systemic effects were years in expressing themselves, brutal though they proved to be. They were
as smooth and subtle as the man who envisioned them.
Trump's betrayals are, like him, blunt, flagrant and outrageous.
That the Democrats have achieved even lower approval ratings(CBS) than the Donald (Gallup)
is the strongest legitimizing force in his thus far execrable presidency.
Unlke Reagan he might actually be a good actor :). Or he can give a speech like he feels working
class pain and hit all the right notes, but policy so far is horrible.
"And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the labor
department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him up at night."
Trump's appointments have been unfortunate, but remember every establishment bigwig had been
lining up to announce she would never serve in this administration, all of them too good and pure
for Trump. So what is he supposed to do if he couldn't even convince a couple of second rate rock
and roll bands to gyrate at his inauguration. Of course he appointed friends and friends-of-friends
and relatives. The establishment brought this on themselves. I couldn't care less as long as he
keeps torpedoing the dearest plans of the slave owners. And by the way the first thing he did
was he castrated TPP and that cannot be said enough times.
In other good news, Today the SIlicon Valley H1B exploiters got raided by ICE and about time.
You know what? Maybe the plight of his base really does keep him up at night
This is part of the collateral damage I knew I was risking when I voted for Trump in order
to make my vote against Clinton as effective as possible. And we have kept Clinton out of the
office for at least this time around.
If/when we are able to crush, smash and destroy the rolling Slow Coup against the 2016 Presidential
Election Outcome by the IC, the Wall Street Elite, and the Mainstream Democratic Party . . . .
then we will be free to try preventing Trump's damage, mitigating the Trump damage already achieved,
and begin growing culture-and-politics-based Economic Combat movements devoted to targeting the
purchasing and consumption choices of a hundred million people against certain Black Hat Industries
which support Trump to advance their own sinister agendas.
We could start doing that now, if we didn't have to spend energy on countering the Remove Trump
conspiracy first.
1. The Dem Party is in a tough position. Where do they go from here?
On the one hand, it'll be tough to wean from the big givers on Wall St and Silicon valley.
Cultivating the small givers and unions will take a lot of time and work.
Also the Dems seem to have little use for Bernie. They seem to wish that he would just go just
go away and leave the Party alone. Bernie, however, could be the Dem's savior.
I don't see the Dem Party choosing a feasible direction. Maybe it will take a few more years
for the Party to sort it out and find a point man.
2. I'm not surprised there is racism, misogyny, and chauvinism among many voters, including
Trumpeters. I suspect that in times of economic "stress" pointing fingers feels natural, even
desirable. Judging from the press, there's a lot of economic "stress" around.
The Bernies could begin by invading and conquering those regional and local Democratic Party
areas which seem least pro-Clinton. Those could be First Landing Beachheads. Once those were secured,
the Berniecrats could work on building strength within them, eliminating every Clintonite " Left-Behind"
type person remaining to try destroying the Berniecrats from within, and then working to break
out of their Secured Beachheads to conquer and decontaminate more Democratic Party territory.
I'm a life-long Democrat and I despise my party. But I'm not stupid. That Trump was a con man
was evident from the beginning but, like most voters, both candidates made me want to vomit. (James
Howard Kunstler called them "human hairballs." )
Unfortunately, all those Trump voters who are worried about jobs, the economy, health care,
etc., will soon discover that Trump doesn't give a fuck about them. He likes their adulation,
since it feeds his ego, but he and every one of his execrable appointments will just make their
lives worse.
Yes, you can't blame people who cast their vote in "hope" of something better.
In the case of Trump, their inevitable disappointment will be that much sadder & acute.
I want to know the extent to which the Faux Noise network is responsible for shaping the views
of Trump voters. It is by far the favored mainstream TV station for news in red-state America.
A steady diet of a certain skewed viewpoint for years upon years has to have a significant effect
on one's thought processes. I can't believe that millions of people spontaneously rose up and
decided to throw off the shackles of business as usual without some major groundwork being done
to get them all riled up. Years of being told that Hillary was corrupt, the devil incarnate etc
etc by right-wing talking heads has to be a factor.
Obama was demonized by Fox News too, yet the reason for the Trump win was that the Trump vote
(in numbers) was essentially the same as the Romney vote, but the Dem vote was down v. 2012, and
that was due to lower turnout, notably of people of color.
Lambert has also repeatedly pointed out that the swing state wins were due to Rust Belt counties
that went for Obama going for Trump. And it has been documented repeatedly that propensity to
vote for Trump correlated strongly with opioid related deaths in the area, regardless of the voter's
income level.
Economic insecurity is the driving factor. The more insecure people become the more tribal
their behavior. People want economic change more than anything else and if they see that the government
is doing something to provide them a better life then other social changes are possible..
A paralyzed Congress is great for the elite as the status quo is beneficial to them as they
have successfully rigged the system. People want to see legislative action.
Ryan stated " "Moving from an opposition party to a governing party comes with some growing
pains," The problem is that Republicans were never an opposition party, they were an obstructionist
party that only knew how to say "NO".
The establishment Democrats are setting themselves up to become the exact same obstructionists..
This will not help them in 2018. Now is the time to try to force votes on measures that are obviously
what the people want.even if they are sure to fail. Let the Republicans stay the obstructionists.
I am a bit disappointed to not see a reference to Jeremy Grantham's quarterly letter at GMO
regarding the narrarives that motivated people to vote for Trump. I have posted about this several
times before. His letter runs on pages 9-15 of this link:
The Road to Trumpsville: The Long, Long Mistreatment of the American Working Class
JG presents a lot of compelling information regarding the decline of labor vs. capital in compensation,
the exploding income of the top 0.1% vs. everyone else, income inequality and the breakdown of
social cohesion – both in words and charts. His Post Script summary is classic in my humble opinion,
especially this line about what the voters across Red state are desperately seeking from Washington:
"Save me, oh leaders, from the rich and powerful!" Personally I would edit that to "the rich
and powerfully corrupt".
Of course there are issues, and of course Hillary was a horrible candidate, but voting for
trump was an insane way to make a point. He will clearly do more to damage the lower and middle
classes than any president in the last 100 years. He will be able to fix NOTHING. More war (jobs?).
More tax breaks for the rich. Less money for anyone without money. A simple tried and true capitalist
asshole approach. He will not survive term 1, and then pence comes in lovely, not.
Please. He stopped Clinton, which at least slowed down TPP and the Russian War. Trump doesn't
even seem interested in killing Social Security. He yanked Ryan's health care "plan"; Hillary
said she was looking forward to working with Ryan. Trump's going to do horrible things, but so
far, his election is far better for American workers than if Clinton had been installed. If nothing
else, it slows down Washington's neoliberal horror show, and the pain of people in the midwest
was at least briefly covered in the corporate press, as opposed to being completely hidden under
Obama, which would have continued under Clinton. Voting for Trump was saner than voting for Clinton.
(I voted for neither. I also live in California.)
The only way we get Pence is if the Democrats and the CIA succeed in their coup. So let's all
try to get them to cut it out.
This post is absolutely correct and important. The financialization of the economy which has
led to inequality, skyrocketing debt, and early death in Mid-America must be addressed. Corporate
Media and the Democrats ignore it and are scapegoating Russia to continue getting their paybacks
from Wall Street. This post highlights the coming tragedy. Clearly Disruptive Capitalism destroys
governments and society. Under stress people revert to their tribal roots. By ignoring the base
causes; war, infinite growth on a finite planet and exploitation by the Elite, the West is being
ripped apart.
It's not just the West. The Global South, largely unseen and unreported on and very much at
the sharp end of extractive neo-colonialism, isn't in great shape either. Voters in Western Europe
express "legitimate concerns" about economic and climate migrants from Africa and the ME, but
often don't stop to think about the dire conditions and political strife that are driving that
migration flow.
Thousands of people are drowning every year in the Mediterranean and that's the visible tip
of the iceberg. It's just unimaginable what's currently happening.
So, Dems ran a terrible status quo candidate that had been a long time target of Faux News
in a "change" election. Most Trump voters in rural Kentucky told me they were voting against H
rather than for T. Oh, and abortion, guns, bathrooms.
Dems have ignored rural communities they didn't already hold for several election cycles. No
prominent national Democratic politician has ventured outside of the cities of Louisville and
Lexington if they visit Kentucky at all. Spend a little time in rural communities and you begin
to see how bleak the picture is for them – I asked everyone I could what they would do if they
were King of Kentucky with an unlimited budget. There were very few soloutions offered.
(IMO Kentucky is Ground Zero. A border state since the Civil War that used to be Democratic
– what better place for Dems to start to rebuild and appeal to Rural America?)
Dems also could have chosen to include and even woo independent voters. Instead, they took
a "who else are you gonna vote for" attitude and pivoted right. Yes, Vice President Sanders would
have been a pita but that would have been a significantly better result.
Still no house cleaning in the Democratic Party, Clintons and Wassermans and Brazilles still
circling. Grrr.
oof, sorry about the wonky link formatting. I tried to use the "link" button in the editor,
and got this weird result. I tried to edit twice, now can't edit.
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is Democracy Corps:
The object after "is" probably isn't suppose to be the polling source. It probably should read
something like
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is replace corrupt tax
farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) Democracy Corps:
So what is going to happen when Trump voters realize at the end of four years that their choice
has not delivered for them? Unfortunately they will not be able to realize that he never intended
to deliver anything for them. However, the same problems or worse will remain. Lets project the
current situation out into the future with the understanding that there is no credible agent or
desire for real meaningful change and improvement from those presently in power. What I see does
not look good, and perhaps I will have the good fortune not to be around to see it.
"... Trump at least was offering the economically devastated Americans a slight chance to improve their standard of living and get better jobs. That assuming that he keep his promises, which, of course, is not given. But why one should not give him a benefit of doubt, if Hillary was all about the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road? ..."
"... Most people voted for Trump not because they liked him, but out of despair knowing that the Hillary will betray all her promises the next day after the elections like Obama did and will behave like a female clone of John McCain in foreign policy. ..."
"... In other words, by electing Trump most Americans lost nothing since Clinton would pursue the same pro top 1% policies, just with a larger doze of hypocrisy. ..."
"Terry McAuliffe Has A Very Clintonian Plan For Democrats
To Win Back Power"
'It's still the economy, stupid'
By Sam Stein...04/03/2017...07:05 pm ET
"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has a two-pronged strategy
for his fellow Democrats to regain power in the age of Trump:
Don't get distracted by the chaos and prioritize the states.
In an interview with The Huffington Post, McAuliffe called
on Democrats to simplify their message down to its most
fundamental, Clintonian core. For all the talk of Russian
connections, disorganization and dubious ethics, McAuliffe
argued, voters care most about the economy. Democrats would
be wise to explain how President Donald Trump is failing them
on that front.
"Don't chase the shiny objects," McAuliffe said, advising
those running for office. "The public is sick of people
picking partisan fights for the sake of fights. I don't pick
fights with Trump for the sake of picking arguments. I am one
of his most vocal critics because, as I've said, this man is
a one-man wrecking crew to my economy."..."
Economics, like PPACA idolaters, is a red [no change DNC]
herring.
In 2018, it will be reconstituting the US' Bill of
Rights and who pulled the redaction off the names the NKDV/NSA
picked up in the politically directed wire tapping (euphemism
for violating citizens privacy rights) to be used for
politics and attempting a coup.
Your Monday morning quarterbacking missed the key three
points about the Democratic Party. DemoRats:
1. Betrayed
the left
2. Betrayed the New Deal
3. Became a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party.
Trump at least was offering the economically
devastated Americans a slight chance to improve their
standard of living and get better jobs. That assuming that he
keep his promises, which, of course, is not given. But why
one should not give him a benefit of doubt, if Hillary was
all about the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road?
The only segment of population that would be better under
Hillary are retirees as they are out of job market anyway,
but this is not what the majority of population wants. They
want jobs.
Most people voted for Trump not because they liked
him, but out of despair knowing that the Hillary will betray
all her promises the next day after the elections like Obama
did and will behave like a female clone of John McCain in
foreign policy.
John McCain was rejected by voters, if I remember
correctly.
In other words, by electing Trump most Americans lost
nothing since Clinton would pursue the same pro top 1%
policies, just with a larger doze of hypocrisy.
Neoliberal, dominated by Clinton wing Democratic Party is
done, as they have nothing to offer to the voters. They are
history.
My impression is that cutting off Democratic
Party from the teat of the Wall Street is currently virtually impossible. You need a serious crisis
to shake off Clinton's neoliberal wing from Democratic Party. May be even another economic crisis
like 2008.
Also Democratic Party, Republican Party, the US Congress and the Federal Government are all just
different faces of the same entity -- the National Security State.
With the level of jingoism demonstrated recently by Democratic Party (which was the forte of Republicans
in the past), Clinton's Democrats and Republicans now are like Siamese twins, and to separate them
from each other is like trying to separate two sides of a dollar bill.
"... My impression is that cutting off Democratic Party from the teat of the Wall Street is currently virtually impossible. You need a serious crisis to shake off Clinton's neoliberal wing from Democratic Party. May be even another economic crisis like 2008. ..."
"... Also Democratic Party, Republican Party, the US Congress and the Federal Government are all just different faces of the same entity -- the National Security State. ..."
My impression is that cutting off Democratic Party from the
teat of the Wall Street is currently virtually impossible.
You need a serious crisis to shake off Clinton's neoliberal
wing from Democratic Party. May be even another economic
crisis like 2008.
Also Democratic Party, Republican Party, the US Congress
and the Federal Government are all just different faces of
the same entity -- the National Security State.
With the level of jingoism demonstrated recently by
Democratic Party (which was the forte of Republicans in the
past), Clinton's Democrats and Republicans now are like
Siamese twins, and to separate them from each other is like
trying to separate two sides of a dollar bill.
It is an easy thing to criticize neoliberalism now, when it
was already unmasked (especially the USA variant of it, aka
"casino capitalism")
A more difficult thing is to point to a viable
alternative.
anne said...
April, 2017
Do election outcomes matter?
So what have we discovered? While these patterns need to be investigated more thoroughly, the
data suggest no clear difference between Democratic and Republican presidents on 20 of the 30
outcomes:
Income inequality: top 1%'s share
Economic growth
Median wealth
Homeownership
Stock market
Unionization
Black-white income ratio
Female-male pay ratio
College graduates
Life expectancy
Homicides
Incarceration
Marriage
Out-of-wedlock births
Abortions
Religiosity
Immigration
Imports
Trust
Earth's average temperature
We do observe a partisan difference for 10 of the outcomes (the party achieving better
performance is listed in parentheses):
Stunningly, losing the white house to a carnival act has not yet seemed
to convince Democrats that the neoliberal restructuring of economy and
society (runaway financialization of everything is fine; transnational
capital flows do god's work; job retraining heals all wounds) will no longer
fly.
For highly qualified professionals in cities benefitting from
transnational capital flows and working in financial services, it flies very
well, and this group (broadly construed) 1) is not negligible in size 2)
votes 3) has become the core of the Democratic constituency and 4) staffs
Democratic administrations (local and national). So pushing the neoliberal
restructuring of society is a feature, not a bug.
If the American electorate is increasingly structured around three groups
(neoliberal/left/reactionaries; or in mock form Suits/Hippies/Rednecks),
then the neoliberal and left/ecologist group have to join rank to defeat
reactionary nationalists, but that is
equally true
for both groups.
As the neoliberal group is socially and electorally stronger (if not
necessarily numerically), it does not feel it is the one which has to make
the concessions (in practice, this translated into "Vote for Clinton or else
Trump" and I fear that 2018 and 2020 will be "Vote for this pro-corporate
Dem or else More Trump"; again a feature, not a bug).
T
03.28.17 at
4:27 pm
Corey-
Hiding in plain sight. Welcome back. And hat tip for the admission.
Being a man of ideas I think you particularly underestimated the effect
of personality on the election. The visceral disgust with HRC among many
working class people in the Midwest was just palpable. If Biden ran he would
have walked and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You should get out
more.
btw-is it a coincidence that the daughters of Trump and Clinton are
married to sons of incredibly wealthy convicted felons? I think the answer
is no and I think the question isn't trivial.
T
03.28.17 at
4:59 pm
As to the success of the Trump agenda, a lot of policy is going to be made
through regulation, not legislation. We're already seeing this with
environmental regulation. Antitrust will likely become even more permissive.
The private Obamacare insurance markets will get a push over the cliff. And
on and on. My guess is that inequality measures have already surpassed the
1928 peak having just fallen short in 2007 and will just get worse. The top
0.01% and above are making out like bandits with the stock market increase.
He was in over his head on day one. If you're not aware, real estate
development shops are tiny(and he's pretty much a branding operation now).
Many have less that 100 people. The architects, contractors, etc are all
outside. He's never run anything big. Hell, many government departments and
agencies have offices and divisions that are larger than his firm. That
doesn't mean he can't do a vast amount of damage which he will. We've only
seen hints of the mess he'll make of foreign affairs. And when the domestic
agenda isn't going well? There's always time for a war.
Finally, if his goal is to do well by himself, his family and his
friends, he might consider his presidency very successful indeed. You keep
measuring success by you're standards, not his.
bruce wilder
03.28.17 at 5:52 pm
phenomenal cat @ 12
Yep. It is a legitimacy crisis. It was always going to be a legitimacy
crisis. (I thought Clinton would win - I was wrong; but I think her
prospective election and the narratives attached to it also had the markings
of a legitimacy crisis.) Trump is in the hot seat and his clownishness maybe
flavors it a bit, but a legitimacy crisis was close to inevitable, even if
the outcome of the election in terms of who was elected, was chancier.
Trump's defects of character are not causing the legitimacy crisis - this
can be hard to see given how clownish he is and how relentlessly he is
attacked, but this recognition may turn out to be important to understand
what comes next, as events unfold.
politicalfootball @ 20
"A liberalism that fails to confront monsters enables them, as every
left-oriented critic of Barack Obama will tell you. That is, they'll tell
you that unless they are talking about Donald Trump, whose supporters, they
say, need to be understood and empathized with."
I have to say I have read that paragraph several times and I do not
understand what you are trying to say. Maybe it does seem plain to you, but
I cannot make sense of it. The first sentence seems plain enough a
declaration - no problem there. But, then, I have to connect the first
sentence to the second and I am at a loss. Left-wing critics of Obama will
not
tell you "a liberalism that fails to confront monsters enables
them" with regard to Trump? Huh? And, then that second sentence switches to
what left-wing critics of Obama would say about Trump's supporters (not
otherwise identified) and I am lost without navigational aids. Is Trump the
monster? The people who voted for Trump? The people who voted for Clinton?
(I voted for neither.)
Your explanation, offered @ 20:
What some of [left critics of Obama]
can't get a grip on is that this does nothing to justify Trump. Less than
nothing, because it's clear that on every axis where Obama was bad, Trump
will be worse, and Trump made it clear in advance that he would be worse.
How does anything justify Trump? would be my question (as a left critic
of Obama). Trump is not "just" in any common sense of the term. And, how are
differences between Obama and Trump relevant, here? (There is a leftish meme
that points to the fact that some key counties and states that voted for
Obama voted for Trump - are you trying to confront some particular analysis
associated with that meme? Just guessing here.)
P.S. Sanders was not a choice in the general election and was arguably
disabled, along with the Democratic Party as a whole, by Obama and Clinton.
That's a whole 'nother line of argument engaged in by "left critics of
Obama" but I cannot tell whether you are taking a particular view on that
line or not.
John Quiggin
03.29.17 at 12:49 am
"Both things are true: That Trump exists on a continuum with other
Republicans, and that he constitutes a break with the past in some key
respects"
I take it practically, not theoretically. Seven years ago I wrote here,
there and everywhere, that Obamacare should be passed, even without a public
option, because it will automatically drive the path to a single payer.
It will do this by first hobbling the GOP, by forcing them to choose
between tax cuts and universal care, a divide they cannot bridge. (I wrote
that we all demand that any tax-cut legislation the Republicans propose, be
linked to the spending cuts to cover it, in the SAME piece of legislation:
so the public can see their choice. Then, as now, the Republicans always try
the "dynamic scoring" excuse - the falsehood that tax cuts "pay for
themselves" by causing economic growth in in the future.)
Also, years ago I thought Trump could be the opportunist to insert
himself into the Republican crack-up. But I thought would lose this election
because the polls put Hillary ahead by 2-3%, and because the voters would
see through Trump's braggadocio, and be repelled by his dishonesty &
immorality.
Maybe Hillary did actually win, because the Russians hacked into the
voting booths too - who knows? Certainly, every Congressperson who goes into
a closed-door session with the intelligence community, comes back out,
looking like they've been hit by a bomb.
It may be better this way. If Hillary had won, the GOP would still be in
full blockade, still causing frustration in the voters, and still coming
back to take control in a future election. So let's have the poisons all
come out, now
The Wall Street Democrats have been dealt a substantial setback with
the ejection of Hillary
- and Sanders, an Independent, is now the voice
of the opposition party. Sanders is the most popular politician in the U.S.,
he gets 6 TV cameras on an hour's notice. This is fun! Meanwhile the GOP has
to deal with Trump, whose lack of ideology is allowing their internal divide
to grow wider. The Democrats, having almost no power, can sit back and enjoy
the spectacle (although not for much longer).
There are two problems for the Republicans, in Congress and in the White
House:
1. The aforementioned Congressional crack-up between the "moderates" and
the Freedom Caucus. Next, they have to get together to deal with the
automatic gov't shutdown in less than a month, unless they push up the debt
ceiling. And,
2. the Administration's split into the Wall Street crooks in the cabinet,
and the "economic nationalist" fantasies of Bannon and the bananans.
I think that the President whom Trump is most like, is Reagan: Trump has
a few crackpot ideas, otherwise no attention span, he just wants to be loved
in the spotlights. He needs caretakers to run the White House. But there is
no one of the expertise of a James Baker, to do it.
Much of the DC establishment back in 2016 complained that Obama hadn't been
tough enough on Assad and the Russians. That's where the "propaganda" about
Clinton wanting a war with Russia comes from. It was widespread. There was
much talk about the brutality of Aleppo (far more than about the brutality
we were supporting in Yemen). It will be interesting to see if Trump's
increase in civilian deaths in Mosul will lead to the same cries of war
crimes. This is an actual case where Trump really is doing something as bad
as Putin, but it's not qualitatively distinct from what Obama was doing,
just an increase.
Getting back to Russia, talk of no fly zones meant war in Syria, which
risked confrontation with Russia. And Michael Morell had just endorsed
Clinton a few days before he advocated killing Russians in Syria on the
Charlie Rose show–
http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Ivt2NmbyGg
JimV
03.29.17
at 5:40 pm
(
37
)
Anarassie: thanks for the reply. To clear up a possible misunderstanding, in
my first paragraph I gave my understanding of what I thought
politicalfootball was saying, not my personal opinion. I don't know for
sure, but probably some of my relatives and best friends voted for Trump.
That HRC wants to start a war with Russia is phony propaganda is my opinion:
a) I have seen no evidence of it that can't be more plausibly explained in
another way; and b) I don't think she is crazy.
For example, some have said that her proposal to negotiate a no-fly-zone
among the air-powers involved in the Syria conflict, to provide a corridor
for refugees and humanitarian aide, was aimed at starting a war with Russia.
I will of course accept that your own view is neither phony nor
propaganda to you, since you apparently believe in it. I believe it is
propaganda on the part of some (probably no one here), and phony because it
is not the truth. (How I wish there were reliable lie-detectors which all
candidates and pundits had to pass.)
Oh, and kudos to Lee Arnold for his analysis of the ACA issue. I hope he
is also prescient about getting all the poison out of our system in the next
four years.
I do not particularly want to (re-)litigate the election or the
politics of lesser evils in the comments of Crooked Timber.
Once we are emotionally committed to some narrative, it can be hard to
hear some of what other people are saying, on the terms of the people saying
it. I, personally, can say I do not understand what the disputes are that
are splitting the Republicans. I have no feel for them at all, but in my
ignorance, I pay attention to what CR has to say, to learn if I can. I do
have more confidence in my understanding of the major splits among
Democrats. I am not saying I have much sympathy for "any Democrat" politics
of the kind you espouse. I was a "more and better Democrats" kind of guy for
a long time, but you "any Democrat" types prevailed with predictable results
and you do not want to own any responsibility for the horrifying result.
Imho, of course. I do not propose to hash that out. "More and better" lost
and as far as I can tell Sanders is still coming up short; the Obama-Clinton
establishment holds fast, able to play a louder media Wurlitzer than I
thought they had, and the "any Dems" left in Congress do not look any more
effective now than they ever were. As for heaping tribal abuse on Trump
voters, I say, have at it, for whatever personal satisfaction it gives. I
cannot imagine why you think "left Obama critics" (like me) are somehow
inhibiting you or our lack of sufficient enthusiasm for pre-adolescent name
calling is a moral deficiency.
@26: "Trump's defects of character are not causing the legitimacy crisis -
this can be hard to see given how clownish he is and how relentlessly he is
attacked,"
People are certainly being really mean to Orange Julius Caesar
by criticizing things he does and says. But they can turn on a dime.
Remember how "presidential" Trump was after he managed to get through an
address to Congress without making fun of Arnold Schwarzenegger or biting
the head off a chicken?
"Clownish" makes him sound rather harmless. A pol can be "clownish" and
still be a decent man who is good at his job. Trump is an ignorant and
irresponsible grifter who is shamelessly profiteering off the presidency
while catering to the most vicious and destructive right-wing elements in
American culture. That may be "clownish" to you, but nobody else is
laughing.
"... As head of Barack Obama's National Economic Council during 2009 and 2010 at the height of the foreclosure crisis, Larry Summers broke many promises to help homeowners while simultaneously dismissing Wall Street's criminality. ..."
"... Now, after the Obama administration has left power and Summers has no ability to influence anything, he finds himself "disturbed" that settlements for mortgage misconduct are full of lies. ..."
"... Of course, the Wall Street Democrats, AKA Democratic partisan hacks that infest this blog, spent years defending Obama for his lax treatment of criminal bankers. (And these same folks were also among the most avid advocates of 'trickle down monetary policy,' which involved the Fed's showering cheap money on its owners, the Wall Street banking cartel and their wealthy clientele, while raising the margin over prime rates to their credit card victims/customers.) ..."
Larry Summers is going rogue? (But only long after the horse has left the barn!)
"As head of Barack Obama's National Economic Council during 2009 and 2010 at the height of
the foreclosure crisis, Larry Summers broke many promises to help homeowners while simultaneously
dismissing Wall Street's criminality.
Now, after the Obama administration has left power and Summers
has no ability to influence anything, he finds himself "disturbed" that settlements for mortgage
misconduct are full of lies.
Those of us who screamed exactly this for years, when Summers might
have been able to do something about it, are less than amused."
Of course, the Wall Street Democrats, AKA Democratic partisan hacks that infest this blog,
spent years defending Obama for his lax treatment of criminal bankers. (And these same folks were
also among the most avid advocates of 'trickle down monetary policy,' which involved the Fed's
showering cheap money on its owners, the Wall Street banking cartel and their wealthy clientele,
while raising the margin over prime rates to their credit card victims/customers.)
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... Naked Capitalism ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama before him, Trump campaigned as a rasa tabla ..."
"... There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of rasa tabla ..."
Nobody yet can tell whether Donald Trump is an
agent of change with a specific policy in mind, or merely a catalyst heralding
an as yet undetermined turning point. His first month in the White House saw
him melting into the Republican mélange of corporate lobbyists. Having promised
to create jobs, his "America First" policy looks more like "Wall Street First."
His cabinet of billionaires promoting corporate tax cuts, deregulation and
dismantling Dodd-Frank bank reform repeats the Junk Economics promise that
giving more tax breaks to the richest One Percent may lead them to use their
windfall to invest in creating more jobs. What they usually do, of course, is
simply buy more property and assets already in place.
One of the first reactions to Trump's election victory was for stocks of the
most crooked financial institutions to soar, hoping for a deregulatory scythe
taken to the public sector. Navient, the Department of Education's knee-breaker
on student loan collections accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) of massive fraud and overcharging, rose from $13 to $18 now that it
seemed likely that the incoming Republicans would disable the CFPB and shine a
green light for financial fraud.
Foreclosure king Stephen Mnuchin of IndyMac/OneWest (and formerly of Goldman
Sachs for 17 years; later a George Soros partner) is now Treasury Secretary –
and Trump is pledged to abolish the CFPB, on the specious logic that letting
fraudsters manage pension savings and other investments will give consumers and
savers "broader choice," e.g., for the financial equivalent of junk food.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hopes to privatize public education into
for-profit (and de-unionized) charter schools, breaking the teachers' unions.
This may position Trump to become the Transformational President that
neoliberals have been waiting for.
But not the neocons. His election rhetoric promised to reverse traditional
U.S. interventionist policy abroad. Making an anti-war left run around the
Democrats, he promised to stop backing ISIS/Al Nusra (President Obama's
"moderate" terrorists supplied with the arms and money that Hillary looted from
Libya), and to reverse the Obama-Clinton administration's New Cold War with
Russia. But the neocon coterie at the CIA and State Department are undercutting
his proposed rapprochement with Russia by forcing out General Flynn for
starters. It seems doubtful that Trump will clean them out.
Trump has called NATO obsolete, but insists that its members up their
spending to the stipulated 2% of GDP - producing a windfall worth tens of
billions of dollars for U.S. arms exporters. That is to be the price Europe
must pay if it wants to endorse Germany's and the Baltics' confrontation with
Russia.
Trump is sufficiently intuitive to proclaim the euro a disaster, and he
recommends that Greece leave it. He supports the rising nationalist parties in
Britain, France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, all of which urge
withdrawal from the eurozone – and reconciliation with Russia instead of
sanctions. In place of the ill-fated TPP and TTIP, Trump advocates
country-by-country trade deals favoring the United States. Toward this end, his
designated ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, urges the EU's
breakup. The EU is refusing to accept him as ambassador.
Will Trump's Victory Break Up the Democratic Party?
At the time this volume is going to press, there is no way of knowing how
successful these international reversals will be. What is more clear is what
Trump's political impact will have at home. His victory – or more accurately,
Hillary's resounding loss and the
way
she lost – has encouraged
enormous pressure for a realignment of both parties. Regardless of what
President Trump may achieve vis-à-vis Europe, his actions as celebrity chaos
agent may break up U.S. politics across the political spectrum.
The Democratic Party has lost its ability to pose as the party of labor and
the middle class. Firmly controlled by Wall Street and California billionaires,
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) strategy of identity politics
encourages any identity
except
that of wage earners. The candidates
backed by the Donor Class have been Blue Dogs pledged to promote Wall Street
and neocons urging a New Cold War with Russia.
They preferred to lose with Hillary than to win behind Bernie Sanders. So
Trump's electoral victory is their legacy as well as Obama's. Instead of
Trump's victory dispelling that strategy, the Democrats are doubling down. It
is as if identity politics is all they have.
Trying to ride on Barack Obama's coattails didn't work. Promising "hope and
change," he won by posing as a transformational president, leading the
Democrats to control of the White House, Senate and Congress in 2008. Swept
into office by a national reaction against the George Bush's Oil War in Iraq
and the junk-mortgage crisis that left the economy debt-ridden, they had free
rein to pass whatever new laws they chose – even a Public Option in health care
if they had wanted, or make Wall Street banks absorb the losses from their bad
and often fraudulent loans.
But it turned out that Obama's role was to
prevent
the changes that
voters hoped to see, and indeed that the economy needed to recover: financial
reform, debt writedowns to bring junk mortgages in line with fair market
prices, and throwing crooked bankers in jail. Obama rescued the banks, not the
economy, and turned over the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to his
Wall Street campaign contributors. He did not even pull back from war in the
Near East, but extended it to Libya and Syria, blundering into the Ukrainian
coup as well.
Having dashed the hopes of his followers, Obama then praised his chosen
successor Hillary Clinton as his "Third Term." Enjoying this kiss of death,
Hillary promised to keep up Obama's policies.
The straw that pushed voters over the edge was when she asked voters,
"Aren't you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Who were they
going to believe: their eyes, or Hillary? National income statistics showed
that only the top 5 percent of the population were better off. All the growth
in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during Obama's tenure went to them – the Donor
Class that had gained control of the Democratic Party leadership. Real incomes
have fallen for the remaining 95 percent, whose household budgets have been
further eroded by soaring charges for health insurance. (The Democratic
leadership in Congress fought tooth and nail to block Dennis Kucinich from
introducing his Single Payer proposal.)
No wonder most of the geographic United States voted for change – except for
where the top 5 percent, is concentrated: in New York (Wall Street) and
California (Silicon Valley and the military-industrial complex). Making fun of
the Obama Administration's slogan of "hope and change," Trump characterized
Hillary's policy of continuing the economy's shrinkage for the 95% as "no hope
and no change."
Identity Politics as Anti-Labor Politics
A new term was introduced to the English language: Identity Politics. Its
aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women,
LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by
organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street
(and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold
War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.
The identity that is conspicuously excluded is the working class. Identity
politics strips away thinking of one's interest in terms of having to work for
a living. It excludes voter protests against having their monthly paycheck
stripped to pay more for health insurance, housing and mortgage charges or
education, or better working conditions or consumer protection – not to speak
of protecting debtors.
Identity politics used to be about three major categories: workers and
unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim
Crow laws. These were the three objectives of the many nationwide
demonstrations. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the
Democratic Party. Their reappearance in Bernie Sanders' campaign in fact
threatens to tear the Democratic coalition apart. As soon as the primaries were
over (duly stacked against Sanders), his followers were made to feel unwelcome.
Hillary sought Republican support by denouncing Sanders as being as radical as
Putin's Republican leadership.
In contrast to Sanders' attempt to convince diverse groups that they had a
common denominator in needing jobs with decent pay – and, to achieve that, in
opposing Wall Street's replacing the government as central planner – the
Democrats depict every identity constituency as being victimized by every
other, setting themselves at each other's heels. Clinton strategist John
Podesta, for instance, encouraged Blacks to accuse Sanders supporters of
distracting attention from racism. Pushing a common economic interest between
whites, Blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ always has been the neoliberals' nightmare.
No wonder they tried so hard to stop Bernie Sanders, and are maneuvering to
keep his supporters from gaining influence in their party.
When Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, there was no pro-jobs or
anti-war demonstration. That presumably would have attracted pro-Trump
supporters in an ecumenical show of force. Instead, the Women's March on
Saturday led even the pro-Democrat
New York Times
to write a
front-page article reporting that white women were complaining that they did
not feel welcome in the demonstration. The message to anti-war advocates,
students and Bernie supporters was that their economic cause was a distraction.
The march was typically Democratic in that its ideology did not threaten the
Donor Class. As Yves Smith wrote on
Naked Capitalism
: "the track
record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large scale, is poor, and
the status of this march as officially sanctioned (blanket media coverage when
other marches of hundreds of thousands of people have been minimized, police
not tricked out in their usual riot gear) also indicates that the officialdom
does not see it as a threat to the status quo."
[1]
Hillary's loss was not blamed on her neoliberal support for TPP or her
pro-war neocon stance, but on the revelations of the e-mails by her operative
Podesta discussing his dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders (claimed to be given
to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, not a domestic DNC leaker as Wikileaks
claimed) and the FBI investigation of her e-mail abuses at the State
Department. Backing her supporters' attempt to brazen it out, the Democratic
Party has doubled down on its identity politics, despite the fact that an
estimated 52 percent of white women voted for Trump. After all, women do work
for wages. And that also is what Blacks and Hispanics want – in addition to
banking that serves
their
needs, not those of Wall Street, and health
care that serves
their
needs, not those of the health-insurance and
pharmaceuticals monopolies.
Bernie did not choose to run on a third-party ticket. Evidently he feared
being accused of throwing the election to Trump. The question is now whether he
can remake the Democratic Party as a democratic socialist party, or create a
new party if the Donor Class retains its neoliberal control. It seems that he
will not make a break until he concludes that a Socialist Party can leave the
Democrats as far back in the dust as the Republicans left the Whigs after 1854.
He may have underestimated his chance in 2016.
Trump's Effect on U.S. Political Party Realignment
During Trump's rise to the 2016 Republican nomination it seemed that he was
more likely to break up the Republican Party. Its leading candidates and gurus
warned that his populist victory in the primaries would tear the party apart.
The polls in May and June showed him defeating Hillary Clinton easily (but
losing to Bernie Sanders). But Republican leaders worried that he would not
support what they believed in: namely, whatever corporate lobbyists put in
their hands to enact and privatize.
The May/June polls showed Trump and Clinton were the country's two most
unpopular presidential candidates. But whereas the Democrats maneuvered Bernie
out of the way, the Republican Clown Car was unable to do the same to Trump. In
the end they chose to win behind him, expecting to control him. As for the DNC,
its Wall Street donors preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Bernie.
They wanted to keep control of their party and continue the bargain they had
made with the Republicans: The latter would move further and further to the
right, leaving room for Democratic neoliberals and neocons to follow them
closely, yet still pose as the "lesser evil." That "centrism" is the essence of
the Clintons' "triangulation" strategy. It actually has been going on for a
half-century. "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when
he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is
also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two
of them'."
[2]
By 2017, voters had caught on to this two-step game. But Hillary's team paid
pollsters over $1 billion to tell her ("Mirror, mirror on the wall ") that she
was the most popular of all. It was hubris to imagine that she could convince
the 95 Percent of the people who were worse off under Obama to love her as much
as her East-West Coast donors did. It was politically unrealistic – and a
reflection of her cynicism – to imagine that raising enough money to buy
television ads would convince working-class Republicans to vote for her,
succumbing to a Stockholm Syndrome by thinking of themselves as part of the 5
Percent who had benefited from Obama's pro-Wall Street policies.
Hillary's election strategy was to make a right-wing run around Trump. While
characterizing the working class as white racist "deplorables," allegedly
intolerant of LBGTQ or assertive women, she resurrected the ghost of Joe
McCarthy and accused Trump of being "Putin's poodle" for proposing peace with
Russia. Among the most liberal Democrats, Paul Krugman still leads a biweekly
charge at
The New York Times
that President Trump is following
Moscow's orders. Saturday Night Live, Bill Maher and MSNBC produce weekly skits
that Trump and General Flynn are Russian puppets. A large proportion of
Democrats have bought into the fairy tale that Trump didn't really win the
election, but that Russian hackers manipulated the voting machines. No wonder
George Orwell's
1984
soared to the top of America's best-seller lists
in February 2017 as Donald Trump was taking his oath of office.
This propaganda paid off on February 13, when neocon public relations
succeeded in forcing the resignation of General Flynn, whom Trump had appointed
to clean out the neocons at the NSA and CIA His foreign policy initiative
based on rapprochement with Russia and hopes to create a common front against
ISIS/Al Nusra seemed to be collapsing.
Tabula Rasa Celebrity Politics
U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama
before him, Trump campaigned as a
rasa tabla
, a vehicle for everyone
to project their hopes and fancies. What has all but disappeared is the past
century's idea of politics as a struggle between labor and capital, democracy
vs. oligarchy.
Who would have expected even half a century ago that American politics would
become so post-modern that the idea of class conflict has all but disappeared.
Classical economic discourse has been drowned out by their junk economics.
There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It
is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal
economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of
rasa tabla
politics.
Can the Democrats Lose Again in 2020?
Trump's November victory showed that voters found
him
to be the
Lesser Evil, but all that voters really could express was "throw out the bums"
and get a new set of lobbyists for the FIRE sector and corporate monopolists.
Both candidates represented Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. No wonder voter
turnout has continued to plunge.
Although the Democrats' Lesser Evil argument lost to the Republicans in
2016, the neoliberals in control of the DNC found the absence of a progressive
economic program to less threatening to their interests than the critique of
Wall Street and neocon interventionism coming from the Sanders camp. So the
Democrat will continue to pose as the Lesser Evil party not really in terms of
policy, but simply
ad hominum
. They will merely repeat Hillary's
campaign stance: They are
not
Trump. Their parades and street
demonstrations since his inauguration have not come out for any economic
policy.
On Friday, February 10, the party's Democratic Policy group held a retreat
for its members in Baltimore. Third Way "centrists" (Republicans running as
Democrats) dominated, with Hillary operatives in charge. The conclusion was
that no party policy was needed at all. "President Trump is a better
recruitment tool for us than a central campaign issue,' said Washington Rep.
Denny Heck, who is leading recruitment for the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (DCCC)."
[3]
But what does their party leadership have to offer women, Blacks and
Hispanics in the way of employment, more affordable health care, housing or
education and better pay? Where are the New Deal pro-labor, pro-regulatory
roots of bygone days? The party leadership is unwilling to admit that Trump's
message about protecting jobs and opposing the TPP played a role in his
election. Hillary was suspected of supporting it as "the gold standard" of
trade deals, and Obama had made the Trans-Pacific Partnership the centerpiece
of his presidency – the free-trade TPP and TTIP that would have taken economic
regulatory policy out of the hands of government and given it to corporations.
Instead of accepting even Sanders' centrist-left stance, the Democrats'
strategy was to tar Trump as pro-Russian, insist that his aides had committed
impeachable offenses, and mount one parade after another. "Rep. Marcia Fudge of
Ohio told reporters she was wary of focusing solely on an "economic message"
aimed at voters whom Trump won over in 2016, because, in her view, Trump did
not win on an economic message. "What Donald Trump did was address them at a
very different level - an emotional level, a racial level, a fear level," she
said. "If all we talk about is the economic message, we're not going to win."
[4]
This stance led Sanders supporters to walk out of a meeting organized by the
"centrist" Third Way think tank on Wednesday, February 8.
By now this is an old story. Fifty years ago, socialists such as Michael
Harrington asked why union members and progressives still imagined that they
had to work through the Democratic Party. It has taken the rest of the country
half a century to see that Democrats are not the party of the working class,
unions, middle class, farmers or debtors. They are the party of Wall Street
privatizers, bank deregulators, neocons and the military-industrial complex.
Obama showed his hand – and that of his party – in his passionate attempt to
ram through the corporatist TPP treaty that would have enabled corporations to
sue governments for any costs imposed by public consumer protection,
environmental protection or other protection of the population against
financialized corporate monopolies.
Against this backdrop, Trump's promises and indeed his worldview seem
quixotic. The picture of America's future he has painted seems unattainable
within the foreseeable future. It is too late to bring manufacturing back to
the United States, because corporations already have shifted their supply nodes
abroad, and too much U.S. infrastructure has been dismantled.
There can't be a high-speed railroad, because it would take more than four
years to get the right-of-way and create a route without crossing gates or
sharp curves. In any case, the role of railroads and other transportation has
been to increase real estate prices along the routes. But in this case, real
estate would be torn down – and having a high-speed rail does not increase land
values.
The stock market has soared to new heights, anticipating lower taxes on
corporate profits and a deregulation of consumer, labor and environmental
protection. Trump may end up as America's Boris Yeltsin, protecting U.S.
oligarchs (not that Hillary would have been different, merely cloaked in a more
colorful identity rainbow). The U.S. economy is in for Shock Therapy. Voters
should look to Greece to get a taste of the future in this scenario.
Without a coherent response to neoliberalism, Trump's billionaire cabinet
may do to the United States what neoliberals in the Clinton administration did
to Russia after 1991: tear out all the checks and balances, and turn public
wealth over to insiders and oligarchs. So Trump's his best chance to be
transformative is simply to be America's Yeltsin for his party's oligarchic
backers, putting the class war back in business.
What a Truly Transformative President Would Do/Would Have Done
No administration can create a sound U.S. recovery without dealing with the
problem that caused the 2008 crisis in the first place: over-indebtedness. The
only one way to restore growth, raise living standards and make the economy
competitive again is a debt writedown. But that is not yet on the political
horizon. Obama's doublecross of his voters in 2009 prevented the needed policy
from occurring. Having missed this chance in the last financial crisis, a
progressive policy must await yet another crisis. But so far, no political
party is preparing a program to juxtapose to Republican-Democratic austerity
and scale-back of Social Security, Medicare and social spending programs in
general.
Also no longer on the horizon is a more progressive income tax, or a public
option for health care – or for banking, or consumer protection against
financial fraud, or for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, or for a revived protection
of labor's right to unionize, or environmental regulations.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these
essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the
Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he
can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to
try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to
change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and
deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and
seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
If this slow but inexorable crash does lead to a political crisis, it looks
like the Republicans may succeed in convening a new Constitutional Convention
(many states already have approved this) to lock the United States into a
corporatist neoliberal world. Its slogan will be that of Margaret Thatcher:
TINA – There Is No Alternative.
And who is to disagree? As Trotsky said, fascism is the result of the
failure of the left to provide an alternative.
Trump victory was almost 30 years in the making, and I think all presidents starting from Carter
contributed to it.
Even if Hillary became president this time, that would be just one term postponement on
the inevitable outcome of neoliberal domination for the last 30 years.
I think anybody with dictatorial inclinations and promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington,
DC now has serious changes on victory in the US Presidential elections. So after Trump I, we
might see Trump II.
So it people find that Trump betrays his election promised they will turn to democratic
Party. They will turn father right, to some Trump II.
Due to economic instability and loss of jobs, people are ready to trade (fake) two party
"democracy" (which ensures the rule of financial oligarchy by forcing to select between two
equally unpalatable candidates) that we have for economic security, even if the latter means
the slide to the dictatorship.
That's very sad, but I think this is a valid observation. What we experience is a new variation
of the theme first played in 1930th, after the crash of 1928.
The story of working class and lower middle class turning to the far right for help after
financial oligarchy provoke a nationwide crisis and destroy their "way of life" and standards
of living is not new. In 1930th the US ruling class proved to be ready to accept the New Deal
as the alternative. In Germany it was not.
The Dems and The Repubs are
BOTH
austerity mongers. They both want to
starve the 99% and wage trillion dollar wars. The spoiler effect induced two
party system is what sustains the Deep State.
Of the now literally
hundreds of "fancy" voting methods all over the Internet, strategic hedge
simple score voting is the only one that specifically enables the common
voters to win elections against the two-party empowered Deep State. (All of
the many others treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual "hobby club" elections.)
Too bad we don't have simple score voting. Then we could give between 1
and 10 votes to many candidates. But no votes at all for Hillary the war
monger. We might place 8 votes for Bernie (since he is less bad than Hillary
(or more accurately, was previously though to be)), 10 write-in votes for
Jesse Ventura, and 10 write-in votes for Dennis Kucinich.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple
sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore
them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from one to ten
votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any number of
candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve
candidates, so people don't hog voting booths), and then simply add all the
votes up.
We must also abolish Deep State subvertible election machines ("computer
voting"), and get back to had counted paper ballots, with results announced
at each polling station just prior to being sent up to larger tabulation
centers.
b. Excellent post. The same phenomenon is occurring throughout the Atlantic
Alliance. This indicates that all share something in common. It is the
neo-liberal economic philosophy of the Oligarchy who have purchased western
politicians, media, think tanks and education and are superseding democracy
with corporate supranational rule. Inequality and chaos are hardwired into
the current system.
It's interesting that the Salon piece (essentially the Sanders viewpoint)
was written in response to a Vanity Fair piece (the Clintonite viewpoint)
that ends with the claim that non-Party members share
. . . the belief that the real enemy, the true Evil Empire, isn't Putin's
Russia but the Deep State, the CIA/F.B.I./N.S.A. alphabet-soup
national-security matrix. But if the Deep State can rid us of the
blighted presidency of Donald Trump, all I can say is "Go, State, go."
So that's your Clinton Democrat / McCain Republican viewpoint - aka
"neoliberal-neoconservative fascism." Rather tellingly, the Salon piece does
not include the world "neoliberal" but just rehashes the stale PR-speak of
"liberals vs. conservatives" that dominates mass corporate media in the
United States. In reality, policy in Washington is made by politicians and
bureaucrats who adhere to neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies and who
are really servants of consolidated wealth - the American oligarch class -
and their conflicts merely reflect disagreements among the oligarchs; for
example do Warren Buffett and George Soros and the Koch Brothers see
eye-to-eye on all issues? No, they don't, so their sock puppets like Bush
and Clinton have their differences. However, the neocons and neolibs are
so close to one another as to be indistinguishable
to the average
American citizen:
The main similarity between the two is that they have both become known
as "technofacists", meaning melders of corporate, state and military
power into a few political elites that allow comprehensive control. The
left and the right have marched full circle and met one another.
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
Another critical issue is using anti-trust to break up the media
conglomerates and destroy the centralized propaganda system that controls
U.S. corporate mass media, in which a handful of Wall Street-owned corporate
monsters dictate what kind of news stories are fed to the American public
via television, radio and print journalism.
These reforms seem highly unlikely, however, in the current political
environment.
What we probably have to look forward to is more likely continued
economic downturn and rising poverty. The deep state and establishment
politicians are not likely to give Trump anything, and will probably try to
push an economic collapse just to make Trump look bad - not that Trump's
policies have much to offer; infrastructure looks dead in the water and at
best will look like Iraqi Reconstruction 2.0 under GW Bush and Cheney. We'd
need an FDR-scale New Deal to turn that around and neither neocons nor
neolibs will ever go for that. Instead we'll likely get infighting and
factionalism, maybe a war between Trump and the Federal Reserve, etc.
Honestly given the rot in the federal government it seems the only hope
is for states to take matters into their own hands as much as possible and
set their own policies on rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs but
the federal government and their oligarchic corporate overlords are pressing
down on that as well. One hell of a nasty situation for the American people
is what it is, and maybe massive Soviet-scale collapse, and a fundamental
change in government (as happened with Putin in Russia post-Boris Yeltsin)
followed by rebuilding from the ground up is the only way out of this mess.
For too long, I've pointed out that the detailed list of
grievances stated in the
Declaration of Independence
were currently
alive and being carried out by the executive of the US federal government;
and that if the Patriots of 1776 were correct to revolt from British
tyranny, then the US citizenry was just as right and proper to revolt
against Outlaw US Empire tyranny. I expounded that position through the
comments at CommonDreams.org until I was banned because they went against
that website's support for Obama then the Killer Queen HRC.
At the end of the previous thread, I wrote that society has only one tool
to control human behavior--culture--and I've long argued that human culture
in the great majority of its societies is dysfunctional and has been for
quite some time--in what's now the USA, from the founding of Jamestown
onward. My view is the culture has reached a level of dystopia well beyond
the ability of anyone to return it to a functional state and find myself
agreeing with Reg Morrison--
The Spirit in the Gene
--that humanity is
what's known as a plague species, a conclusion shared by some very powerful
minds,
https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/
I don't particularly enjoy reaching such a conclusion given its meaning
for my progeny and the remainder of humanity. But unless we--humanity as a
whole--can regain control over ourselves through the imposition of a new,
stronger--perhaps seen as more ridged--culture capable of suborning vice and
desire to a satisfactory fitness for all, then we will reap the results of
having grossly overshot our ecological support systems and like other
species die-off as Morrison describes. How to accomplish such a radical
change in a very short time period given the levels of resistance to such
change is really the question of the moment. We know where the root of the
problem lies. But uprooting that weed that threatens the garden of humanity
presents the greatest challenge to humanity it will ever have to face.
The demodogs will not change any time soon if ever. They the party leaders
are only interest taking all the money the can from supporters small and
large giving to friends foundations and consultants.
It's funny that pseudo-Leftists like Dems, PS, Labour, SD and others don't
realize that what Kennedy once said still stands:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable.
Which is why it's no wonder many of those on the shitty end of the current
neo-liberal take-over are flocking to the few really leftist groups and to
the numerous and vast ultra-right parties/movements.
Which is also why trying to keep them out of power at all costs - as happens
in Europe, most notably in France - or trying to impeach/oust/coup/kill the
elected right-wing populist - as happens in the US right now - is a suicidal
move. If that sizable fraction of the population never gets anything, never
any part of power, not even a bone to gnaw, sooner or later, they'll just
get fed up, and when they'll have barely anything of value to lose, they
will go nuts. This, of course, would be even worse in the US than in EU,
considering that it's the part of society with the guns, the training to use
them, and more or less the will to use them if forced to.
But then, as another US president once said, the tree of liberty must be
refreshed in blood from time to time - his one famous quote who's
conspicuously absent from the Jefferson Memorial. And when I look closely, I
can't see any Western country where this "refreshment" isn't long overdue.
You're right, b. Dems will continue to bleed out. A good place to see this
will be the special election to replace in Georgia's 6th CD Rep. Tom Price,
who took the job to be Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Daily
Kos and ActBlue are shaking the can raising money for a young Dem staffer
named Jon Ossoff. Here's the Daily Kos
pitch
for Ossof:
But while Price might love him some Trump, his district doesn't feel the
same way. In fact, the 6th saw a remarkable shift on election night. Four
years ago, voters in this conservative but well-educated area supported
Mitt Romney by a wide 61-37 margin. In 2016, however, hostility toward
Trump gave the president just a 48-47 win-a stunning 23-point collapse.
That dramatic change in attitudes means this seat might just be in play.
The "Women's Strike" on International Women's Day was a dud. The Dems are
labeling what they're doing a "Resistance," as if they are fighting a
guerrilla war against Vichy. But what they're "fighting" for is really a
restoration of Vichy (Trump is more a caudillo) with young
corporate-friendly Dems like Ossoff.
Unfortunately, the Greens seem to be hobbled. They can't get
past the Democratic FEAR machine. And Jill Stein's recounts reeked of
collusion with Democrats.
That's why I switched from Greens to Pirate Party. Direct democracy has
appeal to anyone that doesn't want rule by a permanent monied class of
neolib cronys.
Actually I don't agree that the Left has lost. There's simply a lack of
ideas.
The extreme nationalist right goes in the US because geographically
isolated. In Europe it is time limited. In UK Brexit has won for the moment,
but it is falling apart, because it can't deliver economic success. (more to
see). In continental Europe, the extreme right are not gaining in the polls
(Wilders, Le Pen), rather stagnating.
Macron, in france, could have the right attitude, oriented to the young.
But it could turn bad.
The managed resistance serves corporate interests, just as the ruling party
does. Whichever party is in power. Billions of dollars in 1% money and
nearly all the media are behind keeping the 'resistance' and the party in
power the only two 'acceptable' vehicles for expressing yourself
politically.
But it's worse ... The universities are almost entirely populated by
identity politics and/or neoliberal 'left' professors, which of course
generates brain-fried future leaders and cadres of the two mainstream
parties. Such university environments also mean that alternative, real left
research and ideas are severely underfunded and legitimized.
But it's worse ... Even the left opposition to the two party system can't
bring itself to (or is too scared to) oppose open borders for economic
immigrants. Minimizing immigration had always been standard pro-worker
position prior to the rise of identity politics in the 1970s.
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under
the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply
economic migrants."
Sorry B, but this is outright bullshit. No country in EU-Europe needs to
import cheep labor from not-EU-countries. There are more then enough
EU-Europeans in search of better wages. The EU was extended exactly in order
to achieve this 'abundance' (o.k. not the only reason). The people you
denounce as "simply economic migrants" are not an imported good - they enter
the EU against all odds. And many, many are refguees coming from countries
ruined by western military interventions.
Well, if Zero Hedge is anything to go by, in a few years automation will
abolish the working class anyway. Then Bill Gates' depopulation scheme will
mop up the remnants.
"The ship was sinking---and
sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, "We've got to get
the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
On the question of the far right, only if
substantial sections of the political spectrum are shut out is there scope
for the extremists to come in and fill the gap. That is the danger to a
minor degree in England and to a greater degree in Continental Europe, as we
are told it was the danger in the Weimar republic. Some precedent, that.
I am not sure about the "populist" movements in Continental Europe but
the Brexit vote in England and the Trump movement in America do not, in
spite of the almost universal assertion to the contrary, represent a swing
to the right, let alone the far right. They represent a return to the
centre, a centre that has long been shut out in Western politics generally
and that is now tentatively re-asserting itself. It is only if that return
to the centre fails that we need fear the Neo-Nazis and the like coming in
to fill the gap.
Great post, b. Short and sweet and right on the money.
There's certainly a
looming trend. Western Australia's 8 year-old (Turnbull affiliated) Liberal
Govt was annihilated at the weekend.
On Saturday night the interim result was:
Labor 39, Liberal 11, Nats 4, unresolved 5.
(39 seats in a 59-seat parliament)
Malcolm Turnbull is pretending to be 'philosophical' about it...
the 'left' is a gang of 'middle-class' would-be jacobins, directing 'the
masses' while eating cake. there is no left, there is no right, there is a
top - the few - and a bottom - the many. as b points out the desperately
vocal few are left and/or right, they are on their own side of the top,
definitely not on the side of us many on the bottom. their policies create
more and more of us every day. they
are
our fathers and mothers in
that sense. we will dance on their graves.
b, please don't say 'pseudo
democrats' it sounds too jacobin, like the trots at wsws.org and their
constant 'pseudo left'. 'fake' will do for pseudo. and it's two fewer key
strokes - three in the same row. stick with the bottom against the top.
write what you want of course ... that's just a rant roiling my gut
gaining vent.
B in case you do not know (I doubt that) "true left" has been murdered long
time ago also in Europe where betrayal of working class interests by the
so-called mainstream workers parties/socialists, so-called communists and
trade unions in the West was fought on the streets in 1968 Paris and all
over the Europe and surprisingly it spilled out to eastern Europe in a form
of Prague revolt, Warsaw riots and mass strikes that swept across the
eastern block in anger of betrayal of workers interests by the ruling
socialist workers parties who turned into a calcified cliques and turned
against socialist workers movements and ideals of egalitarianism and
equality and started selling out to the Western oligarchs.
It was at that
time that under the guise of fake political detente first time massive
policies of outsourcing jobs from the western Europe to the Eastern Europe
commenced (starting with Hungary and Poland and later in Romania where the
Ceausescu's mafia turn away openly from Russian sphere of influence in
ideological, economic and political realm) in a ploy to provoke strikes in
the West and subsequently shutting down the factories (in fact transferring
the production to the eastern block in Europe and/or south America ruled
under dictatorships) if demanded by the oligarchs concessions of lowering
wages and decrease of benefits was not agreed upon by the Trade Unions.
In other words if Trade Unions did not completely capitulate they close
striking factories. Similar tactics have been use in the US under
environmental or productivity requirements pretension in 1960-tois and
1970-ties and later openly outsourcing for profits down south Mason-Dickson
line parallel and later to Mexico and Asia.
This unified betrayal of working class simultaneously by the West and the
East prompted proud vanguard of working class (leftists students of European
Universities and some of the trade unions) to respond to the exigent
circumstances, to respond to mortal threat to workers movements all over the
Europe in 1960-ties and 1970-ties.
These were unsung heroes of last true revolutionary leftist organizations
such as ETA, BR, RAF, AD, FLQ (in Canada) who took upon themselves a heroic,
revolutionary responsibility for defending vital interests of working
people, betrayed by mainstream leftists political parties, via a measured,
targeted and restrained self-defense campaign that aimed at threatening and
destruction of vital economic and financial interest of European oligarchy
including direct assaults on their personal safety and welfare, as a way to,
through a personal pain, humanize for them their abhorrent inhumane ways and
to make them suffer as working class comrades suffered under their inhuman
policies and acts including of violence, intimidation and murder.
This was the last stand of the true left against evil of spawning global
neoliberalism that in following decades swept the world with no opposition
to speak of left to fight it may be except for neo-Maoist guerrillas in
South America and Indian subcontinent. Even anti-imperial Palestinian FATAH
has been tamed while Islamic/religious movements have been supported to
control leftist tendencies within populations, a consequences of such a cold
decision of globalists we live with today.
This was the last stand of the true left in the Eastern and Western
Europe against betrayal of the Soviet Union elites, betrayal of the programs
and ideals of the international working class struggle they proliferated all
over the world.
It was utter betrayal by the descendants of soviet revolutionaries who
later transformed the hope for just, socialist egalitarian project into a
shallow propaganda façade of a mafia state conspiring with the West to rob
their own working people of the national treasure soviet/Eastern Block
working class worked hard to produce and preserve for future generations.
The betrayal culminated with a western orchestrated political collapse of
Soviet Union while the country was still on sound economic footing despite
of cold war military baggage, western embargoes and massive theft of the
corrupted party apparatchiks and cronies of Soviet ruling elite in last
decade before 1991, in way resembling massive US national treasure theft by
US banking mafia especially after 2008.
It is true that true left in US (decades before) and in Europe had to be
murdered since it was the last bastion of defenders of working class
interests against neoliberal globalist visions of a dystopia under umbrella
of US imperial neoconservative rule.
Now voters throughout the world have only two "no choice" choices between
full throttle globalist neoliberalism or globalist neoliberalism with
national flavor of corrupted Identity Politics of race or nationality, a
politics of division to prevent reinsurgency of the true leftist ideology of
simple self-defense or working class under assault that naturally brews
underneath the political reality of mass extermination and neoliberal
slavery.
The call to International Working Class: Proletariat or more
appropriately today "Precariat of the World Unite" has not been more
appropriate and needed since at least 1848 after collapse of another
globalization freed trade sham under umbrella of British empire.
We must unite, and not succumb to a mass manipulation and stay united in
solidarity among all ordinary working people who see through provocation and
manipulation of identity politics of phony left or phony right and see that
they do not have any interest in this fight set up in a way that ordinary
people can only lose while cruel inhumane neoliberalism will always win.
I contributed to a progressive blog for years until I was finally kicked off
for suggesting Bernie was herding progressives into Hillary's tent. I often
criticized Obama's foreign policy and the local partisan blogs--when they
weren't ignoring the perspective I represented--ridiculed me for being a
"conspiracy theorist" when I pushed back against the anti-Russian consensus.
I spent many years working with chronic homeless people in Montana in the
"progressive" utopia known as Missoula and when the Democrats that run this
town aren't actively making housing more unaffordable with their bonds for
parks and endless schemes to gentrify this town into being Boulder,
Colorado, they are making symbolic stands against guns and enabling Uber.
now I work with aging individuals and I am learning a lot about the cruel
complexity of Medicare and Medicaid. it's already really bad and, sadly, it
will only get worse--just in time for the American Boomer generation's
silver tsunami to hit entitlement programs.
I noticed a lot of British Proletariat have moved to the Costa del Sol
leaving plenty of job openings for the Polish and Roumanian Proletariat. Not
sure if this is a typical European trend.
It reminds me of the attitudes espoused by Ishmael:
"The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers
and crew, "We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
Life isn't gonna get better for those who are not born into a solidly upper
middle class family until nation states are downsized. amerika needs to be
carved up into 40 or 50 - units maybe even more particularly for the large
population seaboard 'states'. The one good thing about the brexit the
englander tory government is gonna deliver is that it is likely to cause
scots and maybe even ulster-people to leave the union.
I've lived in quite
a few nation states over the years and have found that a small population
state is far more responsive to the needs of its citizens than large ones -
even when a mob of carpet-bagging greedheads has jerry-mandered their way
into political power in a small state and an allegedly humanist political
entity is running the large state this holds true.
As far as I can discern there are two reasons for this or maybe 2 facets
of one reason. Firstly even the rightist greedheads cannot shit on any group
be it divided by race gender or sexual preference long term in a small
population state. The reason is that in smaller population units people tend
to know others better and obvious injustices always reach the ears and
consciences of rightist voters - even supporters of racist or sexist asshole
governments and it results in a backlash. Humanist pols in large entities
fall back on 'pragmatic' excuses about 'perception' at the drop of a hat -
no different in action than their 'enemy'.
The second reason is the other end of the first. Because of that degrees of
separation thing, when you live in a small population political unit, you
find you will always know someone who knows any political aspirant. Those
with a rep for being greedy, malicious or deceitful cannot hide behind press
spokespeople and bullshit for long - they cop the flick quickly.
I have long believed that this is the real motive for the corporatists to
support politicians' incessant centralising & empire building.
Claims about large population groups somehow being more efficient are
quickly shown to be false when put to the test of reality. In nature
biological systems, even those within large entities are localised and full
of seemingly inefficient redundancies because one thing evolution has taught
is that a system that has inbuilt alternative modes of survivability will
keep the entity alive much longer than some 'simple & straightforward'
system whose failure means the death or massive disability of the entity.
Corporations themselves tend to be labyrinthine full of small similarly
named but legally discrete modules because that is what works best, yet
corporations keep underwriting politicians who strive to make their 'entity'
bigger, more centralised and 'simpler' - why?
Well because political failure is a capitalist's best ally and of course
when a political entity is really large as amerika is, it is possible to
deceive all the people all the time. The average citizen is a stranger to
any/all of the members of the political elite and as such are entirely
dependent upon third party information vectors - the so-called mainstream
media who push out whatever deceit their masters instruct them to.
I make the point in this thread because too many people appear to believe
that it would be possible to reform the amerikan political system despite
the fact that helluva lot have already tried and failed long before they got
anywhere near the centre of power.
It just isn't possible because of the simple principle that anyone who is
capable of convincing large numbers of people who he/she has never had any
personal contact with, to support their 'character', ideas and political
objectives is by virtue of their success, unworthy of anyone's vote.
No person can convince that many strangers without resorting to some form
of gamesmanship and that makes them a bad choice. There is no way around
that reality yet most citizens adopt the usual cognitive dissonace every
election cycle and pay no heed to what should be blindingly self-evident.
Finally!...this is where all mericans eyes and ears has to be, i.e if they
still have them...non is so blind as those who refuse to see.Clean your own
backyards before commenting on or trying to clean others.
b's premise is that disenfranchised voters will go the polls for far right
interests under the promise of nationalistic interests and the policy that
springs from this. However, I do not believe that they will rue the day for
this choice from being squeezed out. The Nazi party ascension was a huge
success for bread and butter interests of the common kraut. Autobahn,
infrastructure, industry: this nationalism scared the allies enough to go to
war with Germany for asserting it's independence and own interests. Are we
Weimar Germany? No, no, no. Our military is already to the hilt and yet is
being halted in its advance by Russia, Iran, etc. You can't keep squeezing
the same lemon and expect more lemonade. The only option for Trump is to
invest in America again, period. Anything less or a further downward
trajectory will only incite the deplorables more and Trump would be gone
after four years, and maybe sooner to the clicking of boots marching on the
White House. Something truly unpredictable and unexpected might transpire at
that juncture.
You said:
/~~~~~~~~~~
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, what the "election methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice
voting" always fails spectacularly. It is quite different than what they
call "score voting", which can actually work, if kept simple enough.
Like other people never heard of Preet Bharara. Appears he was called the
"Sheriff of Wall Street". Looked up his record and yes, he did not put any
banksters in jail. Lots of fines which were tax deductible I believe.
Strange Sheriff who has no jail. I would bet he joins a Wall Street legal
firm and gets paid six-to-seven figures to defend the banksters.
This is where Wall Street feared Sanders--Bernie appeared to insist the
Sheriff's he appointed actually have jails.
A safe bet: next wednesday ultra right-wing Geert Wilders will win the dutch
elections, after the diplomatic row with sultan-wanna-be Erdogan. And then
Marine Le Pen...
In the US, the Democrats and Republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Left wing, Right Wing
The US is a democratic theme park, where the levers and handles are not
attached to anything,
whose only purpose is to deceive the masses into thinking that
they make a "difference"
blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:31:00 AM |
Yep they can be relied upon to be corporate slaves for sure I cannot think
of a single example over the past 50 years of any amerikan pol who succeeded
at a national level, who wasn't a forked toungued corporate shill.
There are plenty of examples of pols whose history at a low level 'seemed
OK' - where their occasional examples of perfidy could be dismissed as just
having to toe the party line; "Once he's his own man/woman he will really
strut his/her stuff for the people" a certain Oblamblamblam comes to mind as
the most egregious recent example - when they get in power everyone gets to
see what whores they always were. Whores concealing their inner asshole to
get into real power. That type of duplicity is much more difficult to pull
off in smaller populations - it gets found out and the pol really struggles
to get past the bad reputation chiefly because a lot of voters can put a
face to the 'victim' which makes the evil palpable.
What I find really odd
is the way that even self described lefties who acknowledge the massive evil
committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or justify the evil.
It goes to show how brainwashed all amerikans are. I guess they think
everyone feels that way - when people who haven't been subjected to that
level of conditioning about their homeland actually don't hold that blind
'right or wrong determination. I like where I live now and everything else
being equal probably would go in to bat for my friends or family if this
country somehow got into a tussle. But I would back off and advocate for the
other side in a heartbeat if I felt the nation I lived in was doing wrong.
I was living in Australia when Gulf War 1 kicked off and up until that point
I doubt there was a more dedicatedly loyal Australian but the cynical
decision to suppoft GH Bush made by the Australian Labor Party just wouldn't
wash and without wanting to be accused of the current heinous crime de jour
ie virtue signalling, I like many others took a stance against my adopted
nation that cost me professionally & personally. This was no great
achievement by me, it was easy because I hadn't been indoctrinated into any
sort of exceptionalism.
Yet I see the effects of the cradle to the grave conditioning amerikans are
subjected to in the posts on virtually any subject made by amerikans.
That of itself makes the destruction of amerika essential, a prerequisite
that must be met if there is to be any real change in the amerikan political
structure.
@ Debsisdead who wrote about ".....how brainwashed amerikans are." and
"
What I find really odd is the way that even self described lefties who
acknowledge the massive evil committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or
justify the evil.
"
I live in the belly of the beast you want to destroy. What exactly is it
that I should do to effect your goal? I continue to struggle with knowing
that. I also disagree that it is amerika that must be destroyed but the
tools of those that control our world.......private finance.
I also want
to state to commenter karlof1 that her call for focus on "culture" is
exactly what I think I am attacking by wanting to end private finance. And I
had the pleasure of studying under an anthropologist for a year and very
much appreciate that perspective on our current social maladies. I think
that anthropological characterizations of our species are harder to
misrepresent than history....hence my reference to tenets of social
organization, etc.
We need some adults in the world to stand up to the bastardization of
language and communication.
Any form of social organization not based on any type of compulsion is
inherently socialistic. If we can agree to socialize the provision of water,
electricity, etc. why can't we do the same for finance?
Probably for the same reason we continue to prattle on about right/left
mythologies and ignore the top/bottom reality.
b, excellent analysis. Amerika is rotten to its core. There are no
cures..... just sit and watch on the sideline for these tugs NeoCon,
NeoLiberal, progressive etc.. Kill themselves and blames it on Putin.
I
hold two valid passports, neither better than the other. Hot frying pans,
hot boiling oil?
b said.."When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and
other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the
well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow
from and after that."
Private finance... most countries have a reserve bank. Yours has the
fed.
Your country has made private money an ideology and tries to export this
ideology around the globe. The opposite extreme to collective communism.
Most countries have foreign policy and foreign ministers. When I looked up
the websites of Your presidential candidates, none had a foreign policy. In
place, all had war policy. Sanders had his titled war and peace.
Most countries have foreign ministers. Your country has a secretary of
state. I guess when you are a country that feels it has the god given right
to rule the world, no country is foreign, all are vassal states.
Your country needs to collapse, or be destroyed, to knock this ideology
out of the inhabitants, and then rebuilt as a normal country.
What the US is now, is just a natural progression of its foundations.
I think there's no left
left for the simple reason that it's role in the system, at least since the
end of ww2, became void after 91. No competing system, no need for niceties,
back to the 30's, plenty of unfinished business, 80 years of taxes to get
back. New Deal and European Social Model are obsolete. The armies of workers
offshored, what is left is a kind of lumpen, busy fingering their
smartphones. A highly educated lumpen, probably the highest educated
generation ever, but lumpen nonetheless, Indoctrinated by all media to
individualism, their atomization seems assured. I wonder if anyone under 30
reads MoA. Might be wrong but looks like most of us are over 60 considering
the muppet like kind of grumpyness that erupts so often.
There are drops in the ocean, in places were solidarity still has strong
roots.
Marinaleda
(sorry, the english wiki sucks, a machine translation from
the spanish wiki is certainly more informative) 0% unemployment, equal pay
to all residents, housing provided through self-building, the city council
provides plot, technical supervision, building materials, charges 15 euros
monthly rent. Collective economy based on farming, husbandry and industrial
transformation of it's products. I repeat, equal pay to all residents 1,128
euros for 35 hours a week. Just a drop in the ocean, but a worthy one.
Elsewhere true social-democracy can be found in Latin America. Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia, Uruguay pop up as examples that neoliberalism,
racism and neocolonialism can be defeated, on their terms, even if there are
setbacks like Brazil and Argentina. There one can find rivers of solidarity.
Telesur
english
keeps you up to date, with better coverage on Syria than CNN.
All those USAG's and IG's and NO one wants or has investigated where all
those Pentagon missing trillions went to?
Ditto for the MSM, who use all that print space pushing to let men dressed
as women use the little girl's bathroom. The USA project has failed, it's
Kaput, time to turn out the lights.
The 'Left' has been bought by the oligarchs, just like the media, the NGOs,
the 'human rights' organizations, etc. Tony Blair was perhaps the most
blatant example, especially with his 'third way', undefined by him to this
day. I guess it tried to merge bits from the right such as Nationalism and
bits from the left such as Socialism, but who knows!
I am German but not living in Germany. I am disgusted with my compatriots.
They seem to have bought the line that in order to atone for their parents
or grandparents' crimes they have to open the doors to the dregs of the
Earth and let themselves get plundered and their daughters raped without a
protest. Meanwhile, the German police continue to prosecute Germans for any
transgression, including speaking out about it.
So the left is good at pointing to its own flaws & decay but your simplistic
view of a "static" right that doesn't evolve and alway represent the "evil"
is laughable. Both the left and right have merged on most issue, it's a
system of croony capitalism with a big government and where "financial
capitalism" has destroyed industrial capitalism and innovations. Who would
invest to hire employees or innovate if it's more lucrative to sell private
bonds to a central bank or "buy back" the shares of the cies (to boost their
price with a loan in order to get a "productivity" bonus?
A long, long time ago both left/right were pretending to offer a solution
and improve the living standards, one faction with individual liberties, low
taxes and a sound money policy (gold & silver) while the left was fighting
against inequalities and proposing wealth redistribution with a big
government & taxes. Both the left & right started to be coopted in the
1960's
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep [sic: that should be
"cheap"] labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees"
(marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the
German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)"
Kudos. It's
rare to see someone intelligent admit that an open borders immigration
policy is all about cheap labor, period. Bernie Sanders started to say that,
but after a couple of days of being screamed at for his 'racism' he of
course folded.
I note that by refusing to acknowledge that importing massive numbers of
workers we are pushing wages down, we are also responsible for the misery in
places like Yemen and Somalia etc. How can we expect people in these places
to stop having more children than they can afford, when our
Nobel-prizewinning whores keep screaming that more people are always better?
I mean, if we propagandize that eating arsenic is wonderful (or at lest not
an issue), and people somewhere else keep eating arsenic, we are to blame.
The characteristics which define Right-wingers are...
1. They are are obliged to believe their own bullshit in order to sell it to
the masses.
2. Bribery is an indispensable component of Modern Democracy.
3. Whenever one of their inane schemes backfires, it's ALWAYS somebody
else's fault, NEVER their own.
Malcolm & the Liberals will spend the next
6 months looking for scapegoats (with their fingers in their ears - another
R-W trait).
Democrats become neoliberal Republicans, letting actual Republicans get
elected. Rinse and repeat while blaming Russia for failure. That is the
center-right mantra of the elite Democrats and their NGO supporters (who are
well paid to represent the party line without deviation, if they deviate
they get cut off). Yet my Democrat friends howl that I'm a Trump supporter
because I wouldn't vote for Hillary.
The unfortunate truth is that outside
of protest votes there is no political force in America for dissenters to
turn to outside of what they can do on their own. The two-headed hydra of
the Demopublicans appears to be fighting against itself now but in reality
they still agree on most issues, to the detriment of all working people.
@35 Your version of "score voting" is clearly the best approach to "ranked
choice voting" as currently used. Also, using paper ballots that are counted
by optical scanning machines? That's just as subject to hacking as
electronic voting machines are, since nobody is going to back and hand-count
those paper ballots.
But really, under current finance rules, the
oligarchs tightly control the electoral process via their control of
corporate media and their ability to run puppet candidates against any
honest politicians who defy their agenda. Ultimately this is why politicians
gravitate towards the BS issues describe by b, i.e.
"When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other
such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be
the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues
follow from and after that."
But addressing the well-being of the working people - wages, homes,
affordable healthcare for their parents and education for their children -
that impacts multinational corporate profits. This is why politicians steer
clear of such issues - they don't want to incur the anger of the oligarchs,
who can spend millions to get them removed from office. Journalists do the
exact same thing, wanting to keep their jobs in corporate media outfits
controlled by Wall Street oligarchs. This is highly similar to how the
oligarchs ran Russia during the Boris Yeltsin era.
There are clearly many similarites between the Russian billionaires of
that era and their various American counterparts today, from the Silicon
Valley billionaires to the oil & gas billionaires to the finance
billionaires; they could never have made all that money without the active
cooperation of politicians and bureaucrats who serve their interests in
Washington as well as in many state governments. This vast extraction of
wealth from the middle class, coupled with a desire to control the whole
world and move money freely across borders without restrictions, and to use
the military to invade and crush any countries who don't go with the
program, that's what the neocon-neolib agenda is all about.
When people like b start to make tremendous confusion between the Neoliberal
Democratic party and the Left, I fear things will go from bad to worse ...
Confusing Neolib and Left after all these years, b? There's no light at the
end of the tunnel, huh?
We've heard stupid people say that Hitler was Socialist ... after all the
NSDAP had the "S", hadn't it? But they are stupid people, right?
Now this?
Well-meaning populist politicians throughout history are either bought off
or assassinated.
Populist rhetoric is tolerated (and necessary for R vs. D political
theater to function).
The rhetoric is one thing. BUT if anyone actually DOES anything of value
for the common people, he will be maligned, castigated, shunned and soon
become enmeshed in a manufactured scandal.
@ nonsense factory | Mar 13, 2017 10:36:25 AM | 58
What the "election
methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice voting" is quite distinct from
"score voting" With the score voting method I described you could give from
(1) to (10) votes to up to (12) candidates. So you could give, for example,
(10) votes to Candidates (A), (B), and (C), and (8) votes to (D), (E), and
(F). But with ranked choice voting, you cannot do that, since you must
"rank" the candidates in an "ordinal" fashion. This could look like: (A) >
(B) > (C) >(D) > (E) > (F). And this forced "ranking" leads to astonishingly
complex dilemmas. So, score voting is definitely not a version of ranked
voting.
I did insist on "hand counted paper ballots" because ballot scanning
machines are absurdly complex, and can easily be hacked. Remember that the
Deep State will always completely control anything that becomes sufficiently
complex. The fine print on insurance policies is an example.
Take a look at the Italian Cooking Show ladies. They aren't fat. Their
immune system see gluten as an invader causing physical inflammation.
Personally if I eat gluten my lower gut blows up like an inflated bicycle
tire. Gluten intolerance is not a trend. Check out online videos titled
'wheat belly.'
The wheat we eat today has been genetically modified mainly to increase
crop yields.
Yep. There's a reason the Democratic Socialists of America has seen a huge
explosion in growth over the past year. The Democratic Party has no soul,
and the DSA, by far the most major democratic socialist group in the
country, is benefiting from Bernie Sanders constantly calling himself a
"democratic socialist." If Democrats don't take their cue from this and
other leftist groups, they're going to lose elections for decades to come.
We need policies that work for the people, not neoliberal giveaways to
corporations or conservative policies outright hostile to people who aren't
rich.
What do you call a Social-Democracy without social-democrats?
Although
many have called the "crisis of social-democracy" in previous years
(especially after the "crash" of 2007-8), so far it is James Corbett that
has given us the most extensive non-scholar research on
How The Left Stopped Worrying and Learned to Embrace War
This is disturbingly close to what a co-worker said to me, before knowing
my views about the matter, when US-backed forces were overthrowing Gaddafi
in Libya: "Go, rebels, go!" He said he "normally" wasn't pro-war. A lot of
ditzy liberals out there.
b states that the disenfranchised will rue the day they threw in their card
for the far-right. I am not sure that this reality will pan out here in the
states, though I am unsure what will ultimately transpire. My reasonING for
this goes back to the nazification of Germany and the great benefits to that
nationalist movement in general. Autobahn, infrastructure, industry: their
new deal was very beneficial for the common kraut in addressing their
concerns, though this nationalism scared the shit out of the global finance
cabal and hence war. I am not entirely versed as to the legitimacy of their
claim to Poland or the moral implications of that seizure, though the ethnic
cleanses in the Russian steppes were evil.
My point is that nationalism
could be one of the only forces that could bring down the global finance
elite. This propelled me to vote for Trump and to hold out hope for a while.
My thought is that we already have military spending covered and I don't see
how the trickle down of more military spending would impress the deplorables
too much. If Trump wants a 2.0, he will have to invest in another new deal.
And what choice does he have? Continually being blocked my Russia and Iran?
I am not convinced yet of his total idiocy, but if he continues along a
neoconservative route, there will be little doubt. I guess tyrannies are
stupid after all. Are Americans that stupid, too? We'll see.
Clueless Joe 16
I've started to like that JFK quote more and more these days, too. At the
time he did not mean it for the US but it truly applies here.
1945 - 2000 +. In Europe the 'Left' was overcome in principally 2 ways.
1)
Was the 'red scare of communism', i.e. against the USSR - old memes now home
again. Even though there were some quite strong Communist parties,
particularly in France. (Today, the ex-leader of the dead communist party,
R. Hue, has come out supporting Macron.) The 'liberals' (economic
liberalism) of course used any tool and propaganda to hand.
2) The expansion of W economies, 1950-1980 (about), that so to speak
'lifted all boats', and afforded for ex. cars, fridges, TVs, and at the
start, just the basics like a small flat and some electricity, and water
plus a flush toilet (or better services for small houses) plus universal
free education (to age 14-15) and some basic health / social care. Transport
flowered (fossil fuel use and railways) As opposed to living in a hut in a
filthy slum though rurals were always better off. The economy basically
boomed and jobs, even if ugly and badly paid, were available. This was all a
tremendous advance and it was credited to a 'liberal' economic model.
NOT-communist. (Though it had nothing to do with any political arrangement
per se. See Hobsbawm on the USSR.)
Later, Third-wayers (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair..) tried to 'snow' ppl who
would become 'poorer' with fakey Socialist-Dem party platforms, actually
favoring the 'rich' (Corps, Finance, MIC, Big Gov..), in an attempt to keep
ppl quiet. This 'third way' has now failed, ppl turn where they can, for now
it is voting for the 'alt-right' (Trump, Wilders, Le Pen..) along a sort of
nationalist line, which seems to contain germs of proto-fascim (as some
would say), but which is actually principally directed against the PTB.
I haven't yet read comments, but actually I don't agree with the title of
this piece, though the point about no left is certainly valid. I really
can't see folk just swinging far right because there is nowhere else to go,
since at least in this country, the US, we were burned so badly by the right
- the right took us into Iraq and we have not escaped the horrors there even
now. No way we're going back to that group of crazies just because another
group of crazies, and now apparently Trump as well, are marching to the same
bloody tune. We are being smothered by all of them.
I'm no prognosticator
- I can't see the future. All I can do is say this ongoing spilling of blood
is not what I voted for, and thank heavens I did not vote for Trump. I don't
blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In doing that, they
were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what Trump said he would
do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of citizens' grievances.
He hasn't, and now we know. What happens next is anyone's guess but it won't
be more of the same, not in this country. Experience does matter, and when
we sort ourselves out and finish licking our wounds, us deplorables will
build on what has come before. And perhaps in other countries citizens
facing such non-choices and aware of what has happened here will trim their
sails accordingly.
The great tragedy of the collapse of the left is that there will be nobody
around to protect the minorities who live in the nations of the West. As a
nonwhite American, I see the polarization of politics around racial lines is
a catastrophe waiting to happen. The Democrats want to play the good cop,
using fear of to control their minority vote bank while doing sweet F A for
their communities that they profess to love so much. The Trumpian right has
now dropped all pretense and is openly embracing white supremacy, race
baiting for votes and stirring up all kinds of anti-foreigner sentiment on
top of the folksy old fashioned racism done by "good" GOPers. As disgusting
as the smug, patronizing prejudice of liberals is, the wild vitriolic hatred
found in parts of the white community is backed up with state force. Even
when faced with this reality, the Democratic party views discussions of
economic issues as pandering to the "deplorables"! Never mind the rampant
poverty and unemployment in black and latin ghettoes, talking about jobs is
racism! They will continue this political death spiral and we will pay the
price. There have been two shootings I know of where Indians (mistaken for
Muslims by rednecks hopped up on hate) and I'm sure we'll see plenty more.
God help Europe when their right wingers crack down on the Muslims. You
think the young are being radicalized now? You ain't seen nothing yet.
I don't blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In
doing that, they were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what
Trump said he would do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of
citizens' grievances.
Yes, right on. And that extends to all the 'nationalist' voters. What
they - perhaps confusedly for some - are trying to effect is a timid step in
the present horrific political landscape, towards having a say, >> having
the space, and scope, of decision-making circumsribed, and made not only
smaller, but more rigidly, clearly defined - in this case down to nation
size where the ppl may hopefully garner some more power.
The labels 'right' and 'left' of course are nonsense, but we all use them
as 'tags' for e.g. Dems vs. Reps, and that's ok, as long as everyone
undertands the short-hand. Being 'nationalist', 'anti-globalist',
'localist', 'community oriented' (footnotes skipped) is not left or right,
it doesn't project to any point on the left-right polarity. Nor does it
relate to an authoritarian, controlling axis. vs. a libertarian one. But of
course these challengers are painted as Hitler 'nationalist' stooges and
putative vicious invaders, war mongers, conquerers, as is for ex. Putin.
And if anyone is interested, I chose the name "Perimetr" because that is the
way my friend Colonel Yarynich spelled it . . .
Also known as the "Deadhand" system, Perimetr is a semi-automated system
through which a retaliatory nuclear strike can be ordered by a decapitated
Russian National Command Authority. Perimetr came into being in the 1980s
and appears to still be functional. You can read a detailed analysis of it
in the book by Colonel Valery Yarynich, "C3: Nuclear Command, Control,
Cooperation" (if you can get your hands on a copy).
https://www.amazon.com/C3-Nuclear-Command-Control-Cooperation/dp/1932019081
Perimetr uses emergency communication rockets to issue launch orders to
any (surviving) Russian nuclear forces; such orders would automatically
trigger a launch of these forces without further human intervention. The
crew that mans the Perimetr launch control center requires several things to
happen before they launch: (1) an initial preliminary authorization from the
National Command Authority following the detection of an incoming attack,
(2) a complete loss of communication on all channels (various radio
frequencies, land lines, etc) with the National Command Authority, and (3) a
simultaneously set of positive signals from seismic, optical, and
radiological nuclear detonation detectors indicating that a nuclear attack
has occurred.
At that point, the crew is ordered to launch the ECRs. This "Deadhand"
launches the missiles even after those who gave the preliminary launch order
have been incinerated in a nuclear strike. Valery thought that Perimetr
added a measure of safety having the system, in that it would make it less
likely that the NCA would launch a "retaliatory" strike (Launch on Warning,
LOW) before nuclear detonations confirmed the strike was real (if the
warning was false, then the "retaliatory strike" would actually be a first
strike . . . hence Perimetr offers some certainty of retaliation for
choosing to "ride out" a perceived attack). I took less comfort that did
Valery, as I found it disconcerting that there was a non-human mechanism or
means to order a Russian nuclear attack.
@21
The aim of importing cheap labour is to allow continued expansion of capital
without depressing the rate of profit. Unless the labour force constantly
expands, any accumulation of capital tends to drive down the rate of profit
in two ways: 1) it raises the ratio of capital stock to national income, so
if the wage share remains the same, the rate of profit falls; 2)
Accumulation of capital faster than the growth of the labour force creates a
sellers market for labour and allows real wages to rise. For these two
reasons big business favours rapid immigration.
Are you illiterate?
"Perimeter" is graphically different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly,
interested people can differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do
not worry, kid.
The thing is black people in USA are fed up. White people (including some
jews) are fed up. Black people have been marginalized and are no longer the
primary darlings of the Bleeding Heart Party. You must add as well that many
of them like Carson are quite conservative and wealthy, so they go
Republican. One cannot discount the very high sense of patriotism that many
Afro-Americans feel for the USA. They can smell the BS.
"White's", can be racially disparaged, mocked, used and abused and it O.K.
You can call a certain segment of the population; "White Trash", white
bitch, fucking cracker, honky, racist, etc, etc and they just have to take
it.
You can openly say that it's no longer their country, that they will no
longer be the majority, if you are an immigrant and have a short time in
USA, you are toasted and cheered while saying it. So soft genocide against
"whites" is ok.
This is wrong and it's true what B say's, there is nothing LEFT. I gave
Obama 8 and I'm still waiting for my change.
- Someone in a townhall meeting asked a Democratic representitive: "What do
the Democrats stand for". And the representitive replied with platitudes.
and the whole thing was captured on video.
the left in America is small and estranged, like an illegitimate child. the
blacks fucked up long ago when they aligned with the Democratic Party,
which, as we know, is just a gaggle of pro-war liberals. their reckoning is
on its way...like a bad asteroid.
i'd check out the relationship between the exponential growth
in the use of glyphosate, decimated microbial populations in the human gut
as a result of its use, and the sudden eruption of gluten intolerance.
that'd get any biochemist / epidemiologist fired in short order, or
demonized on publication. i'm sure that's why we haven't seen it.
@ Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 14, 2017 3:55:52 AM | 85
Thank you for the link.
Succint & concise. Tragicomedy(sic) ... :(
What was highlighted with cutting clarity is what the average Joe & Betty
six-pack, and not just Stateside, throughout the 'West' are primarily up in
arms about, IMV. And the Owned & Controlled, Corporate 'Mainstream'
Mega-Media will not touch it nor even acknowledge 'it' ... hopefully
the scales will fall
from enough peoples eyes to awaken from the
somnolance induced by all-encompassing '
digital valium
' ...
If locales can ever reach a critical mass re numbers ... maybe the
Tumbrels
will yet again roll to swing humanities 'pendulum' back the other way. If
they don't ...
There never has been a political party of the Left in America that held any
political power or even a balance of power at important state or federal
levels. Leaders of the emerging Left in America have been either jailed or
assassinated. Any other leaders of the people, not necessarily of the left,
have also met a similar fate. The American establishment has always been a
repressive clique of any populous movements. Other western nations, being
further from the central authority, developed at minimum Leftist political
opposition that at least held a balance of power enough to effect national
policies that were of benefit to the working classes as defined. In America
Leftist appeal of grievances was applied through the existing two party
system, mainly the Democrats with their unionized labour wing. This has all
fallen by the wayside. Enough said....
RE: Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 10:14:10 PM | 83 "Perimeter" is graphically
different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly, interested people can
differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do not worry, kid.
Well
let's see, would Circe be upset if someone started posting under "Circes"?
Would Outraged mind if someone started posting here as "Outrages"? How about
"Alberto" instead of "ALberto"??
Sorry, there are lots of other names available, so what is the point in
posting under one that is essentially identical to mine, except to confuse
those who might not be paying much attention?
@84, the racial-ethnic divides among populations pale in comparison to the
divisions between classes. The Reptilian Order must rake up the former
through media exploits lest the proles wise up to the latter.
Outraged @ 89
Thanks for the compliment on the other thread.
I also value what you write.
In certain conditions it is possible to attain meaningfull goals without
setting the tumbrells in motion. I linked to
Marinaleda
in a comment above. They din't decapitate the Duque del Infantado, they cut
a substantial part of his estate. It was possible for 3 reasons, a
charismatic leader, a strong sense of solidarity and a strong cultural
identity. It's a tiny scale but if one looks at current examples in a
multinational scale Chávez, Evo, Correa, Kirchner, Lula, were/are all
outstanding leaders in nations that have strong cultural identities and a
solidarity forged by resistance.
BRF @ 90
Exactly, jailed or assassinated. And when this was no longer feasible, when
human rights became a tool in the cold war, the discourse was deflected to
identitary policies and sex drugs and r&r
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
"When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once
again quietly assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium
of Caesars, Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past?"
I don't believe the Divine Right of Monarchs was ever completely expunged
as it continued to operate in the shadows until it retuned to the surface at
WW2's end with Truman.
Don't know how much you agree with my assessment above @12, but one of
the smartest people I've ever known--the late Lynn Margulis, Carl Sagan's
first wife, the superior microbiologist who proved symbiosis within species
and agent of evolution to be fact--wrote the forward to the paperback
edition of Morrison's work I cited, agreeing with him.
It's easy to observe and analyze the situation then prescribe the remedy.
But said remedy must be applied by millions of currently very disparate
individuals having almost no solidarity or in agreement about said remedy,
or even knowing a remedy exists. I'd do more, but my responsibilities limit
me to my current activities--writing and exhorting those able to act.
The great irony of our dilemma is humans have overcome Nature in almost
every sphere, yet that triumph is precisely what threatens humanity and the
biota--a triumph driven by Nature itself. So, to overcome our overcoming of
Nature, we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting the
impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture, by making certain actions by humans taboo and their
violation punishable by death as the Polynesians practiced.
Yes, radical, controversial, requiring a great deal of prior knowledge to
comprehend the logic driving the remedy. Yet, as Spock would say, there it
is: Long life and prosperity lies down remedy's path; massive destruction,
pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo continues.
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
"... it may be enough, a small window of opportunity given
the obvious accident of 'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a
reckoning..."
Like using The Force to guide a missile into the exhaust shaft of the
Death Star. But that was just one victory amidst many losses prior to the
decapitation of the sole Evil Leader. I believe our task just as daunting
with our enemy best depicted as The Hydra. In both myths, Good triumphed. In
both tales, the multitude of innocents had no idea what was taking place or
why. I don't think we can prevail unless the multitudes know what's
happening and why. All too often they seem to differ little from my
Alzheimer's afflicted mom. But her fate is determined; it's just a matter of
time. Our fate's in the balance, with time being of the essence.
When "the left" endlessly debates which core issues or constituencies must be sacrificed for political
gain, as if economic justice for the poor and the working class could be separated from social
justice for women and people of color and the LGBT community and immigrants and people with disabilities,
it is no longer functioning as the left.
When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs
to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must
always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and
after that.
Many nominally social-democratic parties in Europe are on the same downward trajectory as the
Democrats in the U.S. for the very same reason. Their real policies are center right. Their marketing
policies hiding the real ones are to care for this or that minority interest or problem the majority
of the people has no reason to care about. Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor
(real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic
migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)
The people with real economic problems, those who have reason to fear the future, have no one
in the traditional political spectrum that even pretends to care about them. Those are the voters
now streaming to the far right. (They will again get screwed. The far right has an economic agenda
that is totally hostile to them. But it at least promises to do something about their fears.) Where
else should they go?
The U.S. Democrats are currently applauding the former United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet
Bharara. The position is a political appointed one. Whoever is appointed serves "at the pleasure
of the President". It is completely normal that people in such positions get replaced when the presidency
changes from one party to the other. The justice department asked Bharara to "voluntary resign".
He rejected that, he was fired.
Oh what a brave man! Applause!
The dude served as United States attorney during the mortgage scams and financial crash. Wall
Street was part of his beat. How many of the involved banksters did he prosecute? Well, exactly zero.
What a hero! How many votes did the Democrats lose because they did not go after the criminals ruling
Wall Street?
Bharara is one reason the Democrats lost the election. Oh yes, he is part of a minority and that
makes him a favorite with the pseudo left Democrats. But he did nothing while millions got robbed.
How can one expect to get votes when one compliments such persons?
But the top reader comments to the New York Times
report on the issue
are full of voices who laud Bharara for his meaning- and useless "resistance"
to Trump.
Those are the "voices of the people" the political functionaries of the Democratic Party want
to read and hear. Likely the only ones. But those are the voices of people (if real at all and not
marketing sock-puppets) who are themselves a tiny, well pampered minority. Not the people one needs
to win elections.
Unless they change their political program (not just its marketing) and unless they go back to
consistently argue for the people in the lower third of the economic scale the Democrats in the U.S.
and the Social-Democrats in Europe will continue to lose voters. The far right will, for lack of
political alternative, be the party that picks up their votes.
I will take your word for it. We don't watch either CNN nor
Fox News at my house. Mostly we watch local (same news and
weather crew here appears on each the WWBT/WRLH local NBC/Fox
affiliates) news with some sampling of MSNBC and Sunday
morning ABC and CBS shows along with the daily half hour of
NBC network following the evening local. Cable news is sort
of an oxymoron given the prevailing editorial slants. The now
retired local TV news anchor Gene Cox laid the groundwork for
the best news team in central VA by setting a high bar at his
station. Gene laid it all out southern fried with satirical
humor and honesty unusual in TV news.
Maybe a post mortem would simply reveal that Democrats should
have had a coherent economic message and pursued a strategy
of standing up for working America for the past 8 years. For
example, having Pelosi demand votes on increasing the minimum
wage as often as Ryan demanded votes on killing Obamacare...
Any honest post mortem would have revealed that standing with
billionaires and the Wall Street banking cartel--and not
prosecuting a single Wall Street banker--is not a winning
strategy...
That Pelosi did not resign immediately following the 2016
election or, not having offered her resignation, that
Congressional Democrats did not demand it is an indication
that the party still has deep-rooted problems. (Pelosi may
not be the cause of those problems but given how badly
they've fared since 2010 she's clearly not the solution. She
has no business remaining as minority leader.) I'm fine with
Perez as DNC chair but Ellison should be minority leader.
David Frum, the excommunicated conservative wrote in 2010:
""The real leaders are on TV and radio"
Bernie Sanders is
the Dems TV leader.
Simple ideas repeated endlessly, easy to memorize slogans
Knows how to manipulate emotions
In the Twitter Age, this is how all successful politicians
must message
Simple
slogans repeated often isn't a new approach to politics. It
goes back well over a century. "Keep it simple and take
credit." Liberals haven't been very good at that in recent
decades. (In contrast, FDR was.) Most people aren't wonks nor
do they desire to become one. Messaging which presumes that
they are or do is not a recipe for success.
Sanders has not "destroyed" the old Democratic Party.
He is a better TV messenger and ambassador to the public
He plays the Paternalistic Grandfather who does not trigger
culture shock among white voters on TV
More like the cranky uncle, whom you had better listen to.
Bernie Sanders is currently the most popular politician in
the United States, by a long shot:
Sanders won New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma,
Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, Idaho, Utah,
Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Rhode Island,
Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota.
*and
he was close in many states like losing Massachusetts 606k to
589k. And the entire second half of the primary the DNC was
repeating how Hillary had won mathematically over and over
even though people hadn't voted.
"Sanders has not "destroyed" the old Democratic Party"
No
he is not stupid. What he has done is moving the Overton
window - something that was long overdue. There is definitely
an opening to make ObamaCare the first step towards MediCare
for all (as it always was intended by by all but the
bluedogs). But as good as Sanders is at message and getting
the crowds going, he is going to need help with the
politicking to actually get it done.
I will take your word for it. We don't watch either CNN nor
Fox News at my house. Mostly we watch local (same news and
weather crew here appears on each the WWBT/WRLH local NBC/Fox
affiliates) news with some sampling of MSNBC and Sunday
morning ABC and CBS shows along with the daily half hour of
NBC network following the evening local. Cable news is sort
of an oxymoron given the prevailing editorial slants. The now
retired local TV news anchor Gene Cox laid the groundwork for
the best news team in central VA by setting a high bar at his
station. Gene laid it all out southern fried with satirical
humor and honesty unusual in TV news.
Apparently we have two jokes alternating to lead America: the
Republican jokes vs. the Democratic jokes.
Democrats are a
joke for rallying their elite around a candidate who had huge
negatives and for trying to block more popular candidates
from running.
Democrats are a joke for having to rig the primaries in
favor of a candidate who had already lost in 2008.
Democrats are a joke for refusing to sack a sclerotic,
corrupt, and inept congressional leadership that had lost
three straight elections.
Democrats are a joke for refusing to seize the issue that
had propelled two Democrats into office--it's the economy,
stupid!
Democrats are a joke for pigheadedly refusing to do a post
mortem of their failure and insisting on blaming Putin
instead!
But Democrats are right to expect that, when two jokes vie
for power, their turn as joke in power will eventually come.
JohnH -> mulp...
, -1
Maybe a post mortem would simply reveal that Democrats should
have had a coherent economic message and pursued a strategy
of standing up for working America for the past 8 years. For
example, having Pelosi demand votes on increasing the minimum
wage as often as Ryan demanded votes on killing Obamacare...
Any honest post mortem would have revealed that standing with
billionaires and the Wall Street banking cartel--and not
prosecuting a single Wall Street banker--is not a winning
strategy...
"... Why should anyone in the working or middle class believe that voting for a Democrat is in their interest given the way in which the Democratic Party has been co-opted by the neoliberal ideology that brought us the draconian social welfare and irresponsible financial deregulatory legislation of the 1990s that led to the Crash of 2008? ..."
"... Why would they rally around a candidate who had lost the 2008 primary and who could barely win in 2016 without the party's rigging the primaries in her favor? ..."
"... Why would their candidate refuse to offer any kind of coherent message around the issue that propelled her two Democratic predecessors into office--it's the economy, stupid? ..."
"... As Blackford says, "the main story is the incompetence of the Democrats." The only question is whether their incompetence is willful or not. ..."
"... Wall Street supplied the money. ..."
"... LOL! A centrist party that has been triangulating -- chasing oligarch tail -- for decades. The 2018 election is going to provide me some excellent schadenfreude. ..."
False symmetry may be a part
of the story, but the main story is the incompetence of the Democrats. There was a 20
percentage point shift away from Democrats in Michigan from 2008 to 2016, a14 pp shift in
Pennsylvania, a 24 pp shift in Iowa, a 15 pp shift in Ohio, and a 24 pp shift in Indiana.
Does anyone really believe these kinds of shifts from Obama to Trump and third party
candidates can be explained in terms of racism and bigotry or voters failing to understand
that they were voting against their own interests because of Republican flimflam?
The real question is: Why should those who shifted from Obama to Trump and third parties
have believed it would have been in their interest to vote for Hillary given her ties to
Wall Street and the way in which the Democrats abandoned home owners and bailed out Wall
Street during the crisis?
Why should anyone in the working or middle class believe that voting for a Democrat is
in their interest given the way in which the Democratic Party has been co-opted by the
neoliberal ideology that brought us the draconian social welfare and irresponsible
financial deregulatory legislation of the 1990s that led to the Crash of 2008?
Re: "Do you think Clinton is more Wall Street than Trump?"
It's not about what I think. It's about what the voters
think. For what it's worth, I think it is quite clear that
those voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and switched to
Trump in 2016 are grasping at straws, and they did that
because they saw no hope in voting for the Democratic Party.
As for: "Clinton staved off a crash in the 90s by high
taxes." I think you are a bit confused on this. Not only was
the deregulation signed into law by Clinton responsible for
the Crash in 2008, his appointment of Greenspan facilitated
the dotcom and telecom bubbles of the 1990s, the bursting of
which led to the 2001 recession:
http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/Ch_1.htm
The real question is why do "voters want the free lunch of
tax cuts"? The reason is that Democratic Party, starting with
the Clintons, bought into the neoliberal ideology championed
by the Democratic Leadership Council and have refused to
challenge the Republican's free lunch arguments and tell the
voters that government programs are essential to our
economic, social, and political wellbeing and that they have
to be payid for. I believe that I have explained this quit
well in:
http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm
You really have to wonder if Democrats are trying to lose.
Why else would the party's elite rally around a candidate
who had huge negatives and try to block anyone else from
running?
Why would they rally around a candidate who had lost the
2008 primary and who could barely win in 2016 without the
party's rigging the primaries in her favor?
Why would they refuse to sack an inept congressional
leadership that had lost three straight elections?
Why would their candidate refuse to offer any kind of
coherent message around the issue that propelled her two
Democratic predecessors into office--it's the economy,
stupid?
Why would the pigheadedly refuse to do a post mortem of
their failure and insist on blaming Putin instead?
As Blackford says, "the main story is the incompetence of
the Democrats." The only question is whether their
incompetence is willful or not.
"Other than a insignificant number of insane people, no one
voted fro Obama and then voted for Trump"
LOL!!! According
to EMichael, lots of Rust Belt voters must be
insane...exactly the kind of disdain and disparagement that
made them switch their vote in the first place.
EMichael, ever the partisan hack, still can't come to
terms with the fact that Obama and Hillary ignored the
concerns working class voters...the real reason they voted
for Trump.
Could EMichael's delusional denial be characterized as
insanity? Or just a partisan hack ineptly doing his job?
The reason I post all this BS is that as far as I can see,
the only hope for the country is for the DAs in the
Democratic Party to wake up and face reality.
I fear that if Democrats' do not wake up and they continue
down the same neoliberal path they have been traveling since
Carter--a path that led directly to Trump--even if we survive
Trump and Democrats do regain power again, the demigod that
follows the disaster that results is going to be even worse
than Trump:
http://www.rweconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
"There is no fun in being in the middle, yet that is where
the ability to wield power and effectively governing resides:
in the middle. It's not pretty. it's not graceful. America
exists as it does today only because we have been able to
compromise for a long time. It's that ability to comprise
that has been lost in great volume."
You seem to be missing
my point: TRUMP IS PRESIDENT!
The things we are taking from the right DON'T WORK!
LOL!
A centrist party that has been triangulating -- chasing
oligarch tail -- for decades.
The 2018 election is going to
provide me some excellent schadenfreude.
Not exactly: "even if we survive Trump and Democrats do
regain power again, the demigod that follows the disaster
that results is going to be even worse than Trump."
If a
Democrat follows Trump, his/her job will be to normalize and
put a bipartisan imprimatur on what Trump did. That was
Obama's role on many issues, including torture, Guantanamo,
and NSA spying.
Getting along is exactly what Bill Clinton did and it led
to 2008. It's also what Pelosi and Obama did and it led to
the loss of congress. It's also what more-of-the-same Hillary
promised to do, and it led to Trump.(
http://www.rweconomics.com/blame.htm
)
Fat chance! "the only hope to avoid another disaster in the
future is for the Democrats to move the center back to a
point where it is possible avoid an even worse disaster."
The DNC is adamant about NOT learning any lessons from their
election debacle. But they are counting on Republicans to
screw up so that they can have their turn in power.
"... "There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed ..."
"... With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it. ..."
"... French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers - the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party. ..."
"... Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at any time in its 45-year history. ..."
"... Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done. Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters here. ..."
"... It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there. Yet he won. ..."
"... "Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said. "Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed. ..."
"... The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary. ..."
"... As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed voting for Hillary. ..."
"... I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by many, usually not allied, segments of population. ..."
As French Election Nears, Le Pen Targets Voters Her Party Once Repelled
By ADAM NOSSITER
MARCH 19, 2017
SANARY-SUR-MER, France - The National Front's leafleteers are no longer spat upon. Its local
candidate's headquarters sit defiantly in a fraying Muslim neighborhood. And last week, Marine
Le Pen, the party's leader, packed thousands into a steamy meeting hall nearby for a pugnacious
speech mocking "the system" and vowing victory in this spring's French presidential election.
"There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small
manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent
day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed."
It has long been accepted wisdom that Ms. Le Pen and her far-right party can make it through
the first round of the presidential voting on April 23, when she and four other candidates will
be on the ballot, but that she will never capture the majority needed to win in a runoff in May.
But a visit to this southeastern National Front stronghold suggests that Ms. Le Pen may be
succeeding in broadening her appeal to the point where a victory is more plausible, even if the
odds are still stacked against her.
With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets
here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others
once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism,
xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it.
"I've said several times I would do it, but I've never had the courage," Christian Pignol,
a vendor of plants and vegetables at the Bandol market, said about voting for the National Front.
"This time may be the good one."
"It's the fear of the unknown," he continued, as several fellow vendors nodded. "People would
like to try it, but they are afraid. But maybe it's the solution. We've tried everything for 30,
40 years. We'd like to try it, but we're also afraid."
French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers
- the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief
rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party.
Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer
solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at
any time in its 45-year history.
But if it is to win nationally, the party must do much better than even the 49 percent support
it won in this conservative Var department, home to three National Front mayors, in elections
in 2015. More critically, it must turn once-hostile areas of the country in Ms. Le Pen's favor
and attract new kinds of voters - professionals and the upper and middle classes. Political analysts
are skeptical.
Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done.
Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session
in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval
shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters
here.
"I'm telling you, you've got to go to the difficult neighborhoods - it's not what you think,"
Mr. Boccaletti told them, laughing slyly. "Our work has got to be in the areas that have resisted
us most" - meaning the coast's more affluent areas.
It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning
in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there.
Yet he won.
"Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said.
"Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed."
The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That
was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower
middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary.
As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump
http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump
supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed
voting for Hillary.
I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization
is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by
many, usually not allied, segments of population.
"... Clinton's time is passed. Her view of "common ground" is still based in the 20th century and the Third Way neoliberal politics she and her husband helped create. That era is over. ..."
"... Why won't she just go off and become a professor somewhere, like Dukakis did? ..."
"... Hillary like bill never feels guilt. Only ambition. They are monsters ..."
Hillary Clinton Says She's
'Ready to Come Out of the Woods' https://nyti.ms/2nCIzGS
NYT - AP - March 17
SCRANTON, Pa. - Hillary Clinton said Friday she's "ready to come out of the woods" and help
Americans find common ground.
Clinton's gradual return to the public spotlight following her presidential election loss continued
with a St. Patrick's Day speech in her late father's Pennsylvania hometown of Scranton.
"I'm like a lot of my friends right now, I have a hard time watching the news," Clinton told
an Irish women's group.
But she urged a divided country to work together to solve problems, recalling how, as first
lady, she met with female leaders working to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
"I do not believe that we can let political divides harden into personal divides. And we can't
just ignore, or turn a cold shoulder to someone because they disagree with us politically," she
said.
Friday night's speech was one of several she is to deliver in the coming months, including
a May 26 commencement address at her alma mater, Wellesley College in Massachusetts. The Democrat
also is working on a book of personal essays that will include some reflections on her loss to
Donald Trump.
Clinton, who was spotted taking a walk in the woods around her hometown of Chappaqua, New York,
two days after losing the election to Donald Trump, quipped she had wanted to stay in the woods,
"but you can only do so much of that."
She told the Society of Irish Women that it'll be up to citizens, not a deeply polarized Washington,
to bridge the political divide.
"I am ready to come out of the woods and to help shine a light on what is already happening
around kitchen tables, at dinners like this, to help draw strength that will enable everybody
to keep going," said Clinton. ...
(As you may recall HRC won the popular vote,
and also 472 counties which generate
64% of the US GDP.)
... Our observation: The less-than-500 counties that Hillary Clinton carried nationwide encompassed
a massive 64 percent of America's economic activity as measured by total output in 2015. By contrast,
the more-than-2,600 counties that Donald Trump won generated just 36 percent of the country's
output-just a little more than one-third of the nation's economic activity. ...
Clinton's time is passed. Her view of "common ground" is still based in the 20th century and
the Third Way neoliberal politics she and her husband helped create. That era is over.
Why won't she just go off and become a professor somewhere, like Dukakis did?
"... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in
intensity, including statements by multiple former and
current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of
the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who
would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting
Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly
queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the
Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by
providing information detailing meetings in Europe.
Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts"
signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy
and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.
Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some,
like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham,
cited his connections to Russia.
"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party
who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go
down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class
seats." Bernie Sanders to NY Times Magazine's Charlie Homans
The New Party of No
How a president and a protest movement transformed the
Democrats.
By CHARLES HOMANS
I asked [Bernie Sanders] if he thought the Democratic
Party knew what it stood for. "You're asking a good question,
and I can't give you a definitive answer," he said.
"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who
want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down
with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." ...
Everyone loves Bernie Sanders. Except, it seems, the
Democratic party
A new poll found he is the most popular politician in
America. But instead of embracing his message, establishment
Democrats continue to resist him
By Trevor Timm - Guardian
If you look at the numbers, Bernie Sanders is the most
popular politician in America – and it's not even close. Yet
bizarrely, the Democratic party – out of power across the
country and increasingly irrelevant – still refuses to
embrace him and his message. It's increasingly clear they do
so at their own peril.
A new Fox News poll out this week shows Sanders has a +28
net favorability rating among the US population, dwarfing all
other elected politicians on both ends of the political
spectrum. And he's even more popular among the vaunted
"independents", where he is at a mind boggling +41.
This poll is not just an aberration. Look at this
Huffington Post chart that has tracked Sanders' favorability
rating over time, ever since he gained national prominence in
2015 when he started running for the Democratic nomination.
The more people got to know him, they more they liked him –
the exact opposite of what his critics said would happen when
he was running against Clinton.
One would think with numbers like that, Democratic
politicians would be falling all over themselves to be
associated with Sanders, especially considering the party as
a whole is more unpopular than the Republicans and even
Donald Trump right now. Yet instead of embracing his message,
the establishment wing of the party continues to resist him
at almost every turn, and they seem insistent that they don't
have to change their ways to gain back the support of huge
swaths of the country.
Politico ran a story just this week featuring Democratic
officials fretting over the fact that Sanders supporters may
upend their efforts to retake governorships in southern
states by insisting those candidates adopt Sanders' populist
policies – seemingly oblivious to the fact that Sanders plays
well in some of those states too.
Sanders' effect on Trump voters can be seen in a gripping
town hall this week that MSNBC's Chris Hayes hosted with him
in West Virginia – often referred to as "Trump country" –
where the crowd ended up giving him a rousing ovation after
he talked about healthcare being a right of all people and
that we are the only industrialized nation in the world who
doesn't provide healthcare as a right to all its people.
But hand wringing by Democratic officials over 2018
candidates is really just the latest example: the
establishment wing of the party aggressively ran another
opponent against Keith Ellison, Sanders' choice to run the
Democratic National Committee, seemingly with the primary
motivation to keep the party away from Sanders' influence.
They've steadfastly refused to take giant corporations
head on in the public sphere and wouldn't even return to an
Obama-era rule that banned lobbyist money from funding the
DNC that was rescinded last year. And despite the broad
popularity of the government guaranteeing health care for
everyone, they still have not made any push for a
Medicare-for-all plan that Sanders has long called for as a
rebuttal to Republicans' attempt to dismantle Obamacare.
Democrats seem more than happy to put all the blame of the
2016 election on a combination of Russia and James Comey and
have engaged in almost zero introspection on the root causes
of the larger reality: they are also out of power in not the
presidency, but both also houses of Congress, governorships
and state houses across the country as well.
As Politico reported on the Democrats' post-Trump strategy
in February, "Democratic aides say they will eventually shift
to a positive economic message that Rust Belt Democrats can
run on". However: "For now, aides say, the focus is on
slaying the giant and proving to the voters who sent Trump
into the White House why his policies will fail."
In other words, they're doubling down on the exact same
failing strategy that Clinton used in the final months of the
campaign. Sanders himself put it this wayin his usual blunt
style in an interview with New York magazine this week – when
asked about whether the Democrats can adapt to the political
reality, he said: "There are some people in the Democratic
Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather
go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class
seats." ...
Krugman and Vox have been attacking Sanders regularly on
behalf of the establishment Democrats.
I thought it was
interesting that PGL and Sanjait said they don't agree with
Krugman's latest blog post, but they refuse to discuss
exactly why Krugman is wrong.
"This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack
Beauchamp on the striking degree to which left-wing economics
fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism;
basically, Sandersism has failed everywhere it has been
tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is
really in large degree white identity politics, which can't
be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other
things, these "populist" voters now live in a media bubble,
getting their news from sources that play to their
identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer
them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe it if
told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health
coverage thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what
happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get
their attention, and maybe even open their eyes to the extent
to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same
dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a
welfare state but only for people who look like you. In
America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to
white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open."
"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who
want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down
with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats."
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you --
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
a) In the 70s, a Dem congress began deregulating the financial system with the help of a Dem
president.
b) In the 80s, a Dem congress continued deregulation and cut taxes on the rich, increased taxes
on the not so rich, cut SS benefits and essential government programs, and abandoned the unions.
c) In the 90s, a Dem president reappointed Greenspan to the Fed, further deregulated and cut
essential programs, and signed draconian crime, welfare, and student loan bills into law.
d) In 07, the Dems took back the congress and did nothing to hold accountable those who had
led us into a war under false pretenses, turned us into a nation of torturers, and politicized
the Justice Department as the concentration of income rose until the economy blew up in the fall
of 08.
e) In 09 the Dems took complete control of the federal government and ignored students and
homeowners as they bailed out the banks, passed a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan championed
by the insurance and drug companies as incomes and wages plummeted.
The working and middle classes were decimated throughout this process, and, somehow, it's the
voters' fault we ended up with a throw the bums out Trump instead of a more of the same Hillary?
I don't think so!
"The obvious solution for rising healthcare costs is either a public option or extending
Medicare to younger and younger people, but Democrats, other than Sanders, refuse to offer
or defend these solutions."
Medicare for all was not offered because politically it was a non-starter. The public option
was offered and once the Republicans (and Democrats who might as well be Republicans) realized
what it meant (out-competing insurance companies) they opposed it.
people who try to equate these class traitors to all democrats are carrying their water.
[[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged at the time that the House bill would include a
public option.15 Indeed, a public option offered through a private insurance exchange was included
in all three versions of the bill passed by House committees in the summer of 2009 (House Ways
and Means and House Education and Labor on 17 July 2009; House Energy and Commerce on 31 July
2009), as well as in the bill passed by the full House of Representatives on 7 November 2009 (the
Affordable Health Care for America Act, HR 3962). A public option was also included in the bill
passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on 15 July 2009 (the Affordable
Health Choices Act, S 1679).
Senate Democrats were engaged in a highly contentious debate throughout the fall of 2009, and
the political life of the public option changed almost daily. The debate reached a critical impasse
in November 2009, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who usually caucuses with the Democrats,
threatened to filibuster the Senate bill if it included a public option.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) made last-minute attempts to introduce
amendments to include a public option as the bill was about to be voted on by the Senate Finance
Committee. Those failed, and there was no public option in either the bill that emerged from that
committee or the bill that passed the full Senate on 24 December 2009]]
I agree. Medicare For All! Should have been the rallying cry from the start. The Democrats should
have challenged the Republicans to argue against the logic of it and laid them bare but they didn't.
If that was the starting point of any negotiations we might have a much better health insurance
system now. I guess I have to blame Obama for the lack of leadership on that one.
"The obvious solution for rising healthcare costs is either a public option or extending Medicare
to younger and younger people, but Democrats, other than Sanders, refuse to offer or defend these
solutions."
In either case, Congress has not allowed Medicare to negotiate costs completely and you believe
they my allow a Public Option to do so???
The point is that the public has never been given a choice. No one except Sanders has made this
sort of thing a campaign issue, and the Democrats rejected Sanders. As a result, we ended up with
a Republican congress and Trump.
This is just another example of how Big Data can fail. All polling is is
the use of Big Data – weighting factors are just another name for
algorithms. Unlike Cambridge Analytica which was going outside its data to
make projections, the pollsters insisted on using the wrong model to
determine human behavior – and that is just as bad. Instead of watching who
the polls said was in the lead, I was watching the error analyses. The model
of how people vote had changed, but polling companies just didn't notice (or
perhaps didn't want to notice). Certainly the elections of 2010, 2012, and
2014 should have alerted them to changing trends and model instability and
their error analyses should have been much higher than they were. But
putting data into a garbage compactor just gives you more garbage .
People assume that "Big Data" is science. It is not. They are
"models", like kid's Lego models, that reflect the consciousness of the
"Model's Creator" (This kid seriously likes battleships, or cosy little
houses!) Sort of like the way IQ tests reflect the culture, class and
race of its creator. (You usually do not get points for identifying a
bird by it's bird-song or differentiating edible plants from the
inedible, by taste/smell).
This proves that most Big Polling companies are run by Clintonistas,
just as Big Media is run by Clintonistas. Their polling numbers still
show that Trump is losing, to this day. They are truly exceptional
people. (In a weird and creepy way)
This also implies that Lambert possesses that very rare quality-
The Open Mind
, that can see through
powerful/dense/stinky bullshit, with x-ray vision.
It's amazing how much more complex a humanities approach is compared
to a stone cold set of unemotional variables. To wit: Trump won because
the "rural" component of the LA Times was exaggerated – so then what does
that say for the urban component who where almost as down-and-out. This
is logic karma. The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic
analysis gets it right. Love it a lot. And there is some connection to
our favorite Mr. Professor, Mark Blyth when he describes these fed-up
electorates (those betrayed by neoliberalism) as "no-shows." Well, we
could go on and on. Truth becomes the fractal analysis of politics.
"The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic analysis gets
it right".
I've got some bad news for you. Decision trees are part and parcel
of Machine Learning techniques.
And polling has nothing to do with Big Data per se – sample of a
few thousand is not Big Data in any way form or shape, it's just
statistics. And while statistics doesn't have any bias, statisticians
(and polsters) do (as do, for the matter, any and all humans).
Your comment reminds me of some data science jokes going around:
1. Data science is statistics done on a Mac.
2. A data scientist is a statistician living in San Francisco.
3. A data scientist is a person who knows more about statistics
than a computer scientist and knows more about computer science
than a statistitian.
(I'd give credit to whoever started these jokes if I could only
figure out who they were ..)
Statistics is a big part of Big Data – it cannot be done without
it. You'd probably be surprised to know that polling is a part of
data science. And you'd probably don't know that the first
documented use of Big Data was by Tycho Brache/Kepler ..
It is important to understand what Big Data/Data Science is since
it is here and it isn't going away. Curiosity Stream has an
excellent video, "The Human Faces of Big Data" that is well worth
the watch.
And as always, the worst thing a person can do is give up their
ability to think critically when presented with Big Data results,
which are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given.
GIGO still applies .
I need to correct my next to last sentence to read: .which
are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given AND
the algorithm used ..
Sometimes the data is good, but the algorithm is bad and vice
versa
I have to remind myself every time I see data modelling political and
cultural phenomenon that these particular models can or will work well
until they don't. They always operate within a political and cultural
paradigm and when that paradigm is broken or even just faltering the
methods (which are heavily biased by that paradigm) fall apart. I can't
say it is apophenia as the data/patterns
are
relevant within an
existing paradigm. Maybe it is apophenia in reverse. The culture
establishes an agreed upon framework thus informing the modeller and
skewing their modelling. So the culture creates the patterns on a largely
nonscientific basis and the modeller simply interprets them to predict
the culture's future behavior. It seems like an exercise in futility.
While the "horse race" data is interesting & kinda fun to dissect in
retrospect, I don't think it really captures the essence of what happened.
Boiled down to 2 factors:
1) Trump was the "bomb thrower" candidate. First he blew up the R's
establishment candidates in the primaries & then blew up the D's
hyper-establishment candidate in the general.
2) HRC was a terrible and, ultimately, incompetent candidate. Her
palpable sense of entitlement & arrogance was quite off-putting to a
significant portion of the electorate. That she won the popular vote but
still managed to lose the election says it all about her campaign strategy.
Trump's election was a giant middle finger to the "politics-as-usual"
crowd.
(Unfortunately Trump is really very "establishment" – he just ran a
non-traditional campaign. I'll be rather surprised if he makes beyond 2020)
I suspect there was a lot more neo-liberal working behind the sceine
that we might suspect. Polling companies are a lot like the acounting
firms for the banks – they are paid to overlook acounting issues. Those
that don't, do not get to keep their contracts. The polling firms were
paied not to measure the mood of the electorate, but to produce polls
that conformed to the narative. And the narative was that Clintion was
going to win by a landslide.
The polls were just another tool for manufacturing consent.
"... The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and not given opportunities for advancement. ..."
"... They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up. They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get compliance and votes. ..."
"... I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear. ..."
"... It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before the inept campaign increased them. ..."
I went on two email rants tangential to this if anyone is interested, I enjoyed them.
On journalism:
The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They
spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot
faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and
not given opportunities for advancement.
They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego
any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have
so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really
saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil
than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate
both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up.
They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of
the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity
behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to
forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the
titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the
majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get
compliance and votes.
At the end of the day, polls are like horoscopes, a kernel of truth but you can see what you
want to see. Which is why we were subjected to copious think pieces about Bernie Bros and Racist
Trump voters that are little more than polling cross tabs woven into whatever narrative would
best help Clinton.
But why Clinton? It certainly isn't because there was a cozy relationship before this campaign.
Note this quote from
Politico :
But to this day she's surrounded herself with media conspiracy theorists who remain some
of her favorite confidants, urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked
with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly, withdrawn into a gilded shell when attacked
and rolled her eyes at several generations of aides who suggested she reach out to journalists
rather than just disdaining them. Not even being nice to her in print has been a guarantor
of access; reporters likely to write positive stories have been screened as ruthlessly as perceived
enemies, dismissed as time-sucking sycophants or pretend-friends.
I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability
she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could
be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear.
But it certainly isn't above her to play favorites and reword good coverage with access,
even to the point of
dictating adjectives to reporters .
The second email was to 538 because they put up a job listing, which I used as an opportunity
to get an email read by them.
Well, I don't have any experience editing or writing (except as a hobby) but I do have a very
extensive knowledge of current events, political trends, polling, voting methods, and heterodox
economics. Since it's doubtful you would consider me for a policy editor position I just thought
I would offer some constructive criticism.
1. Instead of using your models to display the odds of a candidate winning if the election
were held today, incorporate the polling error and historical trends to make a graph that starts
with lines for the past and ends with probability cones into the future. You may know that
polls are only for a snapshot in time, but the vast majority of the TV pundits who use this site
as a bible don't. Then they go and decide who gets coverage based on it. This is especially important
when you have a well known candidate vs lesser known ones. This is a key reason Sanders didn't
do as well and why we have a president Trump. They also couldn't emphasize enough how unelectable
he was despite the polls constantly saying otherwise which really was the one thing
that sank him . For some reason about
40% of
the country says they will vote even if they don't care about the outcome. I'm sure in reality
it is much less, even more so for a primary. However, one of the reason politics is so dysfunctional
right now is that no one in their right mind would run for congress or anything else when only
63/435 house districts had a margin under 15%. Any damage you do to the incumbency effect is a
huge plus.
2. Alternative voting. Since your site is all about data I can't for the life of me
understand why you haven't done a dive into alternative voting methods. It there is one thing
this election should have taught us it's that first past the post (FPTP) is a creation from hell
that needs to die. Then the only other option widely expressed is Instant Run Off (IRV), which
is just ever so slightly better than FPTP. Would it really be too much to ask to dive into
Score Voting ,
3-2-1 voting , Condorcet,
and Schultz? And maybe look at some of the
work being done to model
voter satisfaction with those systems.
3. Improving Polling. Clearly you have contacts at all the major polling firms I have
absolutely no clue why you haven't pressured them to gather better data. Since the elites in this
country absolutely refuse to be within a 5 mile radius of real people, they rely on polls to take
the temperature of the public. I'd say that hasn't been working so well. I have seen polls where
they find out your stance on ACA, give both side some of the opposing arguments, and then ask
again and manage to flip like 20% from each side. Any poll that is going to ask our suboptimally
informed electorate something about a hot button issue should give a reason or two for and against
before getting a response. Polls that are meant to determine a participant's preference on a range
of hot button issues really should be done with
quadratic voting .
Which brings me to horse race polls. Just to get a baseline about how dysfunctional FPTP is I
would have loved to see a poll in the middle of the Dem primary ask "regardless of who you plan
on voting for, who do you want to be the next president?" Primary season would also be a great
time to test out some of the alternative voting methods mentioned above, most of which would eliminate
the need for primaries entirely. But if we are stuck with FPTP I would love for the follow up
question to be "In one sentence why do you plan to vote for that person?" That would really be
invaluable data.
I could probably go on for another hour with things that I think you could do to personally
improve the miserable state this country is in and will continue to be in for the foreseeable
future, but I'll spare you. Thanks for reading this far if you did.
I'm glad you posted this! I wasn't familiar with quadratic voting and the link is quite interesting.
It seems to have some similarities with ranked preference voting. That said, I agree with Peter
Emerson that in any choice there should be at least 3 options to choose from, and those options
should come from the voting base.
Choosing from how much I agree or disagree with a single proposal is still a poor option–it
depends what the alternatives are if one disagrees, or at least some basics about the implementation
if one agrees.
Using the questions from the QV video as an example, in some questions the nature of the potential
alternatives might affect results more than others. (For example, "Do you want to repeal the ACA?"
How a person answers might vary considerably depending on the alternatives.)
It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in
order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before
the inept campaign increased them.
I read that book a long time ago. What I remember (perhaps incorrectly) is that there are simple,
compound and complex failures. One error causes a simple failure, two a compound and three a complex.
Complex failures are usually catastrophic. The errors were 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate
3) failure to adapt. Perhaps a bit overly structural, but it did stick in my mind for years.
> 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate 3) failure to adapt.
Those are the types of failure, and those are reasonable enough buckets. But their analysis
of how multiple pathways to failure is to my mind far more supple - and you have to treat case
case separately.
While I generally agree with your analysis I think that your timeline is missing one key inflection
point, the ACA. During September and October some states began announcing pricing changes for
the coming year. That fed into the rolling narrative that the ACA was collapsing, or in a death
spiral, or otherwise in trouble right around the same time that radical opportunist
True Patriot(tm) Jim Comey was bringing up Weiners.
Others have argued (can't find the links right now sorry) that this was more meaningful than
the emails and my own informal poll of Trump voters is consistent with that. None of them mention
Bhengazi or the emails except as general background to her unsavoriness, meaning that the damage
was done long before October. But they do bring up the "collapsing state exchanges" and "unreasonable
price surges" as current problems.
I agree that the email furor could be masking the effect of an ObamaCare rate hike, but I have
never seen polling to this effect; if somebody has, please add! There are a lot of events happening
simultaneously, and then the press will pick one and make that the cause.
Bottom line, people in rural western Virginia (with which I am more familiar) might not have
even heard the term "neoliberal" [by the way, why do we use his portmanteau of two very positive
words to describe a loathsome philosophy? Why don't we just call it what it is, "neofeudalism"
or possibly more accurately, "archeofeudalism"], but these "deplorables" do know that their lives
suck more than they ever have due to their lives and livelihood being drained out of them by the
1% and the Accela Corridor Class, of which HRC was the examplar par excellence.
Just ignore all the polls, all the verbiage, all the analysis. Bottom line: Trump is the proverbial
"Ham Sandwich."
The original liberal revolution (circa 1776 and later) mobilized the power of the bourgeoisie,
money, and markets to correct the inadequacies of the remains of the feudal society based on agriculture
and land. The neoliberal revolution aims to mobilize the power of money and markets to correct
the inadequacies of the liberal society based on money and markets. Strategically, to put a price
on anything that's left without one, and eliminate the chances for Polanyi's "double movement".
You write: "all but the Daybreak poll got the popular vote outcome wrong. "
Ummh, your sentence exactly disagrees with your data. Almost all polls got the sign of the
popular vote total correct, with Clinton leading Trump by several points. The average (Huffington
Post does this) of a lot of polls was very close indeed to Trump's performance, with Trump having
fewer popular vote than Clinton by close to 3%.
I'm surprised in your narrative inflection points, you don't note Oct. 24 as a key date, the
day the administration announced that Obamacare premiums would increase by an average of 22%.
Though it didn't receive as much coverage from the horse-race media, it seems to me that if there
was one single event that tipped the race to Trump, it was that announcement.
I didn't follow the polling much in real-time, but my recollection from post-mortems is that
Trump received a number of bounces up at inflection events, but then his poll numbers subsided
back. But in the aftermath of Oct. 24 his numbers began to rise without subsiding later. The graphs
you posted are consistent with that, except that it's attributed to the Comey letter,, which received
a lot of media play, but probably was of lesser importance to voters, as opposed to its importance
as a Dembot excuse.
In Florida, Trump got 113,000 more votes than Hillary. However, election officials report that
130,000 voters refused to vote for either candidate and wrote in the names of various people and
cartoon characters. The usual "vote for the lesser of two evils" just isn't working any more.
Why not look at how Bill Clinton diverted the Democratic Party towards Wall Street and Oligarchs
and left behind huge swathes of traditional voters ? The story of the string-puller from Arkansas
and his connections, whether to get him a Rhodes Scholarship and multiple draft deferments, or
his visit to Russia in Dec 1969, or his governorship and its strange association with Rich Mountain
Aviation in Mena, AK.
This was where the Democratic Party turned away from its voter base and Blair copied this in
UK with New Labour, a Neo-Marxist front facilitating Financial Excess
You're asking why I didn't write another post. Basically, because I wanted to write about penguins,
and not peacocks. The focus is on the campaign, not on everything that's been wrong with the Democrat
Party since forever (though there'll be a bit more of that in the forthcoming post).
One of these days pundits are going to stop treating the election like some damn sporting event,
focusing on momentum and god knows what instead of where the candidates stand on the issues of
importance. When that happens, maybe we'll start electing candidates that are interested and capable
of solving problems instead of candidates merely striving to stroke their egos.
I commend you for your optimism, However, the two party (actually one party) duopoly will insist
on nominating neo-liberal candidates paid for by yuuge corporate bribes. May I suggest that you
look elsewhere if you want candidates capable of solving the people's problems rather than the
corporate ones.
The trouble with social science is that the subjects read about themselves and change behavior
based on what they read. This is the property that George Soros calls reflexive. Even physical
science at the quantum mechanical level has as a basic principle that the act of measuring something
changes it.
Yes, even George Soros can be right about a thing or two.
Interesting analysis. What would add considerably is if we had some way of also charting other
events, in particular election fraud events (including voter suppression, computer tabulator rigging,
etc.) and other election interference mechanisms such as media coverage / non-coverage / miscoverage.
Not to mention the primary problems. Or the issues having to do with "candidate selection"
in the first place.
Analysis of the election without examining the information made available to voters, and with
no hope of knowing how voters actually did vote (hint–we don't know this from official
election results), is dodgy to say the least.
At the minimum the glaring gaps in information (e.g. about actual vote tallies) should be acknowledged.
Did you read the title of the post? That often gives a good indiction of the subject matter
to be found therein. You want me to write another post. Perhaps one day.
The presence of actual election malfeasance for decades (and more–when have we ever had clean
elections under public scrutiny?) means that elegant analysis such as yours perversely perpetuates
the acceptance of phony election data. That's why some form of acknowledgement is needed somewhere
in the post. Not a different post or a different topic, just a mention that there are . . . issues.
I would love your approach if only it didn't contain the unspoken presumption of official election
results bearing any resemblance to actual votes cast! Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the precinct
and specific election. We should not advocate people continuing to blindly accept official election
results regardless of whether the results were expected, unexpected, close, non-close, matching
polls, not matching polls. Analysis that does not acknowledge the absence of meaningful election
scrutiny inadvertently perpetuates the problem.
It's like doing financial analysis on an economy where all data is submitted by companies with
zero requirement for backup financial data. (Not to mention then carrying out "polls" of what
"financial analyses" we believe or prefer!) We would never accept that kind of "data" and subsequent
"analysis" in a financial context.
I see it as a contest for power between two jet setters. Both had Boeings. One was owned by
the candidate, bigger & black & red.
The other was some smaller, and nondescript blue.
I'd like to see the number of flights and where they went compared.
Concerning your inflection points, Lambert: I remember from a while back that Empty Wheel had
a chart that showed a major shift in sentiment toward Trump when new higher Obamacare costs were
announced for 2017. Sorry, but I don't know how to run down that link.
It's bad now, but it could be worse. Project Fear. OK, Trump is a lunatic but how does that
compare with the status quo? Let's give the lunatic a go. How bad can it get?
"... Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will have no future as a party. ..."
"... Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment, and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved. ..."
"... Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling, is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything. ..."
"... Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out with the garbage. ..."
"... So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with racial politics. ..."
"... The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make a living. ..."
"... The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives. ..."
Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will
have no future as a party.
Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment,
and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved.
Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling,
is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take
before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything.
Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War
the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out
with the garbage.
So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have
changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with
racial politics.
That worked some, but the problem with identity politics is that eventually people
get their rights and freedoms and next thing you know they want jobs and college educations for
their children.
The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working
people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if
the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make
a living.
The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things
you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives.
It is one of the pernicious aspects of an effectively two-party system that all progressives
have a strong motivation or even necessity to associate themselves with the "least bad" party.
By way of official narrative the Democrats definitely fit the bill, even though they contain a
lot of "co-opted" (if not corrupted) establishment baggage. That just happens with any major party
- elites and interest groups that nominally stay out of politics but factually participate and
not just a little are never resting.
In Germany, the 80's (perhaps late 70s?) saw an ascendancy of the Green party which was strongly
associated with environmentalism, and by implication resistance to then prevalent politics, social
mores, etc. They were successful as environmentalism and (I would say secondarily but that can
be debated) civil/individual liberties and gender/ethnic equality which they also featured big
time were themes that found wide appeal, and the time was ripe for them (e.g. environmental degradation
had become undeniable, and gender/ethnic discrimination had become recognized as a factor hindering
progress, aside from just fairness concerns).
A few decades later (and starting even a few years after the success) there was a noticeable
bifurcation in the Greens - it turned out they were not all on the same page regarding all social
issues. A number of Greens "defected" from the party and associated themselves with Red (Social
Democrats, equivalent of US Democrats) or Black (Christian Democrats, equivalent of US Republicans)
- showing that environmental or general (dimensions of) equal opportunity concerns are perhaps
orthogonal to stands on other more or less specific social issues (or if one wants to be more
cynical, that some people are careerist and not so much about principles - that exists but I would
prefer (with little proof) to think it doesn't explain the larger pattern).
This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin
and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign
"Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"
By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT
"In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally
advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National
Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877
CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy
representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed
"Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump
International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during
that meeting, Acosta said.
Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he
sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling
for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon
said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those
sort of details, as they've made clear."
Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political
party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday
in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump
adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.
Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials
during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican
Party platform."...
This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".
This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.
There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance
which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks
like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism,
the better.
Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey
Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this
dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected.
He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to
hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.
In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "
This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political
sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation
providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.
But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize
their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking
ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.
BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful)
in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia
-- two major continental powers.
Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces
that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.
The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially
a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into
the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous
anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))
So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you
understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary
did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).
What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will
come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to
cover it up.
You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand
complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog
(overtaking Fred)
Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging
from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some
people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and
political events; cm is one example).
Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage
of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your
urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.
As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this
dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of
Tonkin incident is another)
"... and Haim Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money. ..."
"... The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. ..."
"... "We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result." ..."
"... The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal. ..."
"... Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than 50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office. ..."
"... But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama. The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed homeowners. ..."
"... Your friend should share her script for success w/ the DNC leadership. ..."
Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic
National Committee Saturday, giving the party an establishment leader at a
moment when its grass roots wing is insurgent.
Mr. Perez defeated Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and four other candidates
in a race that had few ideological divisions yet illuminated the same rifts
in the party that drove the acrimonious 2016 presidential primary between
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Perez fell one vote short of a majority on the first vote for
chairman, with Mr. Ellison 13 votes behind him. The four second-tier
candidates then dropped out of the race before the second ballot. On the
second ballot, Mr. Perez won 235 of 435 votes cast.
Somehow, I think most people knew that this was going to happen.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president and
that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of 2010,
2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and especially the
left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
I think that we should keep in mind that the US is a plutocracy and that at
this point, the Democrats aren't even pretending to be a "New Deal" party for
the people anymore. Perhaps its existence always was an outlet to contain and
co-opt the left. At least now, the message is naked: the left is expected to
blindly obey, but will never be given leadership positions.
In other words, the left is not welcome. I think that it is time for people
to leave.
The only question at this point is, how hard is it going to be to form a
third party? I don't see the Left as being able to reform the Democrats very
easily. It may be so corrupt as to be beyond reform.
At least 1993, although the ideal time would have been after the
Coup of 1963, but unfortunately too many were still clueless than.
(Had more than five people and Mort Sahl ever bothered to read the
Warren Commission Report - where Lee Oswald was "positively ID'd by a
waitress for the murder of Officer Tippit:
W.C.: So you went into the room and looked at the lineup, did you
recognize anyone.
Helen Louise Markham: No, sir.
And there you have it, gentlement, a positive ID! And the rest of
the so-called report was even worse . . . .)
(Patting self on back) That's when I left it. God, was it really
that long ago?
And responding to the earlier part of the string: no, it isn't easy
to form a "3rd" party; and yes, there already is one. Just might be
time to stop nit-picking about it and help. (In Oregon, there are
about 6, two of them right-wing.)
Kshama Sawant, who is a socialist not a Green, is hoping (I think
that's the exact word) to put together a Left coalition. I think the
Green Party could be sold on that – for one thing, we would be much
the largest portion. Certainly I could, as I'm pretty tired of
spinning my wheels.
Remember, according to Gallup, the Dems are now down to 25%
affiliation (Reps at 28 – the first time they've been higher, I think
because they won the election.) Independents are the plurality by a
wide margin. Something's going to give, and we should try to get ahead
of the parade. It could easily get really nasty.
The problem with third parties is the same with the math of this
ballot. If Perez was one vote shy the first time, that means he
only picked up 18 votes the second time. So all the other
candidates mostly split the opposition. I'm sure if the democratic
establishment felt the need, they would form a few front parties.
People, you are just going to have to wait for it to blow up and
after that, coalesce around one cause; Public banking and money as
a publicly supported utility.
It took a few hundred years to recognize government is a public
function and drop monarchy.
Beats me how anyone thinks "public banking" will change
anything. In a capitalist system, banks are banks. They chase
the highest return. That's not where the public interest (qua
people) lies and never will be. And "government is a public
function" so long as it serves its mandate: to make return on
capital investment function smoothly.
For those of use who never were in the Democratic Party, this choice
ensures that many of us will be looking for another party. The DNC just
gave us the same choice as the last election – Corrupt establishment or
Fascism. The distinction these days is not worth pondering.
What people are doing right now with Donald Trump's
GOP - forcing town halls, making a ruckus, holding everyone
accountable - has to be the model for progressive change in
American politics. Doing this stuff inside the system
isn't
going to wor
k. Forming a party around ideology or ideas
isn't going to wor
k. Wearing the system down
is all that
works.
Before this gets turned into another thing where the establishment
Democrats posture as the reasonable adults victimized by the assaults
of those left-wing baddies, let's just be very clear about what
happened here. It was the establishment wing that decided to recruit
and then stand up a candidate in order to fight an internal battle
against the left faction of the party. It was the establishment wing
that then dumped massive piles of opposition research on one of their
own party members. And it was the establishment wing that did all of
this in the shadow of Trump, sowing disunity in order to contest a
position whose leadership they insist does not really matter.
The establishment wing has made it very clear that they will do
anything and everything to hold down the left faction, even as they
rather hilariously ask the left faction to look above their
differences and unify in these trying times. They do not have any
intent of ceding anything - even small things they claim are mostly
irrelevant - to the left wing.
Reform may become possible only when the money spigot dries up.
At some point, the oligarchs may simply decide its not cost effective
to finance such losers. With no money, there are no rice bowls and so the
professional pols and their minions will either wither away or seek a new
funding
model which may make possible a different politics.
I think it will take well under a decade to see how this plays out.
What is the cheapest way for oligarchs to maintain power in a
pseudo-democracy?
If there is enough conflict among them, I suppose they'll continue
to put money into both parties. Otherwise, why not just let one of the
two slowly die? Electoral theatre is expensive.
The scary thing is that it's NOT expensive, compared to the size
of the economy. As long as there's enough at stake for large
companies and ultra-rich individuals, they can very easily buy two
or even several parties.
(This is not to disagree with your main point, which is that
they may let the Democrats die.)
But why bother with that extra bit, if it can instead be
spent on a second or third bolt-hole?
But I suspect you are correct because the citizenry will
revolt fairly quickly after the illusion completely dissolves.
It's worth something to put that off for as long as possible.
Yes it is when a very competitive Senate race is now $50M as
a starting price tag and to run a viable Presidential campaign
will likely be $1B as a floor in 2020.
There'd still be 'choice' since we plebs would continue
quixotically financing this/that with our cashless dollars
(while they filter, oh say .30 of each, for the privilege).
At least, perhaps, until we finally get our sh*t together and
genuinely revolt. How long will that take?
The farce willl go on. After all, while the actual popular
sovereignty expressed in voting might be minimal, and the
information environment itself largely a corporate
construction, its gives a concrete, personal, representation
of popular sovereignty, and in so doing – and whatever the
despondency of its voters and the emptiness of their choice –
legitimates or "mandates" whatever it is the government does,
and however corporate friendly it might be. And it may be –
with its Private Public Partnerships, and revolving door from
the corporate to public office (and back) – very corporate
friendly indeed.
If this is the case, then the "China Model" is not, as
some think, the ideal neoliberal political model. Explicitly
authoritarian rule is, from the start, problematic in terms
of popular sovereignty. If a corporate-friendly authoritarian
regime is to avoid this, it has but one option. It must
deliver economic growth that is both noticeable and
widespread, and so do what neoliberal theory claims, but
neoliberal practice isn't much, if at all, interested in
providing.
We may well be in the midst of making a choice here
At least the China model provided growth unreal living
standards from the desperate poverty that most Chinese
were living in a generation ago.
It is certainly not without flaws. Corruption,
inequality, and pollution are big problems.
That said,the US is following the corruption and
inequality pretty well. With the Republicans and other
corporations in control, they will surely make sure that
pollution follows.
Actually it will be worse. The Chinese model ensured
that China built up a manufacturing sector. It followed
the economic growth trajectory of Japan after WW2 and
later South Korea. The neoliberals won't do that.
By "revolt" what do you actually mean? Armed overthrow of
the existing power structure? Or political revolt, forming a
new party? Breaking the US up into smaller countries?
I'm having hard time imagining a radical restructuring of
power in the US. Nor does it strikes me as particularly
desirable, as my observation is that the new power structure
is often just as bad as the existing one. But now has to deal
with governing a fractured society.
Whatever would be required to create necessary change.
A series of actions emerging from a plan,
ever-intensifying until the system-as-it-is has no more
power.
Do you think hundreds of millions of people should
continue to let themselves be trashed? That sort of thing
never lets up but only increases over time.
This situation is not unlike spousal abuse. The most
dangerous time for the abused is when the she/he decides
to leave. And the after-effects usually land her/him in
poverty but also peace and self-respect.
Yep, in a duopoly it is necessary to own and control both
halves–even a perpetually losing one. That is cheap insurance against
nasty surprises. American political parties and politicians are cheap
as hell to buy in any event. Gazillionaire couch change can control
entire parties.
Oh, c'mon. The money spent to provide an illusion of democracy is
chump change compared to the billions they are reaping from having
bought the government. The plutocrats are not trying to effect change
really, they like it pretty much as it is now. The purpose of the two
parties is to distract us from what is really going on. The only
plutocratic interest in what they do is fueled by perverse curiosity
of what their new toy can do.
Anon, I hope you are right. Somewhat lost in the news was the vote NOT
to ban corporate donations to the DNC. To me, that is at least as telling
as Ellison's loss. The Clintons may be gone, but their stench remains.
I think we need to accept the strong likelihood that there will be a
corporatist-dominated Constitutional Convention by 2025. First on the
agenda: a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced federal budget.
The globalist elites will slam on that lever to destroy what remains of the
economic safety net. "Balanced budgets" are very popular with the deceived
public but such an amendment will end general prosperity in this nation
forever. Imagine what else they'll outlaw and ban and 1860 doesn't feel so
far away.
What surprises me is that Establishment Ds make no effort to defend
themselves from attacks from the Left. It's like they don't care: no
leftward movement on policy. They just call Bernie and the Brodudes
names. What Sanders did to Hillary is a proof of concept. The most
powerful Establishment D is mortally wounded by an attack from a no name
senator from Vermont. This can be used against any Establishment D. The
Brodudes initially may not have wanted to burn it down, but they now know
they can. So what are the Establishment Ds doing to defend themselves?
Closer and closer it comes as the Democrats have let state after state
come under one-party Republican rule while unjustifiably preening
themselves for their "moral rectitude" (while yet continuing to assist in
looting the joint for a small percentage of the take ). That party has
come to play their part in cementing the injustices and inequalities into
place. Witness Obama, not only sitting on his hands when action against
palpable injustice was needed, but actively collaborating in rigidifying
the rotten structure. The quintessential globalist, authoritarian,
war-loving Democrat, the only kind permissable,
vide
Perez.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president
and that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of
2010, 2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and
especially the left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
If Trump doesn't deliver the manufacturing jobs to the "undesirables"
like he promised, if he dismantles ACA and leaves poor and working class
"undesirables" to the wolf of some sort of privatization scheme health care
w/ vouchers or tax breaks, if backtracking on financial sector reform leads
to another economic meltdown, and if he and Bannon get another war, which
metastasizes into asymmetrical warfare all over Western Europe and the US,
then Trump's ability to get reelected is in serious jeopardy to say the
least, no matter how lame the democratic challenger is. Bush's meltdown gave
us a Black President for christs sake.
On the other hand, the down ticket races could continue to be the usual
disaster for the dems unless they do a major reshift in their campaign
strategies outside the blue states that includes strong populist economic
messaging and pushing a strong safety net w/ a public option for health care
(assuming the GOP wipes out ACA.)
There are a lot of "ifs" there that are looking like "wills" at the
moment. He is playing true to type and delegating policy to whomsoever
flatters him best whilst jetting off to Mar-a-Lago for a game of golf
with his business buddies. With the exception of killing TPP (maybe?) and
no immediate European conflicts with Russia, this is what I would have
expected from him and, more importantly, Pence. The true believers seem
to be getting their way, thus far.
That said, I wouldn't discount the power of his ability to deflect
blame for the consequences of his actions. For the most part, those who
voted for him truly believe that everything is someone else's fault, and
I don't see that changing any time soon.
This is true, but don't you think the standards are different?
At the moment nothing is either Parties fault, according to their
leadership, but the reactions of both Party's base has been far
different to date. Dems have been comparatively unsuccessful
blaming Muslims, leftists and Russians for their problems whereas
that is, and always has been, red meat for Republicans. Any stick
to beat someone with just doesn't work as well for the Democratic
Party. Claire McCaskill calls Bernie a communist and is vilified
for it at the time, so now she is whining because her seat is at
risk in '18? What did she expect when she knew, at the time, that
she was alienating half the Party by so doing?
Dems are losing because they have the misfortune of not having
more Republicans in their electoral base, however hard they have
tried to include them in their "Big Tent" leadership. Republicans
actively fear their base, and would never make such an egregious
political mistake.
I thought all of the candidates for the DNC Chair were really
bad. Even the ever so popular Keith Ellison. This guy once
advocated for an entire separate country to be formed comprising
of only African Americans. Just curious, how "tolerant" and
"inclusive" would the immigration policy be for that country if
it were ever created? What would the trade policies be in that
country? Would they let a white owned business like Wal-Mart
move into a black neighborhood and put the local black owned
businesses out of business? Keith Ellison is nothing more than a
hypocrite every time he criticizes Donald Trump's policies and
advocates for his impeachment.
The entire Democratic party is falling apart. They are trying
to get elected because of their race, sex, and/or religion.
Instead of trying to get elected based on the content of their
character and their message. I truly believe the main reason
Keith Ellison was even considered for the DNC Chair is because
he is black and a Muslim.
The party rigged the primary against Bernie because they felt
it was time that a woman became president instead of a man. Some
democrats even called Bernie a white supremacist.
"@realDonaldTrump: The race for DNC Chairman was, of
course, totally "rigged." Bernie's guy, like Bernie
himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!" –
Twitter
LMFAO
How about that new Clinton video, sure looks like she
is going to run again in 2020 – please, Hilary, you go,
girl!
The corporatist "third way" democrats are hoping for Trump to implode
so that they can get back into the White House. They really don't think
that they need progressives since it is undoubted in their opinion that
Trump will certainly be fail on his promises and be unelectable in 2020
and they will be back in power. And they may be right but the dems still
will have lost most of the states and many localities. It will be more of
the Obama/Clinton wing at the top with all the "professional" hangers on
facing down a Republican congress until the system collapses.
That's clearly what the Perez/Nate Coln Dems are banking on.
Metro-suburban class alliance of multicultural service workers and their
secular Republican employers nonplussed by Bush-style Trump clusterfark.
Heard no "strong populist message" out of Perez's mouth in the DNC
debates. Anything the Dems do there will be to elect more Blue Dogs to
strengthen the conservative wing of the party and push the Sanders people
back to the margins. That's all they care about right now.
But it's a completely passive strategy that is at the mercy of the
Republicans. For "what if" President Bannon lays off the coke and, like
Obama, doesn't do stupid?
The only real hazard the Trumpistas face is the timing of the next
recession. And that will depend on part on the Fed. The rest is: don't
start a war, just leave ACA sit there.
The Fed, the Fed, it all comes down to the Fed in the next 4 years.
Has Bannon studied up on Jackson's Bank War?
I was just at a "Community Meeting" with Rep. Peter DeFazio – one of
the more progressive Dems. Huge turnout, again. Questions were more
challenging than the ones to Wyden. Amazingly old audience – where are
all the Bernie millennials?
Toward the end, I asked him (1) what he thought had happened to the
Democrats over the last 8 disastrous years; and (2) whether he saw motion
to fix the problem.
He responded with a passionate statement of progressive ideas, so I
guess that answers #1; but he didn't answer Pt. 2 at all, really, which
is a negative answer. He had actually been pretty critical of the party
in earlier answers, and we had just learned that Perez would be chairing
the DNC.
I was wearing a Green Party T-shirt, which I'm sure he recognizes.
Oddly, both the first and last questions were from local Greens: the
first, from the former city councillor who runs against him on a regular
basis; and the last from my wife, about the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions
movement. Time was limited, and we lined up for the microphones.
The wars won't matter to people as long as the propaganda is good
enough (perhaps a helpful false flag incident as well) and as long as
there is no draft. It's all about whipping up the patriotism we'll see
if that still works.
The Democratic Party has always about "left containment." Their entire
existence isn't about winning at all. It's about allowing establishment
rule, which is why even when Democrats are elected the forward march into
corporate rule continues unabated.
Neither party is worth a bucket of warm spit – and both parties pay no
attention what so ever to the vast majority their members, or the vast
majority of the citizens. And neither party can be reformed. IMHO, the only
question is if any new party constituted would be infiltrated and undermined
from within before it could do anything.
This seems very much like a kneejerk reaction. Your assuming the economy
doesn't go into recession by then which increasingly seems less and less
likely as well as the GOP Congressional leadership or Trump showing much
skill in executing their legislative agenda. A lot easier being the guy who
chants out about how the guy in charge sucks and another entirely when they
suddenly become the person in charge.
Unless Trump starts to deliver on jobs and meaningful wage growth, there
will be inevitable backlash in 2018 at him and the GOP. It is going to be
increasing when the rank and file American realizes that the GOP House tax
plan goes for essentially a 20% VAT to be implemented on imported goods
while they get a whopping income tax cut of 1-2%. Average American is a rube
but eventually this will start to sink in as to just how short changed
they'll be if it largely passes wholesale.
What if they do tax cuts for the rich without Social Security /
Medicare cuts? What if they don't do much about Obamacare and don't lose
votes that way either? And if the recovery continues, the labour market
will tighten.
Yes, and what if they *do* continue to put on a big show against
"illegals" and allegedly unfriendly Muslim immigrants? And tinker just
enough with NAFTA to claim a symbolic "win" against Mexico? This could
be potent stuff.
If the Democrats haven't managed to come up with a candidate people
can really get behind, it will be even easier for incumbency to pull
Trump over the finish line again. Many Republicans who wouldn't vote
for Trump this time "because Hitler" will have observed by then that
the country survived Term I, and they'll get back in line, because
Republicans always come home. The Democrats seem to think that since
the election was close, all they need to do is run Obama V2 (Booker),
thereby re-juicing the lagged African American turnout and putting a D
back in the Oval Office. I think that ship has sailed now. If Trump
truly bombs, then sure anyone will beat him. But as of now I'm not
confident that he will simply fail and the numbers may only be more
difficult for the Ds in 2020.
I seriously doubt Trump will be a one term president. DNC elections
notwithstanding. If there's no "there" there in the, according to Trump,
utterly nonexistent Russia scandal, why hide from the press? Take the
questions. Call for an investigation himself. Nothing to hide? Quit hiding.
Given very recent history, this is no surprise. Unfortunate, and I expect to
see "resistance" activities nudged even more toward the same weary mainstream
DNC tropes.
This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party. It's
time to board the ship and start a mutiny. And if that doesn't work, sink the
ship and build a new one.
"This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party."
The message is undeniable: You're not welcome here. Thank you for your
votes, thank you for your money, shut up, no you do not get to pick the
candidate, Debbie and Donna did nothing wrong, no we are not getting rid of
superdelegates, no we are not refusing corporate money, no you cannot have
even a Clinton-endorsing kinda-progressive as Chair, no to free college,
'never ever' to universal health care, 'we're capitalists here', and Haim
Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money.
In March 2008, Saban was among a group of major Jewish donors to
sign a letter to Democratic Party house leader Nancy Pelosi warning
her to "keep out of the Democratic presidential primaries."The donors,
who "were strong supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
presidential campaign", "were incensed by a March 16 interview in
which Pelosi said that party 'superdelegates' should heed the will of
the majority in selecting a candidate."The letter to Pelosi stated the
donors "have been strong supporters of the DCCC" and implied,
according to The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, that Pelosi could lose
their financial support in important upcoming congressional elections.
Poor ol' Haim must be soooo pissed that Clinton lost again. Hahaha.
I wasn't planning on commenting for a while but ended up leaving a
comment here a few minutes ago and it disappeared into the ether.
Probably something to do with the one of the links I included. No big
deal.
I stopped being a Democrat a few years ago. And I have not donated for some
time. Yet I still receive constant requests for money to keep the consultants
in airline miles. Every so often I think that perhaps it might be time to "come
home" or at least that they aren't so bad anymore.
Then they go and do this.
At this point I see no reason to keep the ossified corpse of the
Clinton Machine
Democratic party going. It is clear that the last
thing they want to do is listen to actual voters to decide their direction. All
they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that everyone will
love them again.
But then that was Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy
If your state requires you to register as a Democrat in order to vote in
the Democratic primary, I recommend doing so. Then you can vote for
outsiders in the 2018 and 2020 primaries. If your state has an open primary
system, you don't have to taint yourself with official membership - just
request the appropriate primary ballot and vote.
This is my dilemma. In CT, you have to be R or D to vote in primary. I
left the D's after the CA primary b/c I was so disgusted. I'll see what
candidates are looking like when the time comes and make my decision
then.
I deregistered as a Democrat in CA today after 17 years (though I
was already pretty much out over the past few years, I let this be the
final straw opposite inertia). The CA "top two" system for general
elections only puts the top two vote-getters from any party during the
primary on the ballot, ostensibly switching the election to one
largely determined during the primary, by primary voters.
The California Democratic party allows those voters registered as
not specifying a political preference to vote in the Democratic
primary, so I might still end up voting among the various options,
especially if someone like Brand New Congress puts up a real candidate
here or there. During the 2016 primary, the D-party anti-Sanders
shenanigans were evident even in CA. In some areas, unaffiliated
voters who wanted a D-party ballot were misled or required to very
strictly repeat a specific phrase, or they were given ballots with no
effect on the D-party primary. I expect to have to be very careful to
request and obtain the correct ballot in advance. (Let's hope that the
slow takeover at lower levels within the state makes this less
necessary).
It's going to be a long, hard slog on the left, whether
occasionally peeking inside the tent or building something cohesive,
not co-opted and effective outside the tent (where it seems the
D-party has necessarily pushed many).
But whatever you do, make sure you know your state's election law in
advance, especially deadlines for registration changes, which may be
earlier than you expect.
"All they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that
everyone will love them again."
Well, that and Nancy "we know how to win elections" Pelosi promising the
Earth for votes to regain their majorities,
again,
only to then
take all of that off of the table and start the cycle over again.
I really don't know how many times one can go to that well; we have seen
this play before. Seems like an awful lot of people have caught on to the
tactic at this point. Were that not the case, HIllary would probably be
happily bombing Russia by now.
The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. Both Trump and Hillary are
deeply unpopular and Hillary won't be a vote driver for the GOP in 2018
and Trump will be for the Dems. There are a bunch of important States
with Gov races and whatever happens the next 20 months Trump and the GOP
will own completely, they wont even have a recalcitrant legislative
branch to point the finger at.
I always figured whoever won in 2016 was set up to be a one term POTUS.
Best case scenario for Trump is that we tread water for the next 2-4
years and I don't think that will be enough get him a 2nd term although
it might be enough to staunch GOP losses in 2020. If he gets gets into a
messy hot war, fumbles a major natural disaster or sees an economic
downturn in 4 years we'll be talking about the impending death of GOP.
Those scenarios sound a little rosy considering the types of people
we are talking about. They can take a lot of pain as long as someone
else is feeling it more .and there is always someone else. If they
cannot find a demographic to blame they will invent one; see the
historic hatred for ObamaCare and the raucous town halls now defending
the ACA; they don't have to make sense.
Also, too, Dems are defending more incumbencies in '18 than are the
Reps., and the Republican Party has the machinery already in place to
reduce the voting public down to just those that are more likely to
vote for them. Just create a riot at a voting precinct, for example,
jail whomsoever you want and take their stuff as is now foreshadowed
in Arizona. They would love that stuff; "Beat those hippies!" And,
after the Democratic Primaries, the Democratic Party will be in no
position to take the high ground.
No, even if all that happens, I think the predicting the death of
the GOP is way premature.
His fans will vote for him, a lot of the the people who voted
for him as the lesser of two evils will be demotivated to vote or
will vote Dem as a check on him and this who voted for HRC as the
lesser of two evils will be motivated. At best his popularity right
now is about where GWB's was after he tried to privatize SS and
just before Katrina and the public's view on Iraq flipped for good.
I think 2018 will look a lot like 2006. Hate and spite will be on
the Dems side in 2018 and those are great motivators.
Trump may have deep support, but it isn't very broad. He didn't win
an 84 or even an 08 sized victory.
There is a reason the party in power does poorly in off year
elections and Trump is the least popular newly elected POTUS in
modern history.
It would be helpful to know, also, how many who normally vote
Republican abstained or went 3rd party rather than vote for
Trump. Maybe it wasn't that many (since Trump did get more votes
than Romney after all), but many of these people will be voting
for Trump in 2020 unless he completely tanks. It's never a good
idea to underestimate the party loyalty of GOP voters. Beating
Democrats is the Prime Directive.
I think the problem is that Republicans are much better at actually
winning elections. How many seats can the Democrats actually regain?
Keeping in mind that midterm voters skew older/Republican in any case.
"We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the
campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement
focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal
communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the
culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result."
The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate
the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal.
Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who
responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass
legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state
and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than
50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office.
But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small
group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama.
The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded
into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the
Democratic Party.
Instead of calling on supporters to launch a voter registration drive or
build a network of small donors or back state and local candidates, OFA
deployed the campaign's vast email list to hawk coffee mugs and generate
thank-you notes to Democratic members of Congress who backed Obama's
initiatives.
Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots
machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every
turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling
for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed
homeowners.
https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine
Thomas Frank: "The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic
complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that
tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing
really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people
at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and
no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these
Democrats are the "last thing standing" between us and the end of the world. It
is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has
failed on its own terms of electability."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
And so it goes, unless. The ruling class, the professional class D&R, the
upper 10%, those who make more than $150 thousand, win no matter who sits in
the Oval Office or controls all 3 branches, both look down on their respective
bases, the deplorables. Taking a page from the TParty to fight harder, tougher,
longer, louder and make Perez move left.
"The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no
role to play "
And so far, they're right. At least, very few are going there. A lot are
staying home, but that doesn't accomplish much.
Take heart. One of my friends is a long-time progressive Democrat. She ran
as a Clean Elections candidate and was elected to the Arizona legislature last
November. She has never held office before.
Agree, Big River Bandido. She should share with progressive
Democratic primary challengers to those sorry Democrats only. Not that
anyone at the DNC would ever listen anyway.
Kudos to your friend! I think progressives fighting for places in the
state legislatures has to be our first step, especially with the
census/redistricting looming
Where do you live? 2/3'rds of the states have Republican governors and
66-70 percent Republican state legislatures. They have already been
gerrymandered and are very likely to remain this way for AT LEAST a
generation.
I live in Ohio. Democrat state legislators can do absolutely nothing.
Not that this particularly bothers them. They collect their $60,000
salaries - not bad for a VERY part-time position– regardless.
I'm guessing that you failed to mention - in addition to salary -
per diem, plus payments into the state retirement system? I'm guessing
that $60,000 is only the top part of the iceberg; best to look under
the waterline to get the whole picture?
They had Howard Dean, and a script for 50 state success and tossed it.
Yeah, I guess they at least should hold Perez's feet to the fire to make
him go lefty populist on the ground, if he doesn't, toss him and fight
them.
Brand New Congress just got out their fundraising email in response to the
election:
The DNC just elected a chair who is pro-TPP, against single-payer,
against tuition-free state universities and has no desire to transform our
economy in meaningful ways. A chair who thinks the status quo is ok. It's a
clear indicator that they're confident in their agenda, a confidence
exemplified in the words of Nancy Pelosi who believes that Democrats "don't
want a new direction".
Elect a Brand New Congress that works for all Americans.
We're running 400+ candidates in a single campaign to rebuild our
country.
Add Your Name
Join us if you believe it's time to reset our democracy.
Email
Please enter a valid email.
Zip
Please enter a valid zip code.
80% of Americans agree: Congress is broken. Both major parties have
proven time and time again that they are either unwilling or unable to
deliver results for the American people. But we have an alternative. We are
recruiting and running more than 400 outstanding candidates in a single,
unified, national campaign for Congress in 2018. Together, they will pass an
aggressive and practical plan to significantly increase wages, remove the
influence of big money from our government, and protect the rights of all
Americans. Let's elect a Brand New Congress that will get the job done.
This list of sponsors DOESN'T:
Washington Post
Wall Street Journal
Wired
The Huffington Post
The Daily Beast
Slate
The Nation
The Frisky
Salon
Bustle
Boing Boing
Roll Call
Well I for one am relieved he's the new chair. I won't have to think there
might be hope and change in the corp. owned demodog party. I'll celebrate with
a glass of whine later.
Arizona Slim, Thanks for the good news in AZ. It was tried in my part of
Calli but dnc did everything they good to elect repug instead of a real
progressive.
In order for real representative government to appear on the American scene,
two things have to happen:
1. Corporations have to be declared non-persons.
2. Money is declared not equal to speech.
Why do we have the situation we have now?
Two decisions by the Supreme Court. Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific RR and
Buckley vs. Valeo. So, who is the real power in our Government? The Judicial.
Thank you so much for this post!! I saw a video on the 1886 case in high
school and was disgusted. In passing time I forgot the specifics and have
been trying to locate that decision since. I kept thinking it was in the
1920s/30s
I'd add No. 3: Ranked preference voting. (Majority wins or run-offs do
not cut it.)
In this case, if choosing among 4 candidates, and I rank all 4 of them, my
first choice gets 4 points, my second choice gets 3 points, etc. If I only
rank 2 of them, my first choice gets 2 points, my second choice gets 1
point. If I only rank 1 person, they get 1 point.
Try this out on anything where you've got 3 or more options, in a group
of any size. It's amazing how much better the group consensus will be
reflected in the results.
You can vote your genuine preference without concern for "spoilers" or
dividing the opposition.
Seriously though, I kind of like this little game we play here, where we
act surprised or shocked or something at the Democratic Party's complete
lack of integrity. Like there was ever any question that 'they' might do the
right thing. I honestly don't know about you guys, but I decided a
long
time ago that the Democrats and Republicans were just two tentacles of the
same vampire squid or whatever, so.. why the outrage and/or disdain? cause
it's diverting I suppose.
The Democratic Party will never let the Republican Party go down. Haven't
we figured that out yet?
The only way to get rid of the Republican Party is to get rid of the
Democratic Party.
"He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual," pronounced Saban
about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: "Keith Ellison would be
a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic
Party."
"I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel," he told the New York Times
in 2004 about himself
he attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and
said: "On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk."
We're not welcome anywhere it seems – and that has to be flippin'
ridiculous in a country of this size and diversity! Could there be a better
time for the Democratic Socialists to expand and come forth ? Cornel West at
the helm, to begin – perhaps persuading Bernie to join him.
From what I see already around the interwebs and comment sections, it
will be blamed on the lefty radicals who are fracturing the party by
resisting the borg. And Sanders. And Cornel West. Etc Etc
You know – it almost doesn't even matter. The Dems will get corporation
donations just in "case" they win. They really aren't terribly motivated.
It's like being a salesperson with no sales goals.
On another note – The Turks guy (Cent? can't remember his name) said that
it was time for a third party on his twitter account. Nina Turner "liked"
it. I found that a little hopeful.
The Democrats obviously can't wait for that constitutional convention by the
sadist wing of the Republican Party. The sooner it can no longer have any
loopholes that cause any interpretation outside of corporations rule, the
easier it will be for Democrats. No more worrying about doing good things for
those pesky people.
The United States already has third parties. There is no real need to start
another one. The Libertarian party is the radical antiauthoritarian center. The
Green Party ought to be adequate for progressive Democrats. There is also a
far-right christian theocrat Constitution Party.
I've voted forJill twice now (and contributed moderately). She seems
intelligent, well-spoken, progressive, passionate, everything we would
want a candidate to be and nothing. If there was EVER a year to have
broken through 5% sigh. So what's the problem?
The problem is that there's widespread election fraud. You could
see it in the Wisconsin and Michigan GE recounts and the Illinois
Democratic Party Recount. The reality is that we don't have any
trustworthy vote totals. Maybe Jill did a lot better (or maybe she
didn't), maybe Hillary actually beat Donald (or maybe she didn't),
maybe Bernie won the primary (okay, that one really isn't a maybe to
me since it's very clear that Hillary used tricks to move IA and NV
into her corner- which would have been fatal if she didn't, the CA,
NY, AZ, PR, and RI primary debacles, DNC collusion etc).
Here are two videos that really helped me understand that this
fraud is likely widespread:
Long video on the Illinois recount:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc&sns=em
–>The "good" part starts at minute 24. The underlying point becomes
clear really quickly if you want to just watch a small portion, but
the speaker who comes on around the hour mark is excellent.
Election Justice USA also had a great summary. There's a reason
many places in Europe still do manual, verifiable counting. Voting
security, even more than money in politics, is the biggest barrier to
having a legitimate Democracy. Unfortunately, that may be even more
difficult than money in politics, which at least could theoretically
be altered by Congress to cover the whole country at once.
What Carla said about the greens. Also, the Libertarians are basically
into neoliberalism. Theyre ok on social issues, but they aren't a real
answer either.
My hope is that the #Notmypresident millennials take the next steps from
Trump needs to be resisted and work for longer term gains and political
power by getting active in local politics/down ticket races and local
democratic party organizations to in effect bum rush the dems and make it
the party that it wants the country to be.
Love doesn't conquer all, Corporate lobbyists do. Organize for power, win
elections, work for change.
I think most people here are seeing what happened, but wrong about the
impact.
Head of DNC is not a good place to organize primary challenges, and that is
what is needed. DNC head is mostly just bag man for corporate money. Not that
much power but some visibility. Bernie guy gets in, and there are constant
questions about loyalty to the party and big tent and being fair to blue dogs.
And then questions of competence if not enough money is raised or not enough
elections won. No winning likely.
Losing suits us better. Establishment is against Progressives. Fine. The war
is on. Find primary challengers, and get them elected.
In my view, that has always been the only way forward.
Find primary challengers, even if they have no chance of winning. Even in
districts stacked against them turn money in politics into the wealthy's
biggest weakness. Make the ROI in elections too expensive to achieve.
I agree with you that losing this worthless race serves our long-term
interests better. This is war and clarity is always an advantage. Easier to
fight them from a clear outside position.
However, we have not the resources or the power base (within the Democrat
Party) to mount effective primary challenges. If that party is to be a
vehicle for change, we will have to take it away from them starting at the
lowest levels - local party offices - and gradually work our way up.
As we move up the chain, we purge all the deadwood.
At this point, perhaps progressives would have more luck joining the
Republican Party in hopes of "reform" or "changing the platform". They would
probably have more luck than with the Democrats. As for 2018 and 2020, the
congressional Republicans will have no incentive to defend congress or the
Presidency. They would rather have Democrats to blame things for than have to
deal with President Trump (whom they detest).
Einstein's definition of #Insanity immediately comes to mind.
We'll see what #BernieCrats, #DSA and others can do at the grassroots level.
Their (continued) #Resistance to the #corporatistDem structure is even more
important now.
That's just what Rep. DeFazio just said – even though he himself wins
by ridiculous margins in a "swing" district (the closest win for Hillary
inthe country, he said) by being a progressive's progressive.
I was a card-carrying member of DSA when it was DSOC! Long time ago. Time
to start paying dues again, even from the political wilderness in which I
find myself. Way past time, actually. The problem with waiting for the
Democrat Party to hit bottom is this: There is no bottom to this abyss.
As someone doing DSA organizing I'll say that we will be thrilled to
have you on board again. Interest is quite high among the Bernie youth,
so the seats are full but experience, generational diversity, and gas
money are in relatively short supply!
Perhaps from lack of organization on their part? After the election
my husband registered to join the DSA, and sent them money. Three
months later, no acknowledgement of any kind, not even a dumb
membership card. Not that the Democrats ever sent anything but
requests for cash, but we expected better.
It's OK. They let Ellison be play chairman. The Identities are pleased.
BTW: Perez was born in Buffalo, NY, and Wikipedia lists his nationality
as American. The WaPo headline is bullcrap, intended to distract readers
from the real issues, and promote the Clinton wing to Latin Americans, an
identity group that certainly would benefit more from the Sanders wing.
Bush's meltdown did give us a Black President - but after 8 years, not 4
years. During the election I too thought whichever candidate won was poised to
be a one-term President, but there's a big condition: there absolutely
must
be a compelling competing narrative, and a defined counter-platform. It doesn't
matter what calamity results from a Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal
government if they still dominate the narrative and the opposition is still
just "resisting" (or has an incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to
think the Rs will own bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do
(if that were so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
I'll hand it to the dems, I thought they'd string things out. I didn't think
they'd let it be this obvious, this quickly, that the counter force won't come
from the democrat party. None of us thought it would, but maybe we thought
they'd at least throw some dust in the air to try keep us guessing for a while.
The challenge for the Left remains organization and focus. The clarity
delivered by the democrat party is helpful. No need to debate reform, that's
been answered (at least for now). The democrat establishment has nothing to do
with the Left. It is not the opposition per say but might as well be (think of
it this way: an opponent would refute your work, try to tank or sabotage it;
the democrats invite you over to steal it, mess it up, fail, blame you, and
invite you over again, huffing that their own work is "essentially the same
anyway" but insisting that they be in charge).
It's time to own the Realignment. One part of that is making a clear break
from the democratic establishment in terms of agenda, priorities, solidarity,
identity. Not just a quibble among the like-minded; a divorce. We are only
serving its interests if we don't. Case in point, the linked article echoes the
common refrain that between Perez and Ellison "ideological differences are
few ". No, no, a thousand effing times no. That is wrong, and attempts to fit
in or make common cause with the dem establishment only validate the
self-serving Unity/Look Forward narrative whose purpose is obscure what's
really at issue and at stake.
And the corollary to cutting losses on the dem establishment is the second
part - building the realignment, which means finding and creating common cause
where it's been latent or non-existent. A compelling, competing narrative must
be a counterweight not just to Trump's blame-deflections, but to the drivel
spewing (at least as subtext) from the establishments of both parties. The key
is not to try make the Rs own the outcomes on their watch; it's to make the
Establishment own them, and to make Trump own that he
is
the
Establishment (or that he caters to it).
Everything else is secondary. Elections up and down the ballot (local, state
and federal) may force decisions on voting for a party, but which party
prevails is not important - it is incidental, relevant only if it serves the
cause, not vice versa. The Left needs to be clear on the realignment, stop
talking to and about parties, and take up common cause and concern where we can
find it. I have a feeling that the Left is less defined and determined than we
imagine, because we aren't really testing it yet. Illusions about the
democratic party are gone. And that's a good thing.
It doesn't matter what calamity results from a
Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal government if they still dominate
the narrative and the opposition is still just "resisting" (or has an
incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to think the Rs will own
bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do (if that were
so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
If Trump owns a narrative on a brick and mortar foundation of higher
unemployment in the battleground states, devastation of lives from another
financial meltdown (Bush had already stolen the second term prior to it),
devastation and death from a potential free market solution to health
care–"here's a voucher, go chose the best deal cause it's all about giving
you your freedom", and war that may end up being brought to the shores of
Western Europe and the United States killing a whole bunch more than 9/11,
it would be pretty difficult to come back and sell the medicine show elixir
a second time. Promising a whole lot and delivering less than zero, I don't
know if the "deplorables" will get fooled again by his fake populism when he
comes back for their votes in four years when they're still unemployed,
underemployed and in greater debt and or bankruptcy from increased medical
care costs. I'm not saying this as a affirmation of neoliberal democratic
people running for the presidency, but that a whole lot of nothing incumbent
running on a world of shit that he's created is vulnerable to a candidate
who may be a whole lot of nothing with less baggage.
And Trump would potentially be running on a bigger pile of poop that he's
added to the domestic and foreign fronts of Obama and Bush. O and B brought
us to the precipice of the cliff, but Trump incompetence GOP ideologue
arrogance can drive us off the cliff.
We may be pointing at different parts of a continuum - how bad things
are in four years relative to Trump promises, and why people believe
things are so bad. We are likely closest on how bad things could be - I
agree, the stuff Trump ran and won on is likely to be much, much worse -
but I think I'm less inclined to see that as handing him electoral defeat
in 2020. Of course it's always easier/better to be able to run on
something delivered. And less-than-zero can and by logic
should
tank a President. But the
why
is important - especially when the
electorate basically doesn't trust any of these clowns. No one really
expects anything from Washington, and is used to things getting worse. If
Trump can deflect and maintain his message - cast blame on various faces
of the establishment, the democrats, media, eventually even the
republicans - I don't think he's inevitably or even likely undone. I'm
not saying nothing will ever catch up with . just saying it's not
guaranteed. There are a lot of factors, but I think here's actually my
main thing: it depends less on "holding him to account" or pointing at
failures or making him own things, and more on advancing a coalition with
a compelling voice, coherent platform - and not about party. In the end,
pinning failures on Trump only succeeds if there's a concrete and
appealing answer to "compared to what." Trump just won against The
Establishment, and the classic establishment move is to point giddily at
failures and mis-steps, and say here's where you can donate, and thanks
for your vote. A successful opposition has to do better.
Is it too late to change my mind and support a Syrian no fly zone? I want
this country to fail. I want it to stop existing. I absolutely hate everything
about america. I want Both Clinton's and Obama's heads on a plate. If Bernie
doesn't announce he's creating a new party then I'll just be sitting around
thinking about the best way to undermine this shit hole of a country.
The Democratic Party no longer stands for anything at all (witness its
recent conversion to McCarthyism). Its actions are motivated by no purpose save
its leaders' self-enrichment.
A political party without a raison d'ˆtre is little more than a walking
corpse and there is nothing to be lost by leaving it.
Though sad about the outcome of the DNC chair race, I think PH is right, DNC
chair is probably just about raising the corporate $$. I'm sticking with the
Tip O'Neil strategy, "all politics is local."
I joined the D party in 2014, mostly because I thought I had to get involved
and help remove Scott W from the governor's mansion. What I saw was lethargic
and not very welcoming. Couldn't get anyone to train me on how to canvas. I
offered over and over to do data entry, web, social media.
In the summer of 2015, I got involved with a local issue and we WON. 8
people (no other Dems) and we stopped a bad deal the city was about to make. We
did petitions and spoke at council meetings. Wrote op eds, did radio
interviews, put up yard signs.
Through that I met an organizer from a progressive group and I told him that
I was thinking of running for local office. He introduced me to the bare facts
of how to run a campaign and put me in touch with another progressive group
that runs candidate training seminars. I went to one of those seminars. I was
listening to Bernie too:) His positive voice was a great inspiration. By the
end of 2015, I knew I would run for the county board. All our local races are
non-partisan and often uncontested. The incumbent would be running for her
third term.
The local election is held during the spring Presidential primary. I live in
Wisconsin. My area is completely red. The election I could best model from was
the 2012 and Rich Santoruim won my district. I had access to the VAN as well
and could see that Republicans dominated my district in this election. (It
voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012) I planned my campaign based completely on
meeting the voter at the door and listening. Turnout is usually pretty low,
30%. I figured 50 hrs at the doors would do it. Interestingly, almost every
person I talked with didn't even know who represented them on the county board.
It was surprisingly easy, the only stress was the heat of the Presidential
primary and how that would bring unpredictability to my race.
Happy news, I won. More Happy news, I got involved with recruiting and
helping people run for local office. We're at it right now. School board, city
council. This is where it begins and this is where the ball has been dropped in
Wisconsin. The Republican party has used the local offices very effectively to
build their bench. What the Dems didn't do was build the bench.
In Wisconsin, this is so easy because the vast majority of the local offices
are non-partisan. When someone asked me what party I was with, I would just
say, "this is a non-partisan race." That was the end of that part of the
conversation and we were on to something else. The other thing about the local
elections is that very few people actually run a campaign, so if you do, you
will win. Your name is the only name they will know.
I now have connected with other people in the state who are working on this
strategy. It is going to take a while, but we will build the bench and take
back the state. It isn't going to happen overnight.
I went to the first local Our Revolution meeting today. I was impressed. The
organizer had exactly the same thought – we are going to fill the county board
with progressives. Stuff is going to happen. We've got the people, that is what
we need locally, not $$.
If only the Democratic party could see, they need to train up and use their
people. Forget the big $$$.
This is an inspiring story. The "silver lining" in these times is that
people are taking their anger and disappointment and doing something about
it at an actionable, local level. I went to a local assemblyman's town hall
meeting yestesrday that had hundreds more attendees than were planned. The
natives are restless.
I, too, am in WI and running for city council. The only reason I'm
willing to do so is *because* the local offices are nonpartisan – I am quite
disillusioned with national politics and both parties. At least locally some
good can be done. DC is irredeemable.
I will likely be using the WI open primary to vote for whichever
candidate the DNC opposes, not that it will matter. If nothing else, I will
feel better.
Taking over the dem party, starting with local races, will be a very long
struggle. Generations. Particularly considering candidates trying for dem nom
will be attacked by corp dems tooth and nail.
The greens are very disorganized. So What? Take them over and organize them.
This is doable, and with somebody like Bernie leading the charge you could pull
in half the dem party plus indies and win elections in 2018 doesn't take that
much support to win elections in three way races, look at GB.
and then be viable for pres in 2018.
Bernie has to give up on dems if he wants to move the needle. Perez win
might just be that extra middle finger that gets him off the dime.
The forces of capital own both parties in a two party system. They will
never give up either of them. Socialists, Social Democrats, Democratic
Socialists, even progressive liberals and .must look elsewhere. Anything else
is fruitless.
St. Bernard had his chance. He blew it. Time to move on from him and MoveOn
and the like.
And so the DNC has learned nothing from the past election cycle and the
repudiation of neoliberalism here and abroad. Confirms my decision to leave the
party.
Observations from the western border of the Granite State:
I decided to attend a local democrat meeting because the candidate I
supported in the D primary for governor (Steve Marchand – he lost) was the
keynote speaker. When I received my copy of Indivisible, and saw that one of
the working groups for the night was focusing on "Fake News," I almost decided
to stay home.
But I didn't. Steve was great. He, counter to the message of "we must play
defense; we cannot offer positive alternatives," in Indivisible, repeatedly
told us that "we cannot beat something with nothing." He spoke extensively
about local organizing, and about appealing to all voters on the issues. He got
a very enthusiastic response from the 100 or so people who turned out for the
meeting. Our governor has a two year term, and while Steve said that he was not
running for anything at the moment, he's clearly laying the ground for a 2018
run. He's getting out in front of every local Dem group, and doing meet and
greets all over the state. Good for him.
We have a Berniecrat, Josh Adjutant, running for state party chair. He may
not win, but he too, is out meeting with groups all over the state and getting
his name out there. He narrowly lost a bid for state rep in a deeply republican
district to a Free Stater, who hasn't shown up for a single vote since being
elected. Last week the Free Stater resigned, and now there will be a special
election. Josh is running again. He's likely to win this time.
After hearing that Perez won the DNC chair, my knee jerk reaction was to say
the hell with it. However there are no viable third party options here, and the
people who voted for Perez all come from the state party.
What I noticed among our Dem group, was a real desire to work on issues and
develop a positive counter message.
So I'm going to get more involved and fight from within. I joined the "fake
news" group, pushed to focus on policy, and volunteered to chair the group
going forward.
Great report, Jen. That's encouraging. Thanks for what you are doing.
We can support good individual Democrats and office holders and good
primary candidates, but with absolutely illusions about sorry sorry party
and its resolute determination to continue hippie punching.
Makes me sick when they go on about Russians and conflict of interest and
ignore things that affect everyone's lives, and that's what they plan to do.
As I have been saying for years now, the
ONLY
purpose of the
Democratic Party today is to crush its own left wing. Denying this at this
point is a fool's errand.
Given this, how can any member of this same left ever justify another vote
for any candidate this Democratic Party sponsors? You do not overcome such
hostility by electing its representatives.
Does that mean you has to vote for people like Donald Trump? Unfortunately,
it does. If you don't, you are not playing at the same level they are, and they
will beat you until the cows come home. These are the people who do not cede
power. These are the people it must be taken from.
"What all people have to realize," said Stuart Appelbaum, a labor leader
from New York and Perez supporter who brought the chair process to its end
Saturday afternoon by calling for the results to be accepted by acclamation,
"is the real form of resistance is voting."
Apparently it was a 3-minute video but the transcript only took about 15 seconds to read. The
actual text is a void, there's nothing said of substance. Probably this is more about the timing
and venue of the release, which would indicate it's just a routine warning to her faction at the
DNC meeting tomorrow. No matter who wins tomorrow, the Clintons will still control all
institutional fundraising. Having one of their own installed (yet again) as chair would simply
make that job easier for them.
Nice to see Clinton hijacking #TheResistance branding, the vile Neera
Tanden having paved the way.
I may seem overly foily on Democrat co-opting, but let's remember that
the Democrats decapitated #BlackLivesMatter effortlessly. A couple of TFA
celebrity leaders - DeRay is now openly hawking product on his Twitter feed
- and boom, done. And that was a movement driven by cops whacking black
people with impunity; a good ceal of grassroots power, there. Which was not,
of course, addressed.
The Democrat establishment is perhaps too overly adapted - rather like
the the panda, which can digest the shoots of certain bamboos - to its
ecological niche of retain power within the Party. But at that, they are
superb. Two lines of defense against Ellison with Perez and (sp) Buttegeig.
That's cute, though perhaps not so cute as a panda.
"... In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject 'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.) ..."
"... Listen, Liberals ..."
"... Strangers in Their Own Land ..."
"... I live in a district shaped like a banana ..."
"... "If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?" ..."
Do we need any further proof that the Democratic Party is more interested in
reconciling with the corporate elite than with its populist base? Its core
party leadership is against populist ideas. Liberalism of the rich having
failed the middle and working classes, fails on its own terms of electability.
It helped create today's shockingly disillusioned and sullen public.
Did the Charlie Brown left really believe that this time that Lucy wouldn't
pull the football away and they wouldn't land on their kiesters? But the
Democratic Party always pulls the ball away. It's their nature.
"The crucial tasks for a committed left in the United States now are to
admit that no politically effective force exists and to begin trying to create
one. This is a long-term effort, and one that requires grounding in a vibrant
labor movement. Labor may be weak or in decline, but that means aiding in its
rebuilding is the most serious task for the American left. Pretending some
other option exists is worse than useless. There are no magical interventions,
shortcuts, or technical fixes. We need to reject the fantasy that some spark
will ignite the People to move as a mass. We must create a constituency for a
left program - and that cannot occur via MSNBC or blog posts or the New York
Times. It requires painstaking organization and building relationships with
people outside the Beltway and comfortable leftist groves. Finally, admitting
our absolute impotence can be politically liberating; acknowledging that as a
left we have no influence on who gets nominated or elected, or what they do in
office, should reduce the frenzied self-delusion that rivets attention to the
quadrennial, biennial, and now seemingly permanent horse races. It is long past
time for us to begin again to approach leftist critique and strategy by
determining what our social and governmental priorities should be and focusing
our attention on building the kind of popular movement capable of realizing
that vision." – Adolph Reed Jr., "Nothing Left, The long, slow surrender of
American liberals," Harper's Magazine, March 2014 issue
Don't waste any time pissing and moaning - organize!
It is time to revisit "Fighting Bob" LaFollette's Wisconsin tactics of the
early 1900s.
If the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that we must become its
soul.
"There never was a higher call to greater service than in this protracted
fight for social justice." – Robert M. La Follette Sr.
There is a liberal propaganda state of the 10%. It is dogmatic and thus
unfalsifiable.
Arguing with them is like arguing atheism to a fundamentalist. They cannot
hear arguments that violate the structure of their religion. They simply do not
parse.
I must say I really appreciated your analogy of neoliberalism and
religion.
To extend it, if I may, religions cannot exist and persist without faith
ie a conviction without the need for proof, or worse sometimes despite
overwhelming personal or widespread evidence to the contrary.
Most established religions, unsurprisingly are rigidly hierarchical,
controlling and equally require a self-serving, venal priesthood to act as
conduits to interpret and explain (away?) the finer points, gross injustices
and glaring contradictions thrown up by the current 'natural order' and
structures it demands and imposes on its potentially questioning or
waivering followers.
The 'religion's' arcane nature is maintained at all costs, and this is
facilitated by a deliberately impenetrable jargon (to a credulous, often
fearful laity whom mostly endure its harshest edicts), and all tied together
by an over arching fallacious narrative predicated on fear that demands
unconditional obedience and compliance or facing severe, lasting
consequences for apostacy.
In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader
of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the
lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject
'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs
in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.)
Let's be realistic, really successful politicians are rarely shrinking
violets, and are mostly to a man or woman sociopathic narcissists, but it is
only in the modern age that these apparently credible, flag of convenience,
self-serving, ideologically bereft personalities not only have the power to
lead and dominate these long-established political parties during their
relatively brief tenure, it appears they now also have the power to profoundly
undermine or even possibly destroy them in the longer term.
Is it just a shame or coincidence that these once proud and powerful parties
of waning influence happen to traditionally represent the interests of working
people I wonder?
What a frustrating situation. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the
corporate Democrats really do have a death wish. I agree with many comments
that it is incredibly destructive and stupid to double down on their losing
strategies instead of embracing the Sanders wing of the party. I partly agree
w/ Glenn Greenwald that electing Ellison would have been an easy way to welcome
in the Sanders wing, but unlike him, I'm not sure the Dem chair really is just
a symbolic position. It certainly is symbolic–and the corporate Dems have
chosen potent (and loathesome) symbols in Debbie W-S and Donna B. But I
disagree w/ Greenwald that it is only symbolic. I think the position does
matter in many ways. In any case, in this election which came to be seen by
Dems as a battle for control over the direction of the party, it is clear now
who runs the show and is determined to continue running the show: the corporate
shills of the Clinton/Obama Dems.
But I also see this as a failure of Ellison and the progressives. We have to
play hardball if we're going to win. Ellison had the endorsement of many Dem
stalwarts; he has a relatively strong record for a Democrat; emboldened with
party authority, I believe he could have done a lot; and yes, he would have had
great symbolic value. But he did not make a strong case for his leadership, as
far as I can tell. He didn't declare loudly and clearly why the Dems have been
losing and make a powerful case for why, now, the Dems need desperately to
change. Instead he was having dinner with Perez, cutting side deals, and making
a great effort to smile and please everyone. Haim Saban and the corporate Dems
came after him with hateful islamophobic slanders; Ellison stepped back, spoke
softly, praised Israel, and vowed to work closely with corporate Dems. And he
still lost. These conciliatory positions will not cut it. Unless and until
there's a vigorous position articulated within the party on the desperate need
for drastic changes, we'll lose.
One reason why this is so frustrating is that across the country, I believe
the landscape looks very promising for a progressive agenda–at least as
progressive, or more so, than what Sanders articulated. The energy is there,
and growing. But we still lack the organization. Where will it come from? Not
from the Greens, I'm afraid. As much as I agree with Stein and the Greens
positions on many issues, the Greens have over the decades proven that this is
not a party interested in building grassroots power. For that you need broad
and sustained efforts over time at the level of school boards and city
councils, building toward winning candidates to positions at the county level,
and mayors, and state representatives, and so on. You have to build a name for
yourself and prove through smaller campaigns what you stand for and that you
can win victories for your voters. And voters need to feel that it is their
party, our party. The Greens have not done any of this. It's not enough to just
have good ideas or be able to win a policy debate.
There's the Working Families Party, which has done some of this organizing
and has some victories. But it's still woefully short of what is necessary. But
I believe there's a lot of talent and potential on the left–and a growing and
restless energy now under Trump. We have to be strong and clear that this
corporate Dem program is unacceptable. We need to field local candidates on
issues people care about, from city banking and municipally owned power and IT,
to police violence, more community control in schools, and so on. Whether the
people carrying out these potentially popular programs are Dems, Greens,
Working FP or Socialists, matters less, it seems to me. But if people are
convinced that only a reinvigorated Dem Party will be able to do it, then there
needs to be a hostile takeover. The Clintonites & the Obama people, Haim Saban
and their ilk: they're not our friends and must be denounced and opposed. These
people are at best wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed when it comes to advocating
for us; they continue to compromise rightward and adopt unpopular conservative
agendas and to kick us in the teeth. Fuck them. We must articulate a positive,
winnable agenda around issues we care about.
See the comment above about local clubs. A good place to start.
Change is not going to come top down, even if that sounds like the
easiest way. Too much ego and money invested in the old ways.
Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We must
prove them wrong.
Blue Dogs do not believe we can find credible primary challengers. They
think we are just a bunch of whining idealists. We must prove them wrong -
not on blogs - at the polls.
It is not only clubs. It's the party structure itself at the municipal
and county level, which is generally occupied by a combination of
well-meaning 10% liberals, eager corporate acolytes who see politics as a
path of personal advancement but find the Republican social positions
icky and whoever just shows up.
In many places it's mostly the latter. So, form your own club, yes,
and go to local party meetings, yes, but more than anything else, work.
Organize. Knock on your neighbor's door, listen to them and talk with
them. Then do that again, and again, and again. Recruit your friends and
colleagues to do the same. When the moment is right, get someone whose
values you really trust to run for office, and if there's resistance from
the existing party apparatus, well, run a contested primary. The people
who do that work - registering, persuading and turning out voters, can
take over the local structure of a party and win from the left.
And btw, if you're struggling to persuade others, don't give up. Get
your egalitarian club together, and instead of complaining about how
others don't get it, role play conversations with different types of
voters, put your beer down, and go back out on the doors.
"Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We
must prove them wrong."
That's just been done, in Texas, of all places. Local organizing,
person to person contact, and no TV money led to success. The exact
opposite of HRC's campaign, of course.
American citizens are at the bottom of the bucket; shut up, stay poor, and
forget the "myth" of a middle class.
These are some very simple truths, which Usian's seem loathe to accept or
understand.
The evidence is clear with almost every comment offering nonsense solutions;
year after precious year; ad infinitum
If there is a solution; I have no idea what that would be. But knowing and
understanding the reality on the ground, gives a firm place to stand.
It's a place to start
There is no better sign of the contempt that the Democratic leadership has
for its constituents t
han the way Donna Edwards was treated in the primary for the open Senate seat
from Maryland.
Maryland being Maryland, whoever won the Democrat primary was going to win the
general.
The two leading candidates were Chris van Hollen, a slick fundraiser
high in Pelosi's train wreck House leadership,
and Donna Edwards, an African-American who was one of the most progressive
House members.
Almost the entire Dem power structure (and, of course, the WaPo) went after
Edwards guns blazing.
Oddly, Edwards critics were never accused of sexism or racism by Clinton
supporters. Weird.
The DNC is important, but only part of the story. The DSCC and DCCC have
been horror shows for years,
led by incompetent clowns, corporate fronts, or (in the case of Jon Tester, who
ran the DSCC this past cycle),
sock puppets for people like Schumer.
And yet it seems to be impossible to discuss this stuff rationally with many
Democrats.
Far easier for them to blame the party's woes on BernieBros.
Jeepers, you don't think some YOOJ, classy K Street "social networking
advocacy solutions" firm will now be tasked to slap together a grassroots,
Cumbaya warbling Democratic Socialist lemming forking oh, that's right been
there, dun did that? We can't mock Trump's craven churls, spoon-fed C & K
Street's große Lüge without turning the selfie-cam around on our geriatric
children's crusade, awaiting some canny carny barker messiah?
Ha! I lost a good friend because I told him in November 2015 that if it
comes down to Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump, she will lose the state-by-state
contest while winning the popular vote, notwithstanding polls to the contrary.
I didn't let up on that obviously correct assessment through all of 2016, and
he finally told me my intellectual arguments rank down there with some of his
fundamentalist relatives. Another was still predicting a Hillary landslide
until 10:00 pm EST on Election Night. She is big on the "Stupid Trump Voters"
meme, while blaming "me" for the outcome. Everyone needs to face the truth. The
national Democrats only care about their membership in the Establishment, even
if they are relegated to "inconsequential" as they are overtaken by events due
to their abject fecklessness.
So be it. From 1974-2008 I voted for the Democrat as the "Left Wing of the
Possible," in Michael Harrington's phrase, and for at least 20 years too long.
Never again. As my brief colloquy here with a reader last night concluded, it's
time to rejoin DSA as an elder and raise even more hell with the "kids"!
I will continue to evaluate candidates on their merits, not their party
affiliation. I can't stop donating to the party organization, since I did
that years ago, but I can certainly tell it where to get off, whether in
phone calls or using its reply-paid envelopes. I realize what travels in
those may never be read by anyone but a data-entry clerk, if indeed they
bother to enter the data, which I've always doubted.
Well, I have to say that the volume of DNC et al. mail I receive has
fallen to a trickle since I spent the past year returning their pre-paid
donation envelopes with nasty comments. The pleading e-mails are gone as
well. So
someone
is entering data.
If a Hillary or Obama supporter has an open mind (yes, a few of them do
have open minds - a Hillary supporter in my family admitted to me that
Bernie would have been a better choice), these two articles can help them to
understand what's been happening.
Vatch: Let me try this again; first reply disappeared Beginning in
early 2016 I tried to convince my liberal friends with facts such as
those in your links, with no success whatsoever. Most of them stick to
the "Stupid Trump Voter" meme, even when confronted with the work of
Thomas Frank in
Listen, Liberals
and Ellie Russell Hochschild in
Strangers in Their Own Land
, which perfectly describes my many
cousins in Louisiana, not one of whom is stupid to my knowledge.
Different, yes, and for damn good reasons. Stupid, no. You can't be
stupid and survive on an offshore oil rig. My particular liberals go no
deeper than Rachel Maddow, whose Stanford-Oxford/Rhodes Scholar pedigree
is all the authority they need. It goes without saying that
Wellesley-Yale was/is just as authoritative, now and forevermore. Their
epistemic closure/confirmation bias is simply the opposite side of the
same coin the Tea Party or Alt-Right uses to explain markets or climate
change or liberal fascism. As the president would say, "Sad!"
Well, you tried. As Yves pointed out in her introduction, there are
aspects of cultish thought processes here.
Of course the Obots and Hillaristas aren't the only cult members.
Limbaugh's ditto-heads. some of the tea-partiers, and some of Trump's
more enthusiastic supporters also fit that mold. I don't like to say
this, but some of Bernie's supporters probably also qualify. Open
mindedness can require a lot of effort.
I became a more active commenter on PoliticalWire during the primary season
and was subject to considerable vitriol due to my lack of enthusiasm for HRC,
which only increased in amount after the election when I refused to vote for
her (going 3rd party instead). I hung on for a little while, trying to make my
points re where I thought the country needed to go, but have simply stopped
participating in the discussions as I realized that the system has to run its
course and I am not going to be able to change that. And slamming one's head
against a brick wall repeatedly does begin to hurt after a while. I think I'll
just use my vote to support those I policies I think are good, or at the very
least to block any candidates supported by the establishment. It isn't much,
but it is something.
I used was a regular reader of Kevin Drum for probably 10 years or so,
back to the CalPundit days. The commentariat there became really hostile to
any outside ideas as the primary wore on. The Closure is now complete,
although some of the the really hostile commenters have disappeared (their
David Brock paychecks stopped, I suppose) but still reality can't come into
play. Even Drum himself was changing weekly about the loss (It's BernieBros!
It's Comey! NO, it's the Russians! NO Wait, it's Comey)
Sad, he's done great work on lead and violent crime. I check in there
once in a while just to take the temperature of the Delusion of the
TenPercenters.
Self reflection still hasn't penetrated for any of the real reasons for
Trump
A Paul Street quote from his excellent piece in CounterPunch entitled,
'Liberal Hypocrisy, "Late-Shaming," and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump,'
should serve as an adequate riposte to the introspection and self-criticism
averse Mr Doe,
'Arrogant liberals' partisan hypocrisy, overlaid with heavy doses of
bourgeois identity politics and professional-class contempt for working class
whites, is no tiny part of how and why the Democrats have handed all three
branches of the federal government along with most state governments and the
white working class vote to the ever more radically reactionary,
white-nationalist Republican Party. Ordinary people can smell the rank
two-facedness of it all, believe it or not. They want nothing to do with snotty
know-it-all liberals who give dismal dollar Dems a pass on policies liberals
only seem capable of denouncing when they are enacted by nasty Republicans.
Contrary to my online rant, much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd
seems to feel if anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the
awfulness of Herr Trump. It exhibits no capacity for shame or self-criticism,
even in the wake of their politics having collapsed at the presidential,
Congressional, and state levels.'
"much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd seems to feel if
anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the awfulness of
Herr Trump."
I've noticed the same. My guess is that, imo, the Dem estab has spent
years teaching it's more left-ish base to accept losing – veal pen, 'f*cking
hippies', Dem estab suggest marching for a cause then fail to support cause,
march to show numbers and get nothing, elect Dem full control in 2008 and
lose single-payer, end of Iraq war, roll back Bush tax cuts, renegotiate
Nafta, etc. Lucy and the football. The left-ish part of the party has been
groomed over 30 years to accept losing its fights. When Trump wins it just
confirms "the way things are." No introspection required since it confirms
the trained outlook. imo.
This opinion masquerading as news appeared in The Sun:
Both Perez and his leading opponent, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, had
rejected the left-versus-centrist narrative that developed around the race,
and close observers agreed it was overblown.
People often have an emotional commitment to their candidate. Upon losing,
all Hillary supporters will not go "oh well." Many will be upset.
Better to focus on issues going forward.
Also, if you want to build a majority party, probably best not to devote ALL
your energy to screaming what clueless assholes most ordinary Americans are.
Most ordinary Americans do not agree with commenters here. One reason Blue Dogs
are so willing to ignore you.
You can come up with lots of reasons. There are lots of reasons. But bottom
line is that you not only have to be right; you have to convince.
And no, collapse of the world will not convince. It may make you feel like
there is proof you were right, but that is a hollow victory.
We have to win elections. To do that, we need a generous and positive
message. And we need the votes of many Democrats that will not agree with you
on some things - perhaps many things.
It can be done. It will be difficult. But it can be done.
Most people with ridiculous political ideas are nice people. There are
positive appeals that will work over time.
It is amazing how many people are still incapable of acknowledging how bad a
candidate HRC was and how far they reach to come up with other reasons for her
loss. I grew up in Midwest and have many friends and family who voted for Trump
not because they liked him but because they found Clinton even more unappealing
and even less trustworthy.
They looked at how the Clintons made tens of millions of dollars, Bill
Clinton's decades of predatory behavior towards women, the hubris, lack of
responsibility and poor decision making related to the Email issues and HRC's
unwillingness to even minimally tend to her health and physically prepare for
the months of campaigning. Her candidacy was based on years of amassing money
and power and entitlement. Other than the potential to elect the first female
president, there was absolutely nothing about HRC that was inherently
appealing.
It was an extraordinary challenge to field a candidate even more unappealing
than Trump to millions of swing voters, but the Democrats managed to do it. The
Clintons are finished, over and have tarnished themselves for history. Anyone
who could even imagine a 2020 HRC candidacy is delusional.
Pretty much everything you claim drives people away from Clinton applies
just as well to Trump. Look at how Trump made millions of dollars: sticking
investors with losses, tax law arbitrage, and above all inheriting then
failing to keep up with major equity indexes. Look at his hubris, and
decades of predatory behavior towards women, e.g. behaviors related to the
pageant he finances. Look at his history of poor decision making in business
resulting in numerous bankruptcies. One thing is true, he did make deals
that were good for himself: even as business ventures collapsed and other
investors lost money, Trump personally usually had very limited losses. To
my mind that's exactly the wrong kind of behavior we want for a president
though.
I readily agree that HRC ran a flawed campaign with little to draw
undecided voters, but even so there's a deep Clinton hatred in this country
I've never understood. A large fraction of the population appears to view
both Bill and Hillary as the coming of the anti-christ, for no good reason.
That is, the Clintons seem to be pretty much garden-variety politicians with
all the usual skeletons in the closet, but nothing that seems to stand out
from the rest of the Washington ilk. If the hatred came from leftists
betrayal could explain it, but most Clinton-haters seem to be deeply
conservative. Maybe I was too young during the WJC years to understand the
source.
Gonna beat a belabored dead horse: "Superpredators" + "bring them to heel" +
a campaign devoted to the identity politics of undocumented migration and not
the plight of lower-class whites and African-Americans.
African-Americans have Facebook accounts and access to Youtube.
The 30,000-feet pundits glossed it and declared everything A-OK over but
that 1996 archive footage left a viscerally bitter taste at street level.
"it's remarkable to see how childish and self-destructive the posture of
the orthodox Dem backers is. It isn't just the vitriol, self-righteousness, and
authoritarianism, as if they have the authority to dictate rules and those who
fail to comply can and must be beaten into line.
Sounds kinda like a cult.
I've run into this. My response is a blank stare followed by a vocally flat
"oh" to whatever nonsense I'm hearing. I have the same response to very young
children who are trying to tell me something. Although, with little children I
try to smile and stay engaged.
adding:
per Jeff – "It seems that my friends, my friends' friends, and I are
exclusively to blame for the Trump Presidency and the Republican takeover of
government."
Hillary was wooing the suburban GOP voters, not the working class
industrial belt voters. Really, it's the suburban GOP voters' fault Trump
won. /s
I appreciate two posts on this subject, which given the presumed
insignificance and technocratic nature of the position (!), aroused a lot of
ire on both sides of the Demo divide. (Anyone interested in real ire can just
head over to LGM, where iirc four threads and about 2,000 comments have now
been devoted to this topic of "nothing to see here, let's move on").
What is left to say, I wonder? What's the way forward for progressives who
are genuinely interested in supporting possibly-radical new approaches to
addressing economic inequality?
It occurred to me while reading the comments on this and the previous post
that perhaps after all, it's not that ways forward are unknown to the legacy
party members, but that they're unacceptable, because they would genuinely
lessen the gap between rich-poor.
If so (and I'm starting to feel that this is the case), then working within
the party could be quite difficult, although the arguments against 3rd party
start-ups are compelling. There was a great quote from Bill Domhoff on this
subject upthread with a powerful argument for continuing to work within the
existing structures.
Apropos of Domhoff, I was thinking that one way might be to continue to work
within the party, but to distinguish the progressive wing clearly, perhaps with
a new name – I like Domhoff's Egalitarian Democratic Party, it sort of reminded
me of Minnesota's DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) party. As others have noted on
both threads, this would need to be purely grass-roots, local-to-state level
work, and as Domhoff wisely notes, candidates need to be identified and
encouraged to run for, well, everything. They would need to caucus with the
Dems at the state level, but eventually could force Dems, if they gain
sufficient numbers, to shift their positions on economic issues, thereby
creating momentum.
These past few days, I've most enjoyed reading comments from people who are
getting involved at the local level – that's so heartening. And also, I've
watched a good number of Town Hall meetings – the crowds are also heartening,
even if I wouldn't always have chosen the issues individual constituents
addressed. This massive awakening and interest in political life across the
country – I want to believe something positive will come of it.
I kind of wonder if a "Working Democrats" title would have a shot at
catching on, coupled with a heavy focus on strong, universal economic
policies: Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, some kind of student loan debt
forgiveness, Glass-Steagall reinstatement, a constitutional amendment
removing corporate personhood.
Hell, couldn't that seriously catch on in today's environment?
Not to be that guy, but the problem is the perception the Democratic
Party cares about those things and nostalgia.
The black guy with the Muslim sounding name became President while
promising higher taxes, fair trade, and universal healthcare (perception
matters) while running against a war crazy veteran and a war crazy
lunatic who claim so to have dodged bullets.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the problem with such a
move is it would be too easily co-opted due in part to too many people
thinking the Democrats actually stand for these policies, despite the
fact that the majority of them and the party apparatus actively works
to undermine any movement in these directions?
Fair point if so. I think any such work via a faction within the
party, so to speak, would have to make itself clear to those who have
lost faith in the Democratic Party by taking active stances against
the establishment and exhibiting some level of hostility toward a good
faction of Democrats.
I would be all for a third party coalescence, but I'm sympathetic
toward the idea that third parties simply don't get traction in our
political system. So I lean a bit more toward an attempted hostile
takeover of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, party's die; it
may be that a third party route could work as a replacement for the
Democrats once they die from actively abusing and thus hemorrhaging
their base.
Alternatively, both approaches could work. A wing of the party
actively hostile toward the establishment could jump ship to a third
party if the Democrats were dying, joining forces to establish the
replacement party. Or the vice versa could happen; if a progressive
wing appeared to truly be winning and taking control of the Democrats,
a sympathetic third party movement could jump in for the final push to
clean house and reinvent the party from scratch.
I think it still comes back to the need for active movements and
organizing around clear policies and principles, then taking the
opportunity to gain nationwide traction whenever and however it
presents itself. Personally, I just wish I had a clearer idea of where
such efforts on my part would be best focused. (It's somewhat
complicated by being in Portland, Oregon and having some decent Dems
here, though there's still a lot of terrible ones and even the good
ones I'm still wary of.)
The Wall Street/establishment wing of the party has clearly learned nothing
from the debacle of the last election and is clearly unwilling to learn. Sadly
the same seems to be true for the "progressive" wing of the party – i.e.
WheresOurTeddy has it exactly right IMHO but the "left" still won't abandon the
dead hulk of FDR's party – which has rejected everything it formerly stood for
– if the calls for "unity" from Ellison and others are any indication.
I honestly don't see how things will truly get better, except with a lot
of people suffering or dying. It seems that we're in this desperate
last-gasp phase of trying to work a system that's supposed to be just, but
hasn't been for decades. My entire life.
On Friday I witnessed the NJ Pinelands Commission vote for a 15 mile
pipeline that should never have been approved. It's substantilaly for profit
and export. They voted while 800 people were screaming their opposition,
after five years of fierce opposition. Literally tallied the votes during
the screaming. This is the commission whose mission is to "preserve,
protect, and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the Pinelands
National Reserve." It was approved by a 9-5 vote. That's how far Governor
Christie and big money has gamed the system.
Billionaires get to throw hired hands in between us and them (like
politicians and police and receptionists and PR staff everyone's just "doing
their job!" we are "rude" if we fight them because they have nothing to do
with it!), we have to risk our bodies and time directly. We have to organize
masses of people with hardly any resources and a diminishing internet, they
write a check and get hired professionals with access to do their bidding as
they sit in their comfy third homes. They write the procedures and laws, we
get to yell and scream for ten minutes, then our voices tire and their
decisions get rammed through anyway.
Oh, and they had a public comment AFTER the vote, which was in the agenda
not as "vote" but "approve with conditions."
What about us in Michigan? We have been manipulated and mentally changed
from a strong union democratic state to a redneck, "wannabe backwards early
1900s southern state" that maintains a governor who knowingly fed thousands of
people lead tainted water. And he continues to do nothing about it. If we do
anything about it, the republican legislature will just gerrymander our
districts again to maintain their power. I live in a district shaped like a
banana, running east to west in the middle of the lower peninsula. 80% of the
district (US house seat) has always been strong democratic. But the district
was re shaped in the early nineties so that it was extended forty miles east to
encompass a county that was once known as the capital of the KKK in Michigan.
This swung the majority to republican. They are a minority, but with all the
money.
As I was saying to someone yesterday, when I say something like "I don't like
obamacare either", it is automatically assumed that I want trump & Paul Ryan to
hand out vouchers. Yet when I follow up by stating I want Medicare for all, I
am called a crazy Hillary loving liberal.
Well, you can always say scornfully that she never wanted anything as
good for people as Medicare for all. But it's tough being in a spot like
that. There is a relative of an inlaw whom I admire enormously because,
living in a conservative rural area she nevertheless firmly states her
progressive opinions, if necessary finishing up, "Anyway, that's what I
think," in a way that let's people know she has formed her opinion and will
not be changing it merely for fact-free hostile criticism. It takes amazing
steadfastness to go on doing that.
Here in upstate NY my (state assembly) district's shape was once
described as "Abe Lincoln riding on a vacuum cleaner." Like the one you
describe, it was carefully constructed to include a wealthy minority so as
to ensure that the "right" candidate always wins.
"Do what I want. That's unity." Wasn't that one of W's wise injunctions? Now
we hear it in motherly tones in HRC's video released on Friday. Is this
anything like her debate response to Bernie, "I get things done. That's
progress. (Therefore) I'm a progressive!"? Always need to look for what this
kind of word-salad leaves out.
A note as to the Establishment Dems: In the Dem primary race there were 800
or so "Super Delegates" and almost all of them were locked into HRC before the
primary race began. At the convention all but about 25 of them cast their votes
for HRC. (Sorry, I don't have exact numbers.)
Now, who are these 435 Dem Party luminaries who are tasked with electing the
DNC Chair? Am I right to assume that they are a carved-out chunk of the Super
Delegates of yore? If I am, then the Establishment Dems are in big trouble, and
they know it just from the numbers.
In other words, 200 of the 435 just voted for Sanders by proxy of Ellison.
That's half. If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at
the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?
What we are seeing in the dulcet tones of HRC's "unity" video, together with
the power punch of the monied interests in the DNC, is the public face of a
party in panic, digging in with all of its claws. From this it seems that
Bernie is a bigger threat than many folks may realize.
I don't mean to be Pollyanna-ish here. It's anybody's guess as to what to do
with this state of affairs. But perhaps Bernie is on the right track with his
efforts to take over the Dem Party?
With that in mind, the real dividing-line is wealth vs. poverty, income
inequality, etc.,
"If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the
convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?"
Uh, no because HRC got a clear majority of the
elected
delegates
and 3.5m more
votes
in the primary. But hey, don't let me disturb
your alternate reality, and enjoy the next four years --
True, if caucus states did vote (i.e. were democratic) HRC would
have won by even more. See e.g
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wash-primary1/
.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed here you'd be screaming that
the corrupt DNC was ignoring the democratic vote in favor of an
undemocratic caucus.
But, as I said, enjoy the next four year. Maybe you really will
– Trump is the alternate reality candidate after all.
A democratic process within. Establish polling and voting by all members,
not some final 400 or super delegates.
The party writes, debates and endorses legislation, not lobbyists.
A serious cap on contributions. Complete immediate transparency on all money
matters.
Issue based platform long before leadership or candidates.
A way which leadership or candidates and office holders must adhere to the
party platform. Example if the party platform says expanded Single Payer (HR
676) for all then a vote for ACA would have been grounds for immediate removal
from the party for sitting Reps. Note that would have meant basically every
sitting prog would have received the boot. We would have all been better served
had we primaried all of our so-called own long ago (including Sanders and
Kucinich).
At the very least this should be established by a prog like wing within a
party. For we have no way in which to hold usurpers to account.. or keep the
eye sharply focused on issues. That's the lesson from '06 '08 '10. So many act
blue/blue America candidates lied and to this day they continue to be among the
least scrutinized.
I didn't see Sanders, Ellison etc. heading this way had they won. I don't
see it in any existing third party.
Testing. I tried posting a long comment and it didn't make it.
Short version–Sanders did everything people said Nader should have done and
Sanders was still treated like a pariah, so the self described pragmatists are
really the intolerant fanatics. There was more, but I don't feel like retyping
it, especially if I am having technical difficulties posting.
I agree that Sanders ran A primary campaign instead of third party, and
so answered a big establishment talking point.
Beyond that, I see the campaigns as vastly different. Nader campaigned at
the end of a long bubble. Bernie campaigned after the financial collapse and
after years of doing nothing to help ordinary people.
I think Bernie's campaign was more powerful, and gives more of a
springboard for future campaigns.
The part before the byline is reasonable and interesting. The DNC is acting
to preserve their own power, not to win elections. Classic "iron law of
oligarchy" stuff.
The part after the byline is less interesting. Why do we care what some
anonymous guy on facebook says? Of what interest is there in a facebook
argument between an activist and some rando? Is this more notable than a
thousand other political arguments on facebook that occur every day?
Dan Brooks has written about the practice of "eggmanning", as a sort of
counterpart to strawmanning– you can find people making basically any argument
on social media, no matter how specious.
http://combatblog.net/tom-hitchner-on-refuting-the-argument-no-one-is-making/
Elevating the voice of such a person just so you can dismantle their poorly
chosen words does not make for compelling reading.
Elitist Left – Whigs / Liberals / Neo-liberals / Democrats
Real Left – Labour (the US is not allowed this option)
You need a real left, liberals are not the real left.
Liberals have over-run the Labour party in the UK but progress is under-way
to get things back to the way they should be.
Universal suffrage came along and the workers wanted a party of the left
that represented them and wasn't full of elitist, left liberals.
The US has never allowed the common man and woman to have a party of
their own, they need one, a real left not a liberal, elitist left descended
from the Whigs.
This all makes me think the Democratic establishment are not honest actors.
They would rather meekly accept corporate money and play the part of the always
losing Washington Generals rather than come out swinging for progressive
values.
The DNC head is the chief fundraiser for the party.
DNC raises and distributes money
The DNC needs to be able to collect money from donors across
the spectrum
DNC does not control policy or issues.
Sanders supporters
who think this is about policy never bothered to learn about
how the party they tried to take over works.
"DNC does not control policy or issues. Sanders supporters
who think this is about policy never bothered to learn about
how the party they tried to take over works."
But who
controls the money controls a lot more. We are on the 2nd
round and it will be close. I'm for Ellison for reasons Max
Sawicky's excellent new blog articulated. If Perez pulls this
off - he has a lot of fence mending to do.
Oh Please.
The Local Sanders supporters are already engaged locally.
The whiners will complain about Ellison if he should win
The first time Ellison takes money from big donors they will
disown him.
They have no idea what it takes to fund a party operation.
Breitbart and the GOP are cheering the whiners on
The policy debates are won at groups that will form the
ultimate coalition for candidate support. Say your interest
is public schools. The group supporting your local school is
horrified that vouchers are taking away the money. The group
builds support for the anti voucher position. A union group
wants more job training opportunities. An energy group wants
solar metering. These groups have their own agenda separate
from the DNC and RNC and they bring together groups of like
minded individuals who socialize in addition to their
advocacy. When the election comes, they are positioned to
work for candidates that agree with their position. The
candidate can get some of them to volunteer for the campaign,
but their is a need for voter lists, support for
registration, etc.
The issue for Sanders supporters is they
rallied around a messianic leader without much local group
persistence. If those supporters want to help in the next
election, the would be advised to build advocacy support
within their social groups.
Max is not correct
In my phone banking last election, the most numerous
complaint I received was:
"Everything is going to the black and the gays".
The Catholics and Christian Right voted for antiabortion
SCOTUS justices
Our state, IN is trying to make it impossible for minors to
get abortions and doing their best to create conditions for a
black market
The people we need to persuade don't care about the DNC
For the most part, local activists don't care either as long
as whoever wins will successfully raise a lot of money and
provide the training and tools we need
You articulate your case indeed. And your list for the policy
agenda is well noted. I would love to see you and Max Sawicky
engage in a debate of these things. Like you - he is never
shy of stating his views.
In the olden says, his blog Max Speaks You Listen was
often cited by many left of center economists. He had to go
silent as he worked within the government but now he is free
of that restriction. I don't always agree with him but I do
admire his style.
Well, even without the FT telling us, it seems obvious that
Trump, a real estate developer who loves debt, is going to
want an easy money policy. So he will presumably stock the
Fed with cronies who want interest rates reduced back to zero
or even lower if possible, with no restrictions (like
reserves) on borrowing.
He probably won't be able to gain
actual control of the Fed until Yellen's term is over, and it
is certainly possible that by that time he will have been
removed from office (as we have discussed, this latter
possibility depends on Trump having alienated enough GOP
voters that the GOP establishment feels it can removed him
and install Pence without losing primary challenges).
I suspect that a combination of easy money and stagnant
wages is not something that can last long. But so far I have
been unable to find a historical example. Certainly in the
US, the 1970s do not fit (wages grew as well as inflation),
nor 1948 (inflation was 20% or more, but at the pinnacle of
union power wages also grew by at least as much. 1948 was an
inventory correction, like 2001 but if anything actually
milder). Maybe 1920 comes close, but I haven't examined wages
from that time.
Does anybody else know of an easy money/high
inflation/stagnant wage historical example?
There is an alternative view that aligns Trump with high
interest rent seeking gold bugs. I don't know which is true.
It may even be true that behind all of the bravado that Trump
actually knows how deep in over his head that he is with
regards to monetary policy. In that case he would protest a
lot to the contrary while unceremoniously seeking to preserve
the status quo at the Fed. Certainly your guess is as good as
mine and probably even better. OTOH, nothing is certain with
Trump.
At risk of being flamed by everybody else with an opinion on
this matter, I can see both sides of the issue:
You are
correct if Trump is not selling out to Russia.
You are also correct if (1) Trump *is* selling out to
Russia, *AND* (2) his voters were aware that he is selling
out to Russia, but voted for him with eyes wide open on that
issue.
In either of those two cases the Intelligence Community
leakers are trying to subvert the democratic will of the
people in elected Trump president.
You are wrong if: (1) Trump is selling out to Russia,
*AND* (2) his voters did not believe it when they voted for
him. In this case the Intelligence Community leakers, in my
opinion, are patriotic heroes.
Just because the Intellligence Community is not laying the
sources of its intelligence out in the open on the table does
not mean that the leakers are wrong. My suspicion is that
they are correct (see, e.g., Josh Marshall today. Google is
your friend.) The deeper problem is that I suspect Trump's
voters simply don't care, even if the Intelligence Community
is correct.
I did a mini max regret: More regret with Clinton sold out to
neoliberal profiteering war mongers who care only for
perpetual war, the max regret I see is unneeded nuclear war
over a few hundred thousand Estonians who hate Russia since
the Hanseatic league was suppressed by Ivan the Terrible.
Lesser regret with Trump sold out to Russia* that would only
bring China I against both US and Russia in about 50 years.
*Trump sold to Russia is Clintonista/Stalinist fantasia
sold by the yellow press.
I disagree. It is not enough that Trump voters were aware of
Trump selling out to Russia and didn't care; if there had
been conclusive proof of that before the election, other
people might have come out to vote against him.
Besides,
some of his voters might not care and some might.
In any case, whether the leakers are patriots or traitors
does not have to do with subverting "the will of the people".
At the most extreme, leaks could lead to, say, impeachment,
which is another way to express the will of the people. (Or
actually, the will of the plutocrats and their Republican and
Democratic running dogs, but that's another discussion).
It has always been time to stand for the Constitution and
against the deep state.
And you really think this was built
by democrats and Clinton? Since you are about my age, I'll
keep it brief and just say one word: COINTELPRO.
And it's not either or. There are plenty of bad actors,
some as dangerous as the spooks. E.g. a President that
believes we're in an existential war against Islam, and who
is likely pull every trigger available to him if some Muslim
stages an attack in the US. Frankly, if such a time comes
I'll feel safer thinking that Trump and the spooks at not
working too closely together.
New Deal democrat and couple of other Hillary enthusiasts
here used to sing quite a different song as for Hillary
bathroom email server ;-).
Russia bogeyman (or "ruse" as Trump aptly defined it) is
now used to swipe under the carpet the crisis of neoliberal
ideology and the collapse of Democratic Party which is still
dominated by Clinton wing of soft neoliberals). Chickhawks
like a couple of people here (for example, im1dc), are always
want to fight another war, but using some other ("less
valuable") peoples bodies as the target of enemy fire.
Democratic Party now is playing an old and very dirty
trick called "Catch the thief", when they are the thief.
Why we are not discussing the key issue: how the
redistribution of wealth up during the last two decades
destabilized the country both economically and politically?
Also it is unclear whether a simple, non-painful way out
exists, or this is just something like a pre-collapse stage
as happened with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR. The Damocles
sword of "peak/plato oil" hangs over neoliberal
globalization. That's an undeniable and a very important
factor. Another ten (or twenty) years of the "secular
stagnation", and then what? Can the current globalized
economy function with oil prices above $100 without severe
downsizing.
The economic plunder of other countries like the plunder
of xUSSR economic space (which helped to save and return to
growth the USA economics in 90th, providing half a billion
new customers and huge space for "dollarization") is no
longer possible as there are no any new USSR that can
disintegrate.
And "artificial disintegration" of the countries to open
them to neoliberal globalization (aka "controlled chaos")
like practiced in Libya and Syria proved to be quite costly
and have unforeseen side effects.
The forces that ensured Trump victory are forces that
understood at least on intuitive level that huge problems
with neoliberalism need something different that kicking the
can down the road, and that Hillary might well means the
subsequent economic collapse, or WWIII, or both.
Trump might not have a solution, but he was at least
courageous enough to ask uncomfortable questions.
Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an
attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is
guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the
attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the
good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can
believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces.
And when neoliberal presstitutes in MSM now blackmail
Trump and try to stage "purple" color revolution, this might
well be a sign of desperation, not strength.
They have no solution for the country problem, they just
want to kick the can down the road and enjoy their privileges
while the country burns.
As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk
their complete destruction rather than surrender any material
part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
The fake liberals directed the intelligence
services to target the political opposition. Now the
opposition is in power the intelligence services could be
held to respond to their destruction of the US Bill of
Rights.
It is not just the fake liberal economics the democrats
will answer to in 2018.
In 15 months people like me will spend a lot of time
reminding the democrats of their ignoble treatment of the US
constitution because their neoliberal scam artist was
defeated.
Well, now I see very
clearly why I disagree with you so much.
This government is the apotheosis of neoliberalism. I'm
only sorry we didn't get the pure version with Mitt, instead
of this one stained with a cabal of White Christian jihadis.
"This government is the apotheosis of neoliberalism."
I respectfully disagree. Trump neoliberalism is a "bastard
neoliberalism" (or neoliberalism in a single county, in you
wish) as he rejects globalization and wars for the expansion
of the US led neoliberal empire.
wanglee
Pinto Currency
Feb 19, 2017 2:59 PM
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though
she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email
server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by
Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage
work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democratic
government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information which caused
former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's presendency.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November.
Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans
who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement"
of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who donated/endorsed
Clinton during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved
jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support
welfare of illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump
protesters.
To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce
possible voter frauds on a massive scale committed by democratic/republic/independent operatives.
All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided respective county votes if needed since
the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary" county, Wayne
county, in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin during the recount last year. The integrity of
voting equipment and voting system need to be protected, tested and audited. There were no voting
equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes to Clinton last
November.
"... This point has been made before on Obamacare, but the tendency behind it, the tendency to muddle
and mask benefits, has become endemic to center-left politics. Either Democrats complicate their initiatives
enough to be inscrutable to anyone who doesn't love reading hours of explainers on public policy, or
else they don't take credit for the few simple policies they do enact. Let's run through a few examples.
..."
"... missed the point the big winner is FIRE. ACA should have been everyone in medicare, and have
medicare run Part B not FIRE. Obamcare is welfare for FIRE, who sabotage it with huge deductibles and
raging rises in premium.. ..."
As Democrats stare down eight years of policies being wiped out within months, it's worth looking
at why those policies did virtually nothing for their electoral success at any level. And, in
the interest of supporting a united front between liberals and socialists, let me start this off
with a rather long quote from Matt Christman of Chapo Trap House, on why Obamacare failed to gain
more popularity:
There are parts to it that are unambiguously good - like, Medicaid expansion is good, and why?
Because there's no f!@#ing strings attached. You don't have to go to a goddamned website and become
a f@!#ing hacker to try to figure out how to pick the right plan, they just tell you "you're covered
now." And that's it! That's all it ever should have been and that is why - [Jonathan Chait] is
bemoaning why it's a political failure? Because modern neoliberal, left-neoliberal policy is all
about making this shit invisible to people so that they don't know what they're getting out of
it.
And as Rick Perlstein has talked about a lot, that's one of the reasons that Democrats end
up f!@#$ing themselves over. The reason they held Congress for 40 years after enacting Social
Security is because Social Security was right in your f!@ing face. They could say to you, "you
didn't used to have money when you were old, now you do. Thank Democrats." And they f!@#ing did.
Now it's, "you didn't used to be able to log on to a website and negotiate between 15 different
providers to pick a platinum or gold or zinc plan and apply a f!@#$ing formula for a subsidy that's
gonna change depending on your income so you might end up having to retroactively owe money or
have a higher premium." Holy shit, thank you so much.
This point has been made before on Obamacare, but the tendency behind it, the tendency
to muddle and mask benefits, has become endemic to center-left politics. Either Democrats complicate
their initiatives enough to be inscrutable to anyone who doesn't love reading hours of explainers
on public policy, or else they don't take credit for the few simple policies they do enact. Let's
run through a few examples.
missed the point the big winner is FIRE. ACA should have been everyone in medicare, and have
medicare run Part B not FIRE. Obamcare is welfare for FIRE, who sabotage it with huge deductibles
and raging rises in premium..
"... We're hoping for judges' consciences, and loyalty to country over party, and common sense, to save us. ..."
"... "administration that is unconstrained by conscience and logic", we have had that continuously since 1980. ..."
"... You get worked up over a travel ban but not Obama's US bombing wedding parties. Or taking out 14 non combatants and losing n MV 22 to get a few smart phones. ..."
"... Do you have stock in both refugee referral companies and Lockheed? ..."
"... poor pk has grabbed the alt right's the concession over cognitive bias, false analogy and cherry picked faux facts. ..."
"... Does anyone take this guy seriously anymore? This is Chicken Little, Sky-Is-Falling nonsense from a PhD Nobelist? Certainly the guy has lost his marbles, and someone needs to put him in a padded room. At least be kind, and retire him. ..."
"... Electoral college exists until "they" gut/get rid of states rule on amendments in the US constitution. ..."
"... Why republicans should be focused on voter suppression, if Democrats are working relentlessly to move blue collar workers and lower middle class voters to far right ? ..."
"... 'dollar democracy' is deeper than that. ..."
"... Wrong. Progressive neoliberals helped give us Trump. Nobody forced Hillary to give speeches to Goldman Sachs or to give Bush a blank check for war. ..."
"... Blaming the few who didn't vote Hillary. What about the many who stayed home? You're an example of learned helplessness. Like the wife who won't leave her abusive husband. ..."
"... If Trump got 37% of votes of people with postgraduate degree that's tell you something about Democratic Party. That only can means that Democratic Party smells so badly that most people can not stand it, not matter what is the alternative. As in "you should burn in hell". ..."
"... It's kind of reversal of voting for "lesser evil" on which Bill Clinton counted when he betrayed the working class and lower middle class. Worked OK for a while but then it stopped working as he essentially pushed people into embraces of far right. ..."
"... I doubt that Trump is a political cycle outlier. He is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal political system, which pushes authoritarian figures as "Hail Mary Pass", when Hillarius politicans are proved to be un-electable. ..."
"... And despite his "bastard liberalism" he is the symbol of rejection of liberalism, especially outsourcing/offshoring and neoliberal globalization. Or more correctly his voters are. ..."
"... "America as we know it will soon be gone." Don't you think that much of it is already gone? We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear to be. ..."
"... "We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear to be." USAnians have been cowards for generations. The transition from corporatist dyarchy to one-party authoritarianism is and was inevitable. ..."
"... It seems we live in a system where two parties fight to a draw and then volatility in the system acts as a coin toss and we get new leadership. The people line up approximately half and half for the two. ..."
"... Where do you see a draw? The republicans control the house, the senate, the executive branch, the majority of state legislatures, the majority of state governorships, and will soon control the supreme court. ..."
"... The Republicans have embraced the idea that this is a battle, and that their 50% need to win and keep their heels on the neck of the other 50%. The Democrats seem more conflicted about this fight, partly because some of them have bought the neoliberal ideology of their opposition. ..."
"... "some of them have bought the neoliberal ideology of their opposition." i like the understatement. ..."
"The real question is how much support he has a year from now when most of his voters realize
that the majority of what he directly or implicitly promised them, turns out to be a lie."
I'm sure that people in Kansas were telling themselves this 7 years ago.
Yep - and they were right. The democrats lost the next midterm election. The midterm blowback
is that of both an energized opposition and of a lot of disappointed followers.
If the libruls think Obama's multinational collateral damage from senseless bombing by drone and
expensive aircraft is not worth protesting, then rallies and faux moral indignation against a
travel ban are incongruous to reason.
But we have an administration that is unconstrained by conscience and logic and a GOP majority
in both houses of Congress that shows scant willingness to stand against the administration on
anything.
The only remaining check between now and 2018 is the fear Congresspersons might have of losing
their seats, and the judiciary.
The former is very weak though, because rapid Trump supporters make up the majority of the
GOP voting base, so GOP congressmen are going to stay in line to avoid primary challenges. Their
party is almost completely captured by the wingnut wing.
Also, few at-risk GOP Senators are even up for re-election in 2018.
The latter is our only real hope, and even that is tenuous. Judges can be fickle and peculiar,
but most GOP judges were selected for their partisan loyalty. Most will go along with almost anything
the GOP wants, and as time passes, Trump is going to add more judges, and he will be damn sure
to pick ones that go along with anything he wants.
We're hoping for judges' consciences, and loyalty to country over party, and common sense,
to save us. But when the GOP picks judges they select against those traits.
"administration that is unconstrained by conscience and logic", we have had that continuously
since 1980.
You get worked up over a travel ban but not Obama's US bombing wedding parties. Or taking
out 14 non combatants and losing n MV 22 to get a few smart phones.
Do you have stock in both refugee referral companies and Lockheed?
Does anyone take this guy seriously anymore? This is Chicken Little, Sky-Is-Falling nonsense
from a PhD Nobelist? Certainly the guy has lost his marbles, and someone needs to put him in a
padded room. At least be kind, and retire him.
You certainly cannot expect Krugman to criticize the constitutional political system of dollar
democracy that gave us a choice between Trump and Hillary through first past the post elections
and party caucuses any more than you can expect him to criticize lifetime congressional seats
and a SCOTUS unanswerable to the people.
I believe even Krugman will criticize gerrymandering, which is a safe target since it is implemented
at the state rather than federal level.
The electoral college although problematic is not the best place to start. Campaign finance, gerrymandering,
legislative term limits, and an alternative to first past the post voting are all state to state
neutral, allowing a large and powerful electoral consensus to form without undue obstacles except
for elite authority itself.
These are all assessable solidarity issues. The fear of reversal for Roe V. Wade makes petition
and referendum to overturn SCOTUS decisions more difficult first time around, but not impossible
since Citizens United. Liberals on the fence only need consider the polling numbers comparing
those two SCOTUS decisions to see that petition and referendum to overturn SCOTUS would not threaten
Roe V. Wade, but rather end the threat to Roe V. Wade. OTOH, the electoral college is a state
by state issue and small states are not going to give it up. New York and California will need
to subdivide into a bunch of small states to ever change that.
The constitutional ratification procedure can be hijacked by a solidarity electoral movement
only so long as the solidarity is large and cohesive.
And, IMO, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. The republican party is laser focused on
voter suppression. And they will not waste a crisis or supreme court judge slot.
"A review of these documents shows that North Carolina GOP leaders launched a meticulous and
coordinated effort to deter black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats."
When the Supreme court becomes un-deadlocked Jim Crow will destroy opposition to Trump_vs_deep_state.
You are certainly correct in their intent and if the South less Virginia, which was purple enough
to go for Hillary in 2016, were the entire country then you would be correct in the impending
reality.
The reality is uncertain though because many of the Trump voters were racists and misogynists,
but then many of the Trump voters were just reacting to an opportunity to strike back at the corporatist
hegemony in control of the political establishment. The corporatist controlled dollar democracy
has dominated the conversation about the advantages of trade regardless of trade deficits for
over thirty years now. A rebellion is long overdue. The US Constitution provides sufficient political
tools to the electorate to stage a revolution using electoral means, but not by just choosing
between establishment political parties without providing an electoral agenda of its own along
with solidarity in imposing bipartisan anti-incumbency sanctions for failure to perform.
Great. While Trump tries to tear down democracy, the supposed representatives of "the people"
will keep talking about shit like how much they hate NAFTA.
"And, IMO, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. The republican party is laser focused
on voter suppression."
With all due respect, I do not believe that.
Why republicans should be focused on voter suppression, if Democrats are working relentlessly
to move blue collar workers and lower middle class voters to far right ?
Paul Krugman didn't give us Trump, the progressives who can't stand dems, demonized Hillary, either
didn't vote or voted for Trump gave us Trump. Idee fixe and big picture are not the same.
Blaming the few who didn't vote Hillary. What about the many who stayed home? You're an
example of learned helplessness. Like the wife who won't leave her abusive husband.
"Wrong. Progressive neoliberals helped give us Trump. Nobody forced Hillary to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs or to give Bush a blank check for war."
How many Goldman Sachs banksters does Trump have in his administration? I lost count.
The best predictor of a Trump vote was a tendency towards sexism and racism. And Trump voters
were generally well-off middle class whites, not the underclass who either stayed home or predominantly
voted for Clinton.
"The best predictor of a Trump vote was a tendency towards sexism and racism. And Trump
voters were generally well-off middle class whites, not the underclass who either stayed home
or predominantly voted for Clinton."
Trump won the uneducated vote. Many of those people ain't middle class.
"How many Goldman Sachs banksters does Trump have in his administration? I lost count."
Yeah they own both parties. Democrats need to be for the people, not corporations. You are
pretty naive for being leftwing. Probably you just get off on being argumentative.
"Trump won the uneducated vote. Many of those people ain't middle class." I see you are
pimping Trump's faux-populist mythology again. Clinton won the majority of votes of those earning
less the $50,000 and Trump won the majority of votes for those who earn more than $50,000.
has it ever occurred to you that older white voters can be middle/upper class without having a
college degree?
it's ironic that many of these same people oppose unions, social insurance (e.g. pensions),
and free education (GI bill) despite having benefited from these socialist programs.
FYIGM
If Trump got 37% of votes of people with postgraduate degree that's tell you something about
Democratic Party. That only can means that Democratic Party smells so badly that most people can
not stand it, not matter what is the alternative. As in "you should burn in hell".
It's kind of reversal of voting for "lesser evil" on which Bill Clinton counted
when he betrayed the working class and lower middle class. Worked OK for a while but then it stopped
working as he essentially pushed people into embraces of far right.
My wife says Liz Warren will run in 2020 and win. I am hoping that it will be someone off radar
now that gets elected as the youngest POTUS in history. We need a sea change with full millennial
backing.
You're wife's prediction for next president will keep DeVos.
"A taxpayer-funded voucher that paid the entire cost of educating a child (not just a partial
subsidy) would open a range of opportunities to all children. . . . Fully funded vouchers would
relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting
themselves to escape those schools.
the public-versus-private competition misses the central point. The problem is not vouchers;
the problem is parental choice. Under current voucher schemes, children who do not use the vouchers
are still assigned to public schools based on their zip codes. This means that in the overwhelming
majority of cases, a bureaucrat picks the child's school, not a parent. The only way for parents
to exercise any choice is to buy a different home-which is exactly how the bidding wars started.
Under a public school voucher program, parents, not bureaucrats, would have the power to pick
schools for their children-and to choose which schools would get their children's vouchers."
Remember which side of the debate is pro-choice and which side of the debate is pro teacher's
union.
I am not for either side. My wife's mother was a teacher as was her older sister. I am not sure
what she thinks of the teacher's union.
The pedagogical system is so oriented to a system of establishment indoctrination that the
average private school is just as bad as the average public school and even the worst public schools
are no worse than the worst private schools. Only the best private schools stand out along with
a few of the charter schools as better than their public school counterparts and even then not
by a great margin. The problem is the pedagogical approach itself. It is also a matter of who
taught the teachers? We have developed a system that aspires to mold us all into obedient followers
and it works very well. It is also self-replicating.
"Remember which side of the debate is pro-choice and which side of the debate is pro teacher's
union."
Who needs labor and civil rights when we have capitalist billionaires who will give us "school
choice vouchers", "right to work laws", and "deregulation"!
I doubt that Trump is a political cycle outlier. He is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal
political system, which pushes authoritarian figures as "Hail Mary Pass", when Hillarius politicans
are proved to be un-electable.
And despite his "bastard liberalism" he is the symbol of rejection of liberalism, especially
outsourcing/offshoring and neoliberal globalization. Or more correctly his voters are.
Trump said the Iraq war was a disaster. He bragged about being against the war before it started.
He used the Iraq war against Jeb Bush and Hillary as an example of the corrupt elite's incompetence.
This infuriates thoughtless partisans like Krugman to no end.
The appellate court ruled against Trump's Muslim band even more strongly than the lower court
judge.
"America as we know it will soon be gone." Don't you think that much of it is already gone?
We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear to be.
"We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear
to be." USAnians have been cowards for generations. The transition from corporatist dyarchy to
one-party authoritarianism is and was inevitable.
It seems we live in a system where two parties fight to a draw and then volatility in the
system acts as a coin toss and we get new leadership. The people line up approximately half and
half for the two.
I'm having a hard time understanding why if half support the new leadership established by
the operations of the system, that we should worry this a threat to the system itself.
For if that's what we think, it seems we have far bigger problems than simple disagreement
to worry about. It seems those among us who think that way should be planning as revolutionaries
to change this doomed system that except for luck has not yet careened over the edge into whatever.
Where do you see a draw? The republicans control the house, the senate, the executive branch,
the majority of state legislatures, the majority of state governorships, and will soon control
the supreme court.
The Republicans have embraced the idea that this is a battle, and that their 50% need to win
and keep their heels on the neck of the other 50%. The Democrats seem more conflicted about this
fight, partly because some of them have bought the neoliberal ideology of their opposition.
These are giddy times for the forces of reason and light.
A surge of resistance to a bumbling and unstable president
has sent millions of people into the streets, into the faces
of politicians, and into bookstores to make best sellers
again of authoritarian nightmare stories.
And all of that hasn't changed the fact that Democrats,
the opposition party, are more removed from power than at
almost any point in history. Republicans control everything
in Washington, two-thirds of state legislative chambers and
33 governor's mansions.
Every day brings some fresh affront to decency, some
assault on progress, some blow to the truth. The people who
run the White House can't spell, can't govern, can't get
through a news cycle without insulting an ally or defaming a
cherished institution. Republicans just shrug and move on, in
lock step with a leader who wants to set the country back a
century. From their view, things are going swimmingly.
Outraged about the ban on people from Muslim-majority
nations? So what. About half of the nation, and a majority of
Republicans, are in favor of it. Upset over the return of
Wall Street pirates to power? President Trump's supporters
aren't.
Democrats haven't been able to stop a single one of
Trump's gallery of ill-qualified, ethically challenged and
backward-thinking cabinet appointees. His pick for labor
secretary, Andrew Puzder, doesn't believe people should be
paid a living wage to stir a milkshake, and he hired an
undocumented immigrant to clean his house. He'll fit right
in.
Millions of reasonable people are appalled that a madman
is in charge of the country. But tell that to Mitch McConnell
when he cuts off the right of a fellow senator to speak. Or
tell it to Paul Ryan when he can't find his copy of the
Constitution he has sworn to uphold. These invertebrate
leaders don't care if Trump's residence is a house of lies.
They don't care that their president is a sexual predator, or
that his family is using the office to enrich themselves. All
they care about is the R stitched to his jersey.
When Adlai Stevenson was told that all thinking people
were with him in his race for president, he famously
responded: "That's not enough. I need a majority."
And so, too, do the Democrats. This week, the powerless
party went into their winter cave for an annual retreat -
three days of soul-searching and strategizing.
"This is our moment in history," the House minority
leader, Nancy Pelosi, told her fellow Ds. "This man in the
White House is incoherent, incompetent and dangerous. And we
have to protect children and other living things from him."
Feels good, right? Sorry. The Democrats shouldn't mistake
a sugar high for nutrition. They're still getting their butts
kicked. Being Not Trump gained them only a net of six seats
in the House in November's election, and will not be enough
to win a majority in 2018.
Reliance on identity politics and media-cushioned
affirmation, and a blind spot to the genuine pain of the
white working class, is precisely what produced a President
Trump. For the next year, Democrats should filter their
policy initiatives through the eyes of the person Trump
claims to speak for - the forgotten American.
Of course, Trump's phrase was lifted from somewhere else.
Franklin Roosevelt first rode to victory in 1932 by urging
fellow citizens to put faith in "the forgotten man at the
bottom of the economic pyramid."
Roosevelt actually did something for that overlooked
American - Social Security, minimum wage, building roads,
bridges and dams - and was rewarded with a majority coalition
that carried the United States to new heights. Therein lies
the way back to power for Democrats.
When Democrats lost the South - for multiple generations,
as it turned out - it put them in a deep hole, forcing them
to rely on a surge of young and Latino voters to turn the
demographic tide, or candidates with broad appeal beyond the
party strongholds on the coasts.
President Obama left office with soaring approval numbers
and a great legacy. But Democrats also lost 1,034 state and
federal offices in his time. Whites are still 70 percent of
the vote. If Democrats continue to hemorrhage voters among
the working class, they will never see the presidency, or
even expect to govern in one house, for a long time.
The way out is not that difficult. Yes, they should engage
in hand-to-hand combat in the capital. And certainly,
Democrats must turn to the courts when the rule of law is
broken. But they have to be for something, as well - a master
policy narrative, promoting things that help average
Americans. The old Broadway adage was how it will play in
Peoria. For Democrats, they should think of Joe Biden's
Scranton, Pa., every time they take to a podium.
The follow-up to Pelosi's statement is "No [kidding]. What
actions are you taking to protect said children and living
things?"
What's the plan for supporting Water Protectors and DAPL
protesters? What's the plan for shutting down the Senate
after McConnell and co exercise the nuclear option to force a
vote on Gorsuch? What's the plan for preventing a vote on
Gorsuch? How about CBP personnel who ignore court orders? Not
an unreasonable expectation that some will - what to do about
them? Expressions of outrage are easily ignored if there's no
follow-up action. Perpetrators' lives need to be made
difficult.
In Part 2 of their interview, TYT Politics Reporter Jordan Chariton spoke with The Intercept
co-founder Glenn Greenwald about Senator Bernie Sanders pattern of working with corporate
establishment Democrats.
Everything Glenn said. I don't understand Bernie strategy, but I have to believe he's
playing the best game he can play and he knows patients, it's a chess game and it's
impossible for the observer to predict the players next move. But he does it with extreme
caution and thoughtfulness.
We have to stop thinking of Bernie as the "leader" of this revolution. Yes, not a
movement, but a revolution. Revolutions ARE NOT LEAD by one person. They have one or a few
figure heads that history remembers but they have many factions and many leaders to be
successful. I wish TYT would see it this way. We need to put more focus on all of the
different leaders and groups contributing to this revolution, not just Bernie.
I said it once and I will say it again...,never ever turn your back on Bernie Sanders.
This man has a plan. For sure i understand that people were quite pissed at the moment he
endorsed Hillary Clinton. But you know what? He had to do it. Supposed he wouldn't do it do
you actually believe he would still be a senator today? I don't think so. The Democratic
Party would have killed him. ( politically speaking). Look at his history. And listen to him
when he speaks. It is not only the USA that needs him. It's actually the whole world needs
him. Specially now with that clown of a president on the steering wheel. Love and peace to
you all.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's a saying that has been around for generations,
for a reason. Truth will always be truth. It's been proven time after time in history, and is
a proven tactic that the US has successfully employed since the Revolutionary War (France vs
Britain) and is the only way weaker parties can triumph. You work together until you no
longer have common ground!
I am more on Glenn's side on this one. Bernie is a smart politician -- he knows you can't
be 100% belligerent and still expect to get anything done (even though some of us wish he
would be that way).
Strategically it is as if Bernie is behind enemy lines. The ideology of the corporate Dems
decimated legislative ranks. His small 'unsullied' unit in the legislature needs to grow to
match his outside support. To ensure that end he needs to continually draw & welcome
contrast btw himself & Est. Dems
Hillary proposed around $1.8 trillion / 10 years in
total new spending programs as of early last year, then
added more throughout the campaign season.
We've talked about this a number of times before and
yet you insist on pretending that infrastructural spending
is the only spending because your whole backward ideology
is predicated on lying about what Hillary Clinton actually
proposed. Seek mental help and stop being such a
mendacious twat.
Reply Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 07:35 PM
Seems like Sanjait is the mendacious twat who gets really
angry when proven wrong. He can't argue the facts, like other
centrists, so they try to shout you down.
Clinton's bad economics - which is neoliberal economics -
is bad politics. If you google Hillary infrastructure
spending you get:
"That's why Hillary Clinton has announced a $275 billion,
five-year plan to rebuild our infrastructure-and put
Americans to work in the process"
Trump won the election partly on his promises to rebuild
the infrastructure bigly. The Senate Democrats have upped the
ante with a trillion dollar 10 year plan. That's twice as
much as Hillary's plan.
They know its good politics. The Post article says Trump
was thinking a trillion (via tax incentives and
private-public partnerships) but his friend is quoted as
saying more like $500 billion over ten years - Hillary sized.
Why wasn't Hillary's plan larger? Read Krugman's blog post
from yesterday.
Too much fiscal expansion causes the Fed to raise rates
and the dollar to appreciate. Did Hillary or her economics
surrogates ever explain this? No. Alan Blinder did say that
Hillary's fiscal plan wouldn't be large enough to cause the
Fed to alter it's rate hike path.
Krugman says fiscal deficits near full employment causes
interest rates to rise, like it's an economic law.
He's missing the middle factor, inflation. Fiscal deficits
cause inflation which cause the Fed to raise raise rates.
Oh yeah he left out the Fed also.
I repeated the story about Clinton dropping his middle
class spending bill in favor of deficit reduction but of
course the neoliberals ignore it.
"The master parable for this story is the 1990s, when the
Clinton administration came in with big plans for stimulus,
only to be slapped down by Alan Greenspan, who warned that
any increase in public spending would be offset by a
contractionary shift by the federal reserve. But once Clinton
made the walk to Canossa and embraced deficit reduction,
Greenspan's fed rewarded him with low rates, substituting
private investment in equal measure for the foregone public
spending. In the current contest, this means: Any increase in
federal borrowing will be offset one for one by a fall in
private investment - because the Fed will raise rates enough
to make it happen."
Sanjait wasn't even aware that the Fed has switched over
to the corridor system and will use IOER to help control
inflation as it raises rates. He assumed Dani Rodrik was a
woman.
And he presumes to go around and call people names about
technical issues that can be debated rationally with
reference to the facts?
"In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned on the promise of a
short-term stimulus package. But soon after being elected, he
met privately with Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal
Reserve Board, and soon accepted what became known as "the
financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating
financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes
were raised, spending was cut-all in a futile effort to keep
long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped
the Democrats lose their majority in the House. In fact, the
defeat of the stimulus package set off a sharp decline in
Clinton's public approval ratings from which his presidency
would never recover.
It is easy to forget that Clinton had other alternatives.
In 1993, Democrats in Congress were attempting to rein in the
Federal Reserve by making it more accountable and
transparent. Those efforts were led by the chair of the House
Banking Committee, the late Henry B. Gonzalez, who warned
that the Fed was creating a giant casino economy, a house of
cards, a "monstrous bubble." But such calls for regulation
and transparency fell on deaf ears in the Clinton White House
and Treasury.
The pattern was set early. The Federal Reserve became
increasingly independent of elected branches and more captive
of private financial interests. This was seen as "sound
economics" and necessary to keep inflation low. Yet the
Federal Reserve's autonomy left it a captive of a financial
constituency it could no longer control or regulate. Instead,
the Fed would rely on one very blunt policy instrument, its
authority to set short-term interest rates. As a result of
such an active monetary policy, the nation's fiscal policy
was constrained, public investment declined, critical
infrastructure needs were ignored. Moreover, the Fed's
stop-and-go interest-rate policy encouraged the growth of a
bubble economy in housing, credit, and currency markets.
Perhaps the biggest of these bubbles was the inflated U.S.
dollar, one of several troubling consequences of the Clinton
administration's free-trade policies. Although Clinton spoke
from the left on trade issues, he governed from the right and
ignored the need for any minimum floor on labor, human
rights, or environmental standards in trade agreements. After
pushing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
through Congress on the strength of Republican votes, Clinton
paved the way for China's entry into the World Trade
Organization (WTO) only a few years after China's bloody
crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square
in Beijing.
During Clinton's eight years in office, the U.S. current
account deficit, the broadest measure of trade
competitiveness, increased fivefold, from $84 billion to $415
billion. The trade deficit increased most dramatically at the
end of the Clinton years. In 1999, the U.S. merchandise trade
deficit surpassed $338 billion, a 53 percent increase from
$220 billion in 1998.
In early March 2000, Greenspan warned that the current
account deficit could only be financed by "ever-larger
portfolio and direct foreign investments in the United
States, an outcome that cannot continue without limit." The
needed capital inflows did continue for nearly eight Bush
years. But it was inevitable that the inflows would not be
sustained and the dollar would drop. Perhaps the singular
success of Bill Clinton was to hand the hot potato to another
president before the asset price bubble went bust."
"The downward spiral began with Clinton's 1993 abandonment of
his original threefold economic program--deficit reduction,
economic stimulus and government investment in the nation's
physical and human infrastructure. Facing opposition to the
last two, Clinton abandoned them and focused on deficit
reduction. This painted him into a corner that makes it near
impossible to achieve any programmatic progress in this
term--and so makes unlikely any hope of a second.
The 1993 story has been cast as the victory of the
"deficit hawks," sober economists intent on reducing the gap
between federal spending and tax revenues, over the purely
political advocates of spending on the investment programs.
But the common perception--that the "hawks" represented the
responsible economic community, as against the irresponsible
politicians--is not true.
Almost every one of the economists in the Clinton
Administration had earlier espoused economic policies where
stimulus took priority over deficit control. Rightly
frightened by the mounting deficits of the Reagan-Bush years,
however, by the 1990s they had abandoned their roots for
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's "responsible"
economics--where reduction of the deficit and fear of
inflation were the operative factors."
"Now, the irony is that Wall Street had never squawked when
the first George Bush was spending like gangbusters or when
Ronald Reagan was spending like mad. But the thought was that
a Democratic administration has to sort of prove its chops,
prove itself capable of being much more fiscally responsible
than its Republican predecessors because it's a Democratic
administration. Well, to us, to me, to those on my side of
the debate, that sounded absurd. I mean, yes, let's satisfy
the bond traders to some extent. Obviously, we have to get
the deficit down somewhat. But let's not sacrifice the
Clinton agenda.
....
Reich: The desire to do it all, to have the Clinton
priorities and yet satisfy Wall Street led to this
extraordinary effort to go line by line by line through the
budget and to try to extract enough. And then the question
was, "Well, how much is enough?" Do you bring the budget
deficit down from five percent of the gross domestic product
down to two and a half percent? Which is, basically, cutting
the deficit by half. That's what many of us said we're
perfectly fine to do.
Others, who were the deficit hawks, said, "No, no, no, no.
You actually have to reduce the absolute amount of the
deficit by half. That was your campaign promise, that's what
we need to do. That's the only way we're going to satisfy
Wall Street."
And in the background, Alan Greenspan, as head of the Fed,
was whispering in ears -- Lloyd Bentsen's ear, and I think
also the President's ear, "If you don't get this budget
deficit down, I am not going to cut short-term interest
rates. And if I don't cut short-term interest rates, by the
time you face the next election in 1996, this economy is not
going to be growing buoyantly, and you may not be
re-elected." That's called extortion."
It wasn't so long ago that American politicians lived in
fear of the bond market. During the Clinton administration,
James Carville famously said that "I used to think if there
was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or
the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come
back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody." That
phenomenon gave rise to the concept of the "bond market
vigilantes," which Krugman loves to employ.
But today, the bond market vigilantes are not much in
evidence. Or rather, they are in evidence, but they suddenly
seem unable to have much of an impact on US fiscal policy.
Bill Gross, of the ludicrously enormous bond fund PIMCO, is
running around screaming about the need for more borrowing
and more stimulus. But he has no effect, because it turns out
that while bond investors have powerful ways of constraining
US government borrowing, they have only indirect and weak
means of expanding it.
The United States has a large debt that is routinely
rolled over, and it generally runs a budget deficit (Clinton
interregnum aside). If bond investors start demanding higher
interest rates on government debts, this immediately raises
the cost of borrowing for the US government. This, in turn,
has knock-on effects throughout the economy, as interest
rates rise for everyone and economic activity is thereby
constrained. For these reasons, the US government has
powerful incentives to avoid doing things that cause the
interest rate on treasuries to rise.
Today, however, we find ourselves in the opposite
situation: what the bond market seems to want most of all is
for the US to borrow more money and stimulate the economy.
That's the best explanation for the incredibly low yield on
Treasury bonds, which is negative in real terms over some
time periods. And yet the US is not borrowing more; instead
both parties are demanding insane policies that will cause a
second recession, ostensibly based on fallacious notions
about the magical effects of budget cutting and a nonsensical
conception of the relationship between government and
household finances.
The problem here is that the power of the bond market is
asymmetrical. When the interest rate on Treasuries go up,
this immediately makes all of the government's activities
more expensive, and hence forces changes in fiscal planning.
But when the interest rate falls to near zero, this only
presents an opportunity for expanded borrowing, an
opportunity that can easily be thrown away if the political
system is too insane and dysfunctional to take advantage of
it.
Hence the bond vigilantes sit on the sidelines, impotent
and hopeless. Just like the rest of us.
"... Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like. ..."
This is frankly rather disingenuous. Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly
the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation,
lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like.
libezkova -> DrDick... January 25, 2017 at 09:29 PM
Read through the link and it's not nearly that simple, especially when you consider the fact that
some trends, though plausibly or certainly reinforced through policy, aren't entirely or even
primarily caused by policy.
I did not say they were the *only* factors, but they are the primary causes. If you look at the
timelines and data trends it is pretty clear. Reagan broke the power of the Unions and started
deregulation (financialization is a consequence of this), which is the period when the big increases
began. Automation plays a secondary role in this. what has happened is that the few industries
which are most conducive to automation have remained here (like final assembly of automobiles),
while the many, more labor intensive industries (automobile components manufacturing) have been
offshored to low wage, not labor or environmental protections countries.
Both parties participated in the conversion of the USA into neoliberal society. So it was a bipartisan
move.
Clinton did a lot of dirty work in this direction and was later royally remunerated for his
betrayal of the former constituency of the Democratic Party and conversion it into "yet another
neoliberal party"
Obama actually continued Bush and Clinton work. He talked about 'change we can believe in'
while saving Wall street and real estate speculators from jail they fully deserved.
Very true. Republicans were in the vanguard and did most heavy lifting. That's undeniable.
But Clinton's negative effects were also related to the weakening the only countervailing force
remaining on the way of the neoliberalism -- trade unionism. So he played the role of "subversive
agent" in the Democratic Party. His betrayal of trade union political interests and his demoralizing
role should be underestimated.
"... Some of the "autopsy" articles (there are dozens) indicate the soul of the Democrats is right now being decided by a tug-of-war between the Brock camp and the Soros camp. ..."
"... What I found interesting is that Brockapalooza (great name!) was a gathering of the, ahem, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, and what they seem to have concluded is that they desperately need Bernie's supporters, a/k/a the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and it's enthusiasm. ..."
"... Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie wing has completely lost patience with any such strategy. ..."
"... But what is worse is the "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party under Clinton opened the door for far right renaissance. So neolib Dems created a rather dangerous situation. In a way, Bill Clinton is a godfather of Trump. ..."
It was a gathering of what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) railed against during his presidential
campaign as "the establishment." The conference, organized by longtime Clinton family operative
David Brock, was dominated by Clintonfolk. Jon Cowan, president of the ardently centrist Third
Way think tank, was among the most prominent panelists, alongside Hillary Clinton confidante Maya
Harris, "Morning Joe" regular Harold Ford and even embattled Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
But the overwhelming analysis emanating from Brockapalooza was essentially a haute couture
Berniecrat gripe: The Democratic Party has been writing off way too much of the electorate by
assuming it doesn't need ― or can't win ― the votes of working-class people.
"I think there's a sense that some portion of the Democratic Party shares the blame for what
happened," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told reporters. "The Democrats acquiesced
in many ways to policies making people's lives worse."
He was referring obliquely to the legacy of former President Bill Clinton ― deregulating high
finance, gutting welfare, feeding mass incarceration ― which leaders of a party ostensibly devoted
to empowering the powerless have been reluctant to acknowledge.
"How many bankers went to jail?" Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the sole senator to endorse Sanders
in the Democratic primary, asked the crowd on Saturday morning in reference to the 2008 financial
crisis. "None," he concluded.
There were real disagreements about the right course of action. But speaker after speaker said
the party's reliance on demographic trends had made it complacent on matters of economic justice.
This had cost Democrats not just the presidency, but governorships and hundreds of state legislature
seats across the country.
"The Democratic coalition lives in the economy, all right?" former Bill Clinton campaign manager
James Carville told reporters. "The idea that somehow it's only white working-class people that
live in an economy blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, gay people ― they're like everybody else."
Some of the "autopsy" articles (there are dozens) indicate the soul of the Democrats is
right now being decided by a tug-of-war between the Brock camp and the Soros camp.
What I found interesting is that Brockapalooza (great name!) was a gathering of the, ahem,
neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, and what they seem to have concluded is that they desperately
need Bernie's supporters, a/k/a the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and it's enthusiasm.
Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie
wing has completely lost patience with any such strategy.
"Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie
wing has completely lost patience with any such strategy."
Very true. Cooptation is what they specialize at. Will not work this time, as in "too little
too late".
But what is worse is the "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party under Clinton opened the
door for far right renaissance. So neolib Dems created a rather dangerous situation. In a way,
Bill Clinton is a godfather of Trump.
Just the fact that the DNC donor club has acknowledged the problem and recognized that Bernie
was onto the solution is a really big deal. This may be the first time since the party split in
1968 that they have come to grips with working class economics rather than just relying on identity
politics and big funding. It's not like they should throw identity politics under the bus. They
just need to learn how to play to their entire constituency rather than assume one or both of
them has no other choice.
"... Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie wing has completely lost patience with
any such strategy. ..."
It was a gathering of what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) railed against during his presidential campaign as "the establishment."
The conference, organized by longtime Clinton family operative David Brock, was dominated by Clintonfolk. Jon Cowan, president
of the ardently centrist Third Way think tank, was among the most prominent panelists, alongside Hillary Clinton confidante Maya
Harris, "Morning Joe" regular Harold Ford and even embattled Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
But the overwhelming analysis emanating from Brockapalooza was essentially a haute couture Berniecrat gripe: The Democratic Party
has been writing off way too much of the electorate by assuming it doesn't need ― or can't win ― the votes of working-class people.
"I think there's a sense that some portion of the Democratic Party shares the blame for what happened," New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman told reporters. "The Democrats acquiesced in many ways to policies making people's lives worse."
He was referring obliquely to the legacy of former President Bill Clinton ― deregulating high finance, gutting welfare, feeding
mass incarceration ― which leaders of a party ostensibly devoted to empowering the powerless have been reluctant to acknowledge.
"How many bankers went to jail?" Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the sole senator to endorse Sanders in the Democratic primary, asked
the crowd on Saturday morning in reference to the 2008 financial crisis. "None," he concluded.
There were real disagreements about the right course of action. But speaker after speaker said the party's reliance on demographic
trends had made it complacent on matters of economic justice. This had cost Democrats not just the presidency, but governorships
and hundreds of state legislature seats across the country.
"The Democratic coalition lives in the economy, all right?" former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville told reporters.
"The idea that somehow it's only white working-class people that live in an economy blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, gay people
― they're like everybody else."
Some of the "autopsy" articles (there are dozens) indicate the soul of the Democrats is right now being decided by a tug-of-war
between the Brock camp and the Soros camp.
What I found interesting is that Brockapalooza (great name!) was a gathering of the, ahem, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party,
and what they seem to have concluded is that they desperately need Bernie's supporters, a/k/a the democratic wing of the Democratic
Party, and it's enthusiasm.
Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie wing has completely lost patience
with any such strategy.
Just the fact that the DNC donor club has acknowledged the problem and recognized that Bernie was onto the solution is a really
big deal. This may be the first time since the party split in 1968 that they have come to grips with working class economics rather
than just relying on identity politics and big funding. It's not like they should throw identity politics under the bus. They
just need to learn how to play to their entire constituency rather than assume one or both of them has no other choice.
"If the party doesn't understand these seven truths .a third party will emerge to fill the
void." That's what will happen, since the so-called "leaders" of the Democratic Party are not
going to admit all that stuff, no matter how true it is. They're not very smart.
Yes it's hard to believe any of this will happen as even now the Dems are circling the wagons
with "The Resistance." Also is Sanders even a Democrat? Didn't he go back to being an independent
after the convention?
And just a thought on "authoritarian." Our greatest progressive president–Roosevelt–was accused
by many at the time of being authoritarian with moves like packing the court. As pointed out yesterday
he even created internment camps for Japanese-Americans which would horrify progressives today.
It's unfortunate that one must have power–that thing which corrupts–in order to accomplish anything
in government so perhaps what ultimately matters is the character of the person wielding that
power. Given that it's now the Donald that may seem bleak–remains to be seen–but Reich's distinction
between the "good" populists and the the authoritarian ones is a bit artificial and simplistic.
The Repubs have something at stake–their money–in every election and recognize that getting,
or suppressing, votes is the key. Perhaps Lambert is right that what really matters is simply
getting more people to vote.
"Reich's distinction between the "good" populists and the the authoritarian ones is a bit artificial
and simplistic." That inputting it mildly. But FDR had a Socialist Party to his Left. And he was
elected four times in a row. It wasn't until Reagan that FDR's progressive programs and tax rates
began to be dismantled.
"Didn't he go back to being an independent after the convention?"
Yes he did (very quietly) and he really should start reminding people of that. He kept his
word and fulfilled his promises to help Clinton but that ended with the election.
And what does he get in return? Turncoat Dems making sure we all get to continue to pay more
money for prescription drugs right out of the gate. If the Dems are going to continue to thwart
the people's agenda as they did with his prescription drug amendment, he needs to take the kid
gloves off.
"Also is Sanders even a Democrat? Didn't he go back to being an independent after the convention?"
So what if he did? Far more important are his ideals, his values, and his vision. They are
right in line with the Democratic Party – of 1933, which is where today's corporate party needs
to return to get back in power and steer this country in a better direction.
If anyone has ever lived in DC, you realize that being well educated doesn't make you intelligent,
and being intelligent doesn't make you wise. That said, if in your life you've had success in
doing some particular thing, it's hard to change when it no longer works. Even Einstein, smart
guy that he was, was an example of that.
If the problems of the party go as deep as Reich says, it would be far more effective for the
dems to just fire everyone at the top of their organization and replace them with random people
they meet on the street.
Precisely; Donald Trump was – and is- the Third Party candidate. That's why the Republican
establishment tried to destroy him. His ability to break into the GOP through the back door belies
the media Imbroglio about his "inexperience".
But love him or hate him – or more prudently, reserve judgment for 4 years – he IS the Third Party
candidate. I don't understand why so many academics don't get that. Around 3-4 yrs ago David Brooks
warned that the landscape was ripe for a successful 3rd party prez, but he thought it would be
a Tech billionaire.
Which was faulty – Silicon Valley had the Democratic establishment already safely tucked away
in the Cloud.
Bernie was the other third party candidate. The difference is that the press could not get
a hold on Trump, was transfixed by Trump, his 'trumping'-by-tweeting, and the constant coverage
he was able to garner.
On the other hand, the press purposefully shunned and shut the door on Bernie, on his wax from
no-percent support to the groundswell in May and June. Remember the empty podium coverage waiting
on Trump, and the no coverage of Bernie's barn-burning speech in June. The press was supporting-at
any cost- Hillary and the main-line Dem. system. And it WAS rigged.
In Canada, they simply re-branded, to the NDP the New Democratic Party.
Personally I revile two party politics, and I think both parties ignore the new populism, and
the rejection of party politics, at their peril.
Perhaps the reason Occupy progressive populism, and the Democrats are foundering is their fundamental
tolerance– they simply can't hold their noses anymore to tow the party line at the obvious expense
of those who are still being left out and marginalized. The main stream democratic party aids
and abets at keeping the status quo going.
Bernie said it best at the hearing the other day: we are NOT a compassionate country.
Trump and Bernie were the third party candidates. Bernie was in many ways the preferable of
the two, but he was eliminated because he insisted on playing nice and not going for the jugular.
You are so right. Sad! Strange to read Reich now after having seen him interviewed at the end
of Adam Curtis's documentary The Century of the Self and making similar points. How is going to
solve the problem of moneyed elites? Sanders was the third party, the anti-establishment Dem.
And look what happened. Corey Booker may be 2020 nominee. Looking very bad for Dems.
Booker doesn't have a prayer. He's basically the Democratic version of the Republican general
the GOP jack booters get hot and heavy over periodically. The nominee in 2020 probably won't be
terrible if someone tolerable runs.
The 2008 and 2016 primaries were dominated by Hillary and Obama/Oprah's celebrity profiles.
Everyone else has to campaign and interact with people they can't pre-screen. The nostalgia voters
won't have a set candidate and will be two years along.
Back in 2008, I went to New Hampshire during the season, and I stood behind Holy Joe Lieberman
in a line at Dunkin' Donuts. This is what Booker will encounter on the trail: actual voters. When
he is asked about prescription drugs at every stop and has every local teachers union hounding
him, he will be dropped by even the media that loves losers such as the Dandy Senator from South
Carolina.
Clintonites can be made to service Trump administrations washrooms complete with trendy tip
hats and stools-
Look for this action from genuine American all for one, and one for all people who are clearly
set apart from the Trump hand maidens that wrought present-
Love f l o w s both pos and neg balanced centered action and can be felt in any creature emanating
an eagalitarian nature quite foreign to those referrred to as Clinton ite herein
The cherry shaman in all will point the way look for it!!!
4. The Party's moneyed establishment-big donors, major lobbyists, retired members of Congress
who have become bundlers and lobbyists-are part of the problem. Even though many consider themselves
"liberal" and don't recoil from an active government, their preferred remedies spare corporations
and the wealthiest from making any sacrifices.
The moneyed interests in the Party allowed the deregulation of Wall Street and then encouraged
the bailout of the Street. They're barely concerned about the growth of tax havens, inside trading,
increasing market power in major industries (pharmaceuticals, telecom, airlines, private health
insurers, food processors, finance, even high tech), and widening inequality.
================================================
"They're barely concerned about the growth of tax havens, inside trading, increasing market power
in major industries "
au contraire – I would say they are very, VERY concerned and that's the problem.
I used to believe "you can do well and you can do good"
I don't believe it any more.
I suspect a good number of other people don't believe it either
I think if the only thing Democrats take away from the election is "OMG an egotistical billionaire
with dreadful hair and tacky taste has just become president" then they all deserve to be shipped
to Somalia. (In fact, they do all deserve to be shipped to Somalia but that is not the point).
The fact that America and the redneck, ignorant deplorables can elect Trump and consider him
as a man of the people, a fighter for the common man, and someone who cares about America first
tells you just how detached and elite our elected class has become. It's like hiring John Wayne
Gacy to babysit your teenage sons because all the other sitters creep you out!
Democrats are not left-wing. They are, at best, centrist but mainly ego-centrist. Washington
has sold out to the rich and powerful, mainly Wall Street and the military-industrial complex.
The election of Trump was the desperate cry of America begging for anything other than bent, self-serving
officials like Hillary Clinton.
I don't think Trump is the answer but I don't think he will be as bad as we expect. I think
Obama discovered that the establishment was more powerful than his desire for change. Trump will
face the same forces, though I think it is possible that Trump will try to call their bluff.
But as for the Democratic Party? Fuck 'em. Disband the party, arrest the members, waterboard
them, and execute them all for treason. Then move on to the Republicans. When there are no politicians
left, start all over. Ah, I can dream, can't I?
So a suicide pact. Government of, by, and for the people means you play some meager role and
are thus a politician.
Maybe step away from the gleeful destruction of what political structure we have and step up to
be a solver instead. Oh, but one might have to test their cherished notions in the marketplace,
or face up if they fail.
What Reich really needs to be saying is that it is time to take back the reins and clean up the
party. We are unlikely to become a multiparty state and the internet surveillance system will
track down dissenters. The IWW used to break anti union towns by flooding the jails. Flood the
party and you can own it as the nurses union did for Bernie. Or carp on the internet.
So it depends on the framing whether the rallies yesterday go towards #6, a movement, not a
party.
Though explicitly embracing an intersectional stance and NOT explicitly Dem or Rep, and while
disavowing that it was more anti-Trump than pro rights, justice, health care, and equality, the
pussy hats belie that too much of this was aimed at Trump personally and not the Establishment
(Empire), whose policies D or R are literally killing us, whether on the battlefield or the home
front. And the speakers were weighted toward Establishment Ds.
We can dismiss the outpouring as not connected to an analysis of the underlying reasons for
Trump (and initiatives spearheaded by women are usually dismissed).
Or we can embrace it, build on it. I think a lot of unaffiliated voters were amongst the rank
and file, so NOT all about Clinton.
I disagree with that to an extent. I marched yesterday and it was clear to everybody that it
was way bigger than Trump. The fight is not against Trump, the fight is against everything the
Republican Party stands for and Trump is just their current hood ornament. The Women's March was
the People's March against all things Republican.
If Bernie represents the future of the party then its sad seeing him stump around him Schumer
who represents everything that is wrong with it. His best bet is to get away from the Democratic
party and run as an independent, but alas the campaign finance problem. By operating inside the
party, he'll be nothing more than Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. He'll be the Ron
Paul of the Democratic Party.
I don't think Bernie had a financing problem. The genius is that he did it truly grass-roots.
The problem was that the democratic party power structure screwed him, was tone deaf, and lost
to Trump, aided and abetted by the press.
I wonder. Chuck might be hanging around Bernie, not the other way around. Perhaps because he
smells a clue - politicians are supposed to be good at that. Or maybe he is Bernie's minder.
DNC Dems may try to marginalize Bernie, but 1.) he's a crafty old guy, 2.) he got a *lot* of
votes.
BTW, another article on "what is wrong with the Dems" that doesn't mention superdelegates.
Until that is abolished, it's all handwaving.
That is a good point. Looking at how the battle lines have been drawn on the dnc chair fight,
schumer looks like a swing vote who got behind bernie. It was after that when the obama wing of
the party resisted and pushed tom perez, who seems to be the biggest opponent of ellison. It really
looks like the clintons are vanquished and the obama wing is now the right wing of the dem party.
Exactly. A smarter Dem party would look at the strategy the Republicans used over the course
of 20 years to get where they are today. Abandoning the 50 state strategy was the stupidest thing
the Dems ever did, we can see exactly how well that worked by the numbers.
ALL of who believe in equality, civil rights, tolerance, good jobs, health care for all, quality
education for all, and an end to lobbyists and financial engineers running the country need to
start running for those seats. The only way we take things back is to start local.
Reich should win a Nobel Prize here - he's right up there with Krugman and Obama.
Shorter Reich: The confrontation of the Irresistable Force of populism with the Immovable Object
of donor control will result in the Oxymoron of "radical reform".
I've always been suspicious of Reich, but here I'll give him an "A" for tuning in his snow
filled crystal ball and delivering the "soul searching" critique of the Democratic Party many
of us have been waiting for and expecting. Pretty much hits the nail on the head, I'd say.
The caveat, of course, is that Reich is not the Commander in Chief of the Democratic party.
Towards the end, I think he alludes to that too.
After yesterday, the Democratic party is running to catch up with where their constituency
is headed. That March didn't stop at 1 pm Saturday. They'll attempt to get out in front, but Team
Bernie will be there ahead of them.
One more "populist" article by Robert Reich. I know he's a party hack and will return to the
fold once they tell him to sit down. He just provides a false air of "independence" to the bought
and sold Democraps. People like him who keep returning to the fold are the very reason that the
Dims are in trouble.
This is a time for historians to review and to revisit the ("Fighting Bob") LaFollette Wisconsin
tactics in the early 1900s which came after nearly a generation of political corruption. Progressivism
needs to integrate itself in some way into the current populism.
The Clinton wing* of the party needs to be wiped out. Bill ushered in the end of the 70 year
Democratic majorities, destroyed the party at the local level, and led to George W. Bush. When
the Clintonistas were sidelined, the Democrats won commanding majorities in both houses and the
White House in two elections and established a major gotv operation. Obama brings in Rahm Emmanuel
and kaboom. Clintonistas were tolerated and look what happened.
*Don't we really mean a few hundred voters connected to the Clinton Administration or campaigns
that only hold power over people who are largely voting because of the "D" next to a name?
To understand how utterly rotten the Democratic elite is,
and unwilling to learn from the past, recent and not so recent, look no further
than the tongue bath given at Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing to Joe Lieberman,
who is literally a traitor to the party:
Were the moment not so fraught with high political drama, it might have felt like a college
reunion. Lieberman was returning to his old stomping grounds on Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon
to offer what bipartisan cover he could for Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump's nominee for education
secretary.
"I've known Joe a long time," Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, told me on Wednesday.
"He's a good guy. We served together."
in interviews, several members of the Democratic caucus spoke to their personal affection
for Lieberman. "I think Joe Lieberman is a good friend of mine, and I think everybody has the
right to say what they think," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner told me.
"Joe's a friend Joe has integrity," Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said in an interview
in the Dirksen Senate Building on Wednesday.
Added Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the progressive Democrat who took his seat in 2014:
"Lieberman's a great friend, even if we disagree on important issues. He remains a good friend,
despite our occasional disagreements."
The definition of friendship is stretched very thin when it covers over differences that spread
between say the likes of Lieberman and Sanders. Sanders lambasted Betsy DeVos as she deserved
to be; the woman lied to the Senate about her vice chairmanship of the Prince foundation-an organization
that has devoted million$ to the concept of 'converting' gays, lesbians and bisexuals. She is
obviously ashamed of her involvement (fairly recent as IRS documents show her listed in 2014)
and for political expediency wants to distance herself from that scene. Competent psychological
studies show that such so called conversion efforts always fail resulting in what has to be termed
cruelty and deep disillusionment.That Lieberman would rise to such duplicity shows a complete
lack of personal integrity. How someone with integrity could have such a 'friend' is to put the
word friendship into the realm of meaninglessness.
IdahoSpud, Carla, fresno dan, stukuls and David S are all right on the money!
Reich is a little better than Michael Moore (who yesterday told the demonstrators to put a
call to their Congressional and Senate reps right there with brushing their teeth every day),
but that's not saying much. I didn't even see the call for voter registration and against Jim
Crow election fraud in his essay, just "drawing more people into politics".
Face it, the Democratic Party is irremiably sick to the point that it needs to be put down
and a new party formed without the Clintonite DNA.
An almost philosophical question: is there a "Democratic Party" as an institution, separate
from the career ambitions of those who have just lost power and what to take it back? I rather
suspect not, because that would imply a set of values and beliefs and institutional interests
to which individuals would subscribe, and which, under certain circumstances, they might be prepared
to put ahead of their personal ambitions.But, at least from across the water, I don't get that
impression at all; rather it looks like a group of ambitious and unscrupulous hacks, manipulating
the politics of identity to provide themselves with a power base, but now finding that tactic
doesn't work any more. If that's so, then the "Democrats" of Reich's article are trapped in a
vicious circle: they are only interested in reclaiming personal power, so they have no ideology
or beliefs to offer a mass electorate, so they'll never regain power. The best they can hope for
is that Trump makes such a mess of things that a desperate nation turns to them for salvation.
I suppose anything is possible.
I say that you make a very good point about Democrats not being able to find an ideological
map; or rather more exactly: bleating loudly about following the map that the majority of voters
want and ask to be followed and then sidestepping constantly to follow another path inimical to
what is being proclaimed. Mr. Obama did that with his dance around the subject of universal health
care or single payer. We, in the center of the progressive wing, were led to believe he was for
it. Then he abandoned us to the expediency of the day by genuflecting low and high before the
priesthood of the Health Insurance carriers and pharmaceutical companies. The latter essentially
wrote The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is tragically misnamed on both halves;
it neither protects patients nor allows the vast majority of subscribers to find affordable insurance
for themselves and/or their families.
But this is typical of so called centrists such as Obama and the Clintons; they artfully present
themselves as being on the right side of the map (protect the environment, keep Social Security
and Medicare in place, form an alliance with minorities to advocate for an expansion of rights
and liberties, to name some of the more visible tenets) and then betray their so called allies
on a regular basis. The self proclaimed Liberals (they can't be by the very definition of the
word) get away with it because the specter of a very much more seriously flawed ilk is very real;
it seems to be the sworn duty of the Republican party to regularly present the sad evil of a lessor
nature. This time around, strategic planning on the part of Trump and total organizational incompetency
on the part of Clinton caused her to throw out her chances. Essentially the Democratic party Centrists
had their 60 year train of bluffs derailed by a clownish charlatan who delights in performing
acts of cruelty and sadism in public.
6. The life of the Party-its enthusiasm, passion, youth, principles, and ideals-was elicited
by Bernie Sanders's campaign. This isn't to denigrate what Hillary Clinton accomplished-she
did, after all, win the popular vote in the presidential election by almost 3 million people.
There's the nub of a major problem; what Hillary Clinton did not accomplish was to win votes
that aligned with the map of each state in terms of the Electoral College.
The map of Michigan shows what I mean; if the reader were to click on the blue counties in
the SE portion of the state and find Washtenaw county one would see Clinton got 68% of the vote
there. In a county that has one of the largest Universities (49,000 students and employees) in
the country, a premier world class hospital system that has 26,000 employees (some overlap with
U of M) and two high schools that in a rarity of aristocratic schooling, sill offer classes in
the art of playing in a symphony orchestra-in such a county we find the heart of so called American
Liberalism. Blue county indeed, blue stocking would be more like it. And I'm ok with all that.
My point is that HRC appealed (Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein did too, the center of the Michigan
Green party is in Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw county seat ) in large part to the people whose demographics
are so clearly delineated in that county. By and large (broad brush here) better educated, situated
in larger urban centers that are the vibrant hubs of the surrounding areas and most of all, people
who are opinion leaders. So in Ann Arbor we have large dollops of college professors, medical
and legal professionals, successful business managers and thousands of college students and millennials
-many of whom followed the lead of the Democratic party into Hillary's camp after Bernie was forced
out by the duplicity of the party leadership. All of whom would have been very deeply engaged
in the political swirl of activity.
Wayne County, where Detroit is located, has some different demographics where the support of
people of Color would be the major force. Hillary's ability to gain support in the African American
community is beyond my comprehension but it does explain what happened in the vote in Detroit.
But the proclivity outside the Large urban centers (Genesee County, Flint, is much like Wayne
County demographically) is steep and we see Clinton lost here as elsewhere across the country.
Clinton lost out and the much ballyhooed Centrist Democrats lost because they did not speak to
the average working class person who lives in dreadful fear of one thing-losing a good paying
job and not having food, housing, clothing, transportation and medical care. Fear driven politics,
as Bernie Sanders pointed out a kajillion times, is not a pretty picture. People Living in a world
of fear is a good thing for Centrists like Clinton and Obama (Trump too) because it makes for
a host of malleable minds open to manipulation.
I disagree with your analysis. In Michigan, Hillary's margin of loss was smaller than the drop-off
in voting in Wayne county (which includes Detroit as well as other urban/suburban cities). What
we saw was closer to a withdrawal of consent by the population. The votes are there for the left
to win by large margins. But the voters must be asked for their votes through policies that provide
tangible benefits. They (we) were already fooled once at the state level and national by a smooth-talking
neoliberal Democrat that only offered more of the same once in office. The only thing that can
turn this around for the Democrats is a discussion of real benefits and proposals that can only
be delivered by government (e.g., single-payer healthcare). I am not sure this is possible in
the "blue" states, where the party apparatus is still strong. I think reform in the Democrat party
will have to start in the "red" states, where the parties have been decimated by neglect.
We know the neoliberal ideology tends to hollow out the middle class.
This is most pronounced in the US where they have embraced the neoliberal ideology the hardest
Let's work out why ..
Everyone has blindly followed Milton Freidman's neo-liberal ideology without thinking .
Trade Fundamentals.
For free trade and an internationally competitive workforce you need a low cost of living so
you can pay similar wages to your competitors.
Reference – The Corn Laws and Laissez-Faire
It's all about the cost of living.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive
with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum
wage.
US (and all Western) labour has been priced out of global labour markets by the high cost of
living.
What did Milton Freidman miss?
The cost of full price services actually has to be paid by businesses in wages.
Milton Freidman took costs off the wealthy and placed them on business.
The West then let massive housing booms roar away raising housing costs through mortgage payments
and rent, these costs have to covered by business in wages.
Student loan costs are rising and again these costs have to covered by business in wages.
2017 – Richest 8 people as wealthy as half of world's population
It is important not to tax the wealthy to provide subsidised housing, education and healthcare
that result in lower wage costs because?
I don't know, you tell me, is it to maintain ridiculous levels of inequality?
Why does the middle class disappear?
The high costs of living in the West necessitates high wages and everything gets off-shored
to maximise profits.
Low paying service sector jobs that cannot be off-shored and highly paid executive and technical
jobs are all that's left, the rest was off-shored, it's the way neo-liberalism works
The middle class disappears.
The populists rise and with a neoliberal left they turn right.
Protectionism, it's the only option, we've made such a mess of it all.
With the hollowed out neo-liberal Western economy the Government has to make up the difference
between low wages and the high cost of living (tax credits UK).
(The private sector option – Payday loans – only 2000% interest UK)
The high levels of unemployment, need high levels of benefits due to the high cost of living.
Government debt soars and you can't recoup it off the wealthy as it wouldn't be neo-liberal.
Trump may not have to worry about NAFTA as the Mexican's have discovered neo-liberalism.
They are removing the subsidies off petrol and foodstuffs, raising the cost of living and minimum
wage.
Mexico's days as a low wage economy are numbered.
If they then have a ridiculous housing boom to inflate housing costs like the West, the cost
of living and the minimum wage will soon be the same in Mexico as the West.
Would voter registration really do much to remedy the situation with the Electoral College?
Wouldn't it be necessary for liberals and progressives en masse to leave their safe spaces in
the blue islands and migrate to red or reddish outposts like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan?
Or is that too horrible to contemplate?
A few years back a libertarian group decided to target one state where they could move in great
numbers to eventually bring about a libertarian paradise. After considerable study and strategizing,
they settled on New Hampshire, a state with a small population already somewhat friendly to libertarian
ideas that could more easily be tipped to a libertarian agenda. The result, however, was underwhelming.
Reich is right, I believe, is saying the Democratic Party must unreservedly advance a very
bold agenda to become a movement. But where is the motivation? As noted, the Iron Law of Institutions
applies. The great majority of Dems with an iron grip on the party mechanisms are happy as clams
with their wonderful combination of virtue signaling and money raking. In fact, right now with
Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling Congress, these Dems are in pretty close
to the ideal situation. With minority status, they and their filthy corporate, financial and Big
Pharma donors can virtue signal all the more flamboyantly and rest completely assured that they'll
never actually have to implement anything. Perfect!
Meanwhile, the rest of us can fritter away our time believing that there is an "inside game"
in the party when, in fact, there is no such possibility.
Catullus 76?! I don't think so, Lambert. I know my Latin is extremely rusty, but I see nothing
there that could lead to that translation. As for what I do see, this is a family blog.
But now I really wish you could come up with the source of what you quoted.
Oy vey already . . . :-) worn down from the march?
Step up yer game Katharine, are you tired?
(that's a Catullus-like line, here's another . . .)
What heavy signs and roars exhausted you,
(and another . . .)
When, with that great sexist Queen, Madonna
You hurled curses that would make a whore flinch
haha ahhahahahahha ahahahahha. I have one more cupcake to eat today!
this is what I get Googling. It in fact is the 15th and 16th lines! no kidding . . . also it's
not at all a porno piece (not that he wasn't capable of that), but if you read the English translation
it's very very spiritual.
Carmen 76 (in Latin by Catullus) Listen to 76 in Latin
<>
Available in Latin, Brazilian Port., Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish,
French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Rioplatense, Scanned, and Vercellese. Compare two
languages here. Listen to this text here.
Siqua recordanti benefacta priors voluptas
est homini, cum se cogitat esse pium,
nec sanctum violasse fidem, nec foedere nullo
divum ad fallendos numine abusum homines,
multa parata manent in longa aetate, Catulle,
ex hoc ingrato gaudia amore tibi.
Nam quaecumque homines bene cuiquam aut dicere possunt
aut facere, haec a te dictaque factaque sunt.
Omnia quae ingratae perierunt credita menti.
Quare iam te cur amplius excrucies?
Quin tu animo offirmas atque istinc te ipse reducis,
et dis invitis desinis esse miser?
Difficile est longum subito deponere amorem,
difficile est, verum hoc qualubet eficias:
una salus haec est, hoc est tibi pervincendum,
hoc facias, sive id non pote sive pote.
O di, si vestrum est misereri, aut si quibus umquam
extremam iam ipsa in morte tulistis opem,
me miserum aspicite et, si vitam puriter egi,
eripite hanc pestem perniciemque mihi,
quae mihi subrepens imos ut torpor in artus
expulit ex omni pectore laetitias.
Non iam illud quaero, contra me ut diligat illa,
aut, quod non potis est, esse pudica velit:
ipse valere opto et taetrum hunc deponere morbum.
O di, redite mi hoc pro pietate mea.
Many thank yous! My copy was apparently produced by one of those dratted editors who think
they know a better organization, and his 76 starts and ends, "Paedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,"
which the notes quaintly explain as "colloquial expressions of no particular force." You can see
why I was at sea!
Now I'm going to have to find a source with conventional order and annotate this book so I'm
not cast adrift again.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064300
FDR had to work to purge the Democratic party to change it from a half reactionary planters party
into a progressive party. The Sanders rump will have to do the same, the leadership needs to be
torn to shreds, neolibs and republicans in sheeps clothing like Tim Kaine need to be flushed down
massive toilets. Or the party is dead, like the British Labour party
From the link–perhaps why you haven't heard of it.
the purge failed, at great political cost to the president
Since I grew up around here I'm not sure when the South has ever been purged of conservatives.
Now days however they are more interested in being toadies to big business than in getting out
the fire hoses. It took other presidents to moderate the race problem.
Maybe a re-brand, led by Bernie, with a very simple few point platform, and then recruiting
candidates at local, county, state and national level to pledge to tow the line (Think Tea Party
or Occupy Wall Street becomes Occupy Elected Positions (for real small D democratic reform.)
I'm OK with America first- I'd love to occupy fewer nations in the Mideast, stop killing brown
folks, park the drone fleet, have health CARE (not insurance) for all where all pay in and all
can benefit, lower-carbon renewable energy, income tax reform, re-instating the draft as national
service, and converting the military back to a department of defense, amongst other bigger ideas.
I think 'we' have about 14 months to get it together and going.
And I think that's a message that absolutely resonantes. I can talk to old folks who've been
indoctrinated by fox news and younger people who just haven't read anything and so believe in
alt right foolishness, and we can all agree on basic principles. People need decent food, housing,
good education for their children, and jobs they can do with dignity.
What is the current democratic party offering to meet that criteria? If you're so poor you
can't afford to drop a penny in a crack in the sidewalk you'll be put on an (X)year wait list
for subsidized housing? If you're poor and can't find a job we can put you on the shadow welfare
system, disability. But if you find a job, you have to pay us back. You can have a pittance in
food stamps if you've got no bread. As for the jobs, that's a big middle finger, go take a 4.5
hour round trip bus ride to work in amazon warehouse, loser. I have friends who work in the social
services and as they report it, things are grim.
It's not a winning program, it's not an adequate program, it's basically a social safety net
tuned to be as painful and minimal as possible while still meeting some definitional criteria.
Most people would also like to stop destroying random countries for the profit of about 18
people.
Tearing the leadership to shreds appears to be the only solution, but is it even possible today,
given that FDR had a massive and immediate economic crisis to force the change?
When anyone casts about for "Progressive"(trademarked, Democratic party) Democrats, the same
few names come up: Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, who in their support of H Clinton and Obama's
policies look more establishment than progressive.
My concern is the only lesson the current crop of Democrats will learn from the shutting down
of the Clinton Foundation is that their "personal wealth opportunity window" is closing as their
power to deliver the goods to the elite is quite weakened.
One can visualize them doubling down to become even more neolib than before while giving Obama
like fiery speeches to their supporters.
The Democrats have no bench depth. They don't have a second team ready to play a different
game.
Today's dem party planter class still likes the sharecropper system of labor relations. It's
just been repacked as the gig economy or tracked relentlessly like amazon's warehouse workers.
Regardless of the issues and frailty of the Democratic party what keeps me up at night is realizing
that the very process of democracy is at great risk. The aggressive free press/media that would
need to fight for the truth has been whittled away over the years and fears their corporate masters.
Now we have a President and Press Secretary who call every fact that goes against their intentions
'fake news' and from what I can tell their supporters simply believe them. Years of a weak press
and unchallenged Fox News and talk radio have set the stage for this. The blatant lies about the
numbers in attendance for the inauguration told by Trump and his Press Secretary and the refusal
of the later to take any questions, sets the stage for a leader who will do and say anything and
dismiss any facts or contrary opinions as invalid and 'fake'. With a President enamored with Oligarchy
who has no concern for ethics or earned respect and Republicans having dominance in Congress (and
the usual love for power at any cost) how is actual democracy going to function. Are there actually
any remaining checks and balances?
Let me terrify you some more. Half of Clinton supporters (per YouGov poll, link on request)
believe that the Russians were responsible for ballot tampering in 2016, for which there's
no evidence at all. And all it took was a few months of propaganda. That epistemic closure on
the liberal side is as readily produced as it has been on the conservative side is what keeps
me up at night. Why, I'm so old I remember when "progressives" (whoever, in retrospect,
they were) called themselves "the reality-based community."
Our 'centrist' mainstream media has always happily lied in service of war and fear, but the
shift to fox news stylehysteria based on nothing, nothing at all, is shameful and might just kill
it. Or maybe not, maybe it's good for ratings
1) corp media credibilty at record lows.
2) republicans i've met don't like sanders, but often respect him and find him honest.
3) republicans defending wikileaks and calling intel agencies filthy liars.
All these things make the next war a MUCH harder sell!!!
There are a lot of young, charged up young lions and lionnesses ready to tear the democratic
party to shreds and build a peoples party. This big march is a demonstration that the country
doesn't want the explicit rule of oligarchy. It's up to us (cliche) to actually organize, actually
support real left candidates for public office, from the city council of the smallest town all
the way to the senate.
Megacorps need to be afraid, they need to put 100% of their money in the republican party,
because some ferocious democrats are going to grab whatever's left over in the dirty money jar
and spend it to chop their legs out.
Alt Golden Rule: money determines policy. Unless Citizens United is reversed and elections
become a public service as intended, there will be no substantial change for the public's benefit.
With Republicans in control of Congress, this constitutional crisis won't be resolved. Due to
human shortsighted folly, the Revolution belongs to Nature.
My in-laws live in south-western New York and north-western Pennsylvania, basically in the
same place that their Swedish and German ancestors settled in the mid-1800's. Our cousin still
farms the same acres that his family purchased in 1863. My brother-in-law works for the county,
mending roads in summer, snow-plowing through the nights of 'lake-effect' snow in winter. They
both voted for Trump.
When I talked to my brother-in-law, back last May, he told me he was making the same amount
of money his Dad (a union trucker) had made, just before his retirement. He and his county co-workers
have been squeezed for the last decade; 'austerity' has resulted in them doing more work with
fewer people. He now rides alone, without a 'wingman', during the long dark nights of plowing
on icy county roads. He has seen no help, no sympathy even, from the Democrats. He liked what
he had heard about Bernie Sanders, but, by his own admission, didn't know that much about him
(thank you CNN for bloviating about Trump, 24/7). He felt that Trump was listening.
Our cousin, the farmer, serves as an elected supervisor for his township. He, like many farmers,
is deeply conservative and a hereditary Republican. Last weekend, on our usual Sunday night phone
conversation, he expressed his horror that the county commissioners had paid $60,000 to hire a
lobbyist to represent their county (not a wealthy one) at the state capitol. His comment: isn't
this what we elect our state legislator to do? He then went on to talk about the big topic of
the day in the township, the spraying of township roads (all dirt) with saline solution to keep
the dust down in summer. Turns out the 'saline solution' is waste fracking fluid, water combined
with unknown chemicals. People living along the treated roads have been complaining that they
don't want this chemically-laced water sprayed on their doorsteps and our cousin agrees with them.
If they don't want it, don't do it.
I have always considered myself a Democrat; but I find myself in agreement on so many points
with my in-laws who voted for Trump. A society has to give more respect, monetary as well as moral,
to the workers who keep our roads repaired and free of snow; they perform a social good that keeps
our economy humming. You can't keep on squeezing them and then recoil in horror when they vote
for someone who says he feels their pain.
Our cousin is a family farmer, he conserves the land in the best possible way; he provides
local food; veggies, fruits, eggs and meat. He is concerned about soil and water, the basics of
life. He is trying to compete with corporate agri-businesses. He wants elected officials to do
their job and represent their constituents. He has seen no help from the Democrats but, frankly,
is not particularly sanguine about Trump.
And then, at dinner last week, with a group of friends, most of whom are mid-Western conservatives,
one of the women, usually quiet, started talking about the Ox-Fam report and how terrible it was
that only a few billionaires had as much money as the poorest half of the population. Another
friend, also conservative, countered with the usual, I suppose you want everyone to make $65,000
a year, but she was quickly silenced by the others who took the position that no one 'needs' compensation
of $18 million.
So, the fractures are appearing, the narrative of the 1% is horrifying even the free-market
conservatives. We're all getting tossed about in the big caldera formed by the disappearing legitimacy
of the governing classes. If we can ignore the old divisive labels of republican, democrat, liberal,
conservative, right, left, and begin to coalesce around a few major agreements; healthy communities
with resources for people to have adequate food, shelter, clothing and education and satisfying
work; clean air and water and productive soils that provide local food . we have the opportunity
to form a new political party. Or, maybe a couple of parties.
But, reform the Democratic party? From what I have seen of our local establishment Dems, they
are more concerned with holding on to their pitiful positions of power than they are with crafting
a Sanders-like platform. They can no more envision crossing lines and allying with disaffected
Republicans than they can see themselves shape-shifting.
Thanks for taking the time to post your really thoughtful comment.
I think in this American election, especially with the Democratic primary, a lot of progressive
voters (not just in the States) woke up to what was really going on. That the DNC was deeply corrupt
and that democracy is only a very thin facade.
Half the country, well closet to 2/3 on electoral basis , and thats what counts, voted for
someone like trump over clinton. The democrats and media is still in denial over WHY.
So nothing will change.
Whining like petchulant children.
Liberalism..too far..
The nation was not born without great pain, and what will emerge from its remnants over the
next century will resemble what we know no more than the infant U.S. in its day resembled the
British Empire. Those who sit and wait for reform of irrelevant institutions (let's start with
our "three branches") will still be waiting in ten years. Their ship has sailed, with or without
them. Whether for better or for worse remains a destiny to be found out for, and by, every individual.
Lambert nails it in the intro. Quite a few of us Bernie Bros, like me, happily voted for Trump.
It was worth every minute of his doubtless corrupt and incompetent reign to see the vile Clinton
machine go down like a flaming Zeppelin. From the ruins will emerge a new Democratic Party. once
the OWS kids are all out of grad school and ready to take charge of their new world.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz standing next to Kamala Harris on the podium at yesterday's march
does not bode well for the future of the Clinton gutted and failing Democratic party. She didn't
get to speak but she had slithered her way on the stage. The Democratic party will have to be
pried out of their cold dead hands or abandoned.
For those well versed in political science, when does political theatre evolve into a genuine
political action-successful or not? In America, there is an atmosphere of unreality to most political
protest. A sense that everyone is playing their particular part in a scripted drama. The desire
for self preservation steers dissenters into embracing these scripted roles. Marching in "designated
protest areas" and feeling the satisfaction of being arrested for the "cause" have proven ineffectual
and can be seen as actually counterproductive, as the fake moral courage acquired by these actions
are often used as a cudgel to beat down those who see this type of effort as pointless. These
efforts only use display to challenge power, while leaving the underlying structure and ideology
intact.
A new manifesto must be written and circulated for the current age, allowing individuals to
subscribe to stated goals or not. Reich's 7 points elude to this idea of proclamation, but come
off instead as a hapless plea. Those trying to resist the status quo are hopelessly stuck in trying
to change the minds of the oppressors instead of rallying the oppressed to a new vision. Inequality
and loss of opportunity must be addressed and those in power must be held to proclaiming their
stand on the issue. Currently, they are allowed to lie or just not answer the question. This also
explains much about the current Russia mania. The failures of capitalism must be obfuscated and
alternatives quashed at all costs- period. For what does Russia stand for if not an alternative
to capitalism. The anti-socialism and anti-communism conditioning will enter overdrive.
Taking land and occupying it either directly or indirectly has always been the way to forge
human societies or pull them apart. In the larger sense, finding ways to take and hold ground
for use to a particular end is the foundation of power. Labor has been made passive in America.
Labor not exercising its right to strike and boycott is powerless in the face of owners overwhelming
use of force and violence. Compromise positions don't work as proven out by our current situation.
Fake opposition and desperately hanging onto utopian notions of a "fair and equal" capitalism,
only allow the status quo to remain so.
It seems capitalist evolution has a good chance in leading to a delusional authoritarian dystopia.
A world in which everything is turned into a commodity worthy of exchange for profit. The needs
of the time have so far outrun the political process that some drastic event seems the only way
of breaking the stalemate.
Democrats and protestors in pussy hats, dont realize that the half of country that voted for
Trump, hasnt begin to get aroused and angry yet. They are the half that pays for 90% of taxes,
and they also have guns, which the liberals dont.
Many Democrats disparaged poor Republican voters over the recent election cycle and you respond
by disparaging the Democratic base as predominantly poor? Do you think this is a good strategy?
The current dregs that make up the Democratic party are people who have neither ideals nor
courage. That's why Bernie looked so good compared to them, but when push came to shove, Bernie's
guts and idealism went AWOL. None of these people will ever be transformed or transform themselves
into something other than loathsome non-entities. The same is true of the Republican party, but
while it is much hated by the public, the same public keeps them in power because they appear
less loathsome than the Democrats. But any notion that the Republican establishment had a lock
on all those people who vote for them was torn to shreds by Trump, and to a lesser extent, by
his fellow non-establishment-sanctioned candidate Cruz.
The Democrats will not fix themselves. Possibly the remains of the party apparatus will be
taken over, Trump style, by some capable demagogue who can fire up the voters. We can hope that
whoever this may be it will be an improvement over our current prospects. A slim hope indeed,
but despair is lousy option too,
Oh, bullshit. As we've said over and over, Sanders did exactly what he promised he would do.
If you didn't read the packaging before buying the product, that's on you. And if you thought
you were getting a savior instead of the best alternative, that's on you too. I'm sick of the
whinging on this, not only because it's untrue, but because its disempowering.
I was pretty disappointed at the extent to which he campaigned for her, especially as Dnc leaks
emerged, but I'm over it. He's clearly critically needed now to push progressive agenda forward.
I do wish he would speak mor for single payer and less for Obamacare as reps struggle mightily
for a way to repeal the latter without angering the part of their base that has no alternative,
there may be a real opening for something better how about this compromise; the group with greatest
need is elderly under 65, maybe drop age to 55, get nose further under tent.
And non health corps should support, reduces health care costs to corps that do provide coverage,
plus covering sickest workers cuts overall costs of covering a work force so encourages corps
that don't to begin covering workers this last bit might mollify insurance a little, maybe give
extra tax break to corps that cover. Some cuts to corp taxes better than others
And a 50-year old will see a benefit that kicks in pretty soon, he'll like the change even though
it doesn't yet affect him. Trump demographics
How about a list of the top 100 opportunities for progressive candidates, whether the hopefully
vulnerable neolib opponent is dem or rep?
To my mind, Reich's #4 doesn't go far enough. If the Democrats want to get serious about radical
reform, they need to completely forswear the cultivation of "major donors," and rely on small
donations. Sanders' campaign showed it can be done; there is no reason it should not be a sine
qua non of running as a Democrat going forward.
I agree completely. Of course, that would make it harder for lizards like Brock to sun themselves
as shindigs for donors in Florida, but maybe Brock would consider taking one for the team.
Many good points but I would say #5 is the most important. Instead what I'm getting from major
media & many Dems is the same garbage they've been giving us all along. Be nice if they were actually
FOR something.
Trump or Hillary? Wrong question. Rather, we need to realize that in so far as it is the choice
the leaders propose, it is a trap, which now we cannot escape but from which we can take instruction
for the future. In the liberal culture in which we have all been educated-Republicans or Democrats–we
are used to looking for saviors from above. We attach ourselves to the powerful. We look upward
for emancipation, but radical change and democratization come from below. That's where the hardness
is, but that's what scares us. We are soft because we don't know our own strength, and as long
as we don't know it, we are subjects–not citizens.
We should see in both the Trump and the Sanders partisan defections from the mainstream parties
the glimmer of a potential-in fact, a necessity–of organizing a party of the people. We could
even call it Party of the Basket of Deplorables, for if we exclude the "messy masses" (the term
Marx and Engels used, to mock the contempt in which they were held by the arrogant elite), we
admit that democracy hasn't a prayer. They are "messed up," but are they to blame, who have ceased
to matter, or even exist, on the front of the class war that has been launched against democracy-that
is, against us all?
The color line must be erased. That is an imperative for unity. In America, racism is the endemic,
the recurring plague. It is the root of our political disunity. So that is the first task: educate
it out of existence. Engels, who shared his life with Mary Burns, Irish Republican radical, well
understood the racism against the Irish pervading the English working class. This was no mere
psychological disorder. It arose because the manufacturers of the Midlands imported Irish labor
as scabs to break strikes. Nevertheless he saw in the English working class the strength required
for a social revolution:
"England exhibits the noteworthy fact that the lower a class stands in society and the more
'uneducated' it is in the usual sense of the word, the closer is its relation to progress and
the greater is its future." – snip
How are British/Irish conflicts even remotely racist? I appreciate the mutual hostility,
but how could they even tell each other apart, other than relatively minor speech patterns and
social habits? That's hardly racism. Your larger point is well taken, but race and class issues
in the US are a bit more entrenched and complicated than your analogy might suggest. By design,
I think.
The "relatively minor speech patterns" would have entirely sufficed to make the distinction.
There are parts of the world where people from towns only a few miles apart can be distinguished
through fairly minor intonational differences. See also the history of the word "shibboleth."
Indeed, there's little direct antagonism between the English and the Irish today and hasn't
been for a long time. By contrast, the "racism" discourse in the US seems to persist because it
serves the political interests of certain groups. Most of the rest of the world has gone beyond
this way of thinking and I'm always surprised the US is so far behind.
The main street media has us in a vice grip where they say they can not properly cover more
than 2 parties. (!!??) This 2 party system is bursting at the seams where every election is a
tie or hairsbreadth away from a tie. As long as we keep electing the same people, the democrats
are going nowhere, and their neolib philosophy will hang on to the every end – because it pays.
They don't care that they're going to hell.
"The Party's moneyed establishment-big donors, major lobbyists, retired members of Congress
who have become bundlers and lobbyists-are part of the problem."
Well . . . the millions of eager members of the Klinton Koolaid Kult are also a problem. They
will never ever vote for a Sanders figure. Never ever. They will nourish their lust for vengeance
against the Sanders primary voters and workers for decades to come.
Just go read a blog findable under the words Riverdaughter The Confluence and read the comments
and you will see what I mean. Put your nose up real close to the screen so you can smelllll the
Klintonism.
In June, 1858, in one of the great speeches in the history of our country and our politics,
Lincoln declared, quoting the New Testament, and in the teeth of the undeniable and unresolvable
antagonism between pro and anti-slavery citizens, that "A house divided against itself cannot
stand."
Lincoln's hope was that this country would not "dissolve". But at the same time he foresaw
the inevitably of civil war as the only realistic albeit tragic way in which an America divided
on grounds as fundamental as slavery for some versus (political) freedom for all, could resolve
its "crisis" and "cease to be divided".
For Lincoln there was no other alternative. There are many times when inhabitants of the "house"
disagree. Such is to be expected and disagreements are normally resolved sooner or later. The
house endures. But there are those other (rare) times when "agitation has not only not ceased,
but has constantly augmented". A "crisis" is reached, and eventually the nation "will become all
one thing or all the other." Civil war cruelly declares a victor and a loser.
There was no way to compromise. The deepest narratives by which each side, pro-slavery and
pro-"freedom" (Lincoln's word), understood the meaning of the American Republic, the great Enlightenment-inspired
experiment in representative democratic government, and ultimately what it means to live in community,
organize ourselves politically, socially, economically, and what counts to being a human person,
were mutually exclusive. How do you "negotiate" away this conflict? How do you dialectically transcend
it? Either the laborer in our cotton fields and plantation households is a human person or not.
When the organization of society depends on how we answer explicitly in argument and slogan or
implicitly in our unquestioned assumptions, questions about the origins and purposes of life itself,
war could only appear to Lincoln as inevitable, even if he refused at this point (1858) to come
right out and say it.
A question for us to think about: When, since the time of Lincoln, slavery, and the Civil War,
has America been as fundamentally divided as it is now, today, 2017? When have the basic stories
that we tell ourselves and that we have assimilated into our habits of head and heart, been more
deeply and irreconcilably opposed? Where and what is the dialectical resolution between coastal
cosmopolitans chasing a "good life" understood as an ever expanding, protected, and affirmed "market"
for individual choice and self- inventing "lifestyles", and the flyover country provincials living
in communities devastated by the corrosive solvency of aggressive finance capital on the make,
weakened by disappearing communities, impotent traditions, mocked religion, broken families, and
constant anxiety about providing the daily bread? And when have the imaginations of those so opposed
been less able to conceive workable solutions that embrace both sides? Are there solutions that
are able to embrace both sides?
Can the institution of representative democracy, arguably a product of the Age of Reason with
its belief in "nature and nature's God" and the "inalienable natural rights" that can be discovered
by the enlightened human intellect, survive in post-Enlightenment post-modernism with its hermeneutics
of suspicion in which there are no admitted "facts", no unifying "truths", and "right" is a function
of "might", the Will to Power.
It's urgent Democrats stop squabbling and recognize seven
basic truths:
1. The Party is on life support. Democrats are in the
minority in both the House and Senate, with no end in sight.
Since the start of the Obama Administration they've lost
1,034 state and federal seats. They hold only governorships,
and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. No
one speaks for the party as a whole. The Party's top leaders
are aging, and the back bench is thin.
The future is bleak unless the Party radically reforms
itself. If Republicans do well in the 2018 midterms, they'll
control Congress and the Supreme Court for years. If they
continue to hold most statehouses, they could entrench
themselves for a generation.
2. We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most
powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the
status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep
and profound distrust of elites, including the current power
structure of America.
That force propelled Donald Trump into the White House. He
represents the authoritarian side of populism. Bernie
Sanders's primary campaign represented the progressive side.
The question hovering over America's future is which form
of populism will ultimately prevail. At some point,
hopefully, Trump voters will discover they've been
hoodwinked. Even in its purist form, authoritarian populism
doesn't work because it destroys democracy. Democrats must
offer the alternative.
3. The economy is not working for most Americans. The
economic data show lower unemployment and higher wages than
eight years ago, but the typical family is still poorer today
than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation; median weekly
earning are no higher than in 2000; a large number of
working-age people-mostly men-have dropped out of the labor
force altogether; and job insecurity is endemic.
Inequality is wider and its consequences more savage in
America than in any other advanced nation.
4. The Party's moneyed establishment-big donors, major
lobbyists, retired members of Congress who have become
bundlers and lobbyists-are part of the problem. Even though
many consider themselves "liberal" and don't recoil from an
active government, their preferred remedies spare
corporations and the wealthiest from making any sacrifices.
The moneyed interests in the Party allowed the
deregulation of Wall Street and then encouraged the bailout
of the Street. They're barely concerned about the growth of
tax havens, inside trading, increasing market power in major
industries (pharmaceuticals, telecom, airlines, private
health insurers, food processors, finance, even high tech),
and widening inequality.
Meanwhile, they've allowed labor unions to shrink to near
irrelevance. Unionized workers used to be the ground troops
of the Democratic Party. In the 1950s, more than a third of
all private-sector workers were unionized; today, fewer than
7 percent are.
5. It's not enough for Democrats to be "against Trump,"
and defend the status quo. Democrats have to fight like hell
against regressive policies Trump wants to put in place, but
Democrats also need to fight for a bold vision of what the
nation must achieve-like expanding Social Security, and
financing the expansion by raising the cap on income subject
to Social Security taxes; Medicare for all; and world-class
free public education for all.
And Democrats must diligently seek to establish
countervailing power-stronger trade unions, community banks,
more incentives for employee ownership and small businesses,
and electoral reforms that get big money out of politics and
expand the right to vote.
6. The life of the Party-its enthusiasm, passion, youth,
principles, and ideals-was elicited by Bernie Sanders's
campaign. This isn't to denigrate what Hillary Clinton
accomplished-she did, after all, win the popular vote in the
presidential election by almost 3 million people. It's only
to recognize what all of us witnessed: the huge outpouring of
excitement that Bernie's campaign inspired, especially from
the young. This is the future of the Democratic Party.
7. The Party must change from being a giant fundraising
machine to a movement.It needs to unite the poor, working
class, and middle class, black and white-who haven't had a
raise in 30 years, and who feel angry, powerless, and
disenfranchised.
Cruising all my lefty bookmarked sites, this is the only one
(Reich's bog) that comes even close to saying the Democratic
Party is risking permanent irrelevance unless sufficient
grass roots anger topples the leadership wholesale and
rebuilds from the bottom.
That's what happened to the Republican party. Trump toppled
the establishment by tapping into people's anger about the
"carnage." Now we'll see what he actually does. I don't think
think even he knows what he'll do.
Meanwhile establishment
Democrats deny that there is any carnage.
Brexit and Trump only happened b/c of a weird uptick in
racism and sexism. B/c of social media.
Bernie Sanders just said on CBS that he is ready to work with Trump on
1) lowering drug prices by purchasing drugs from abroad and Medicare negotiate prices
2) infrastructure projects
3) better trade deals
Lets see if entrenched interests in the GOP and Democrat party let them work together. My guess
is NOT.
What that would accomplish is lay bare the corruption that is part of both parties.
Let's see if Trump actually wants to do any of those things Sanders wants. In other words will
he "reach across the aisle."
Let's see if Republicans in Congress cooperate.
I think it's unlikely although not impossible (as Krugman etc do)
Trump thinks of himself as a reality TV star. He likes the drama. But he seems to have no interest
in the details of policy. He found the border tax his advisers were floating as too complicated.
"... A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people. ..."
"... I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing. ..."
"... For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world. ..."
"... I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you? ..."
"... Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China. ..."
Nah, Reagan was tragedy, this one is farce.
A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy,
proclaiming its will to represent the people.
Has anyone noticed the creepy banner CNN is using for their coverage? Two general's stars on
a red ribbon? I was struck by it, so I went to CNN's archive to see what they did for the last
two inaugurations. I couldn't find anything like it.
And of course there is the story that his
team wanted a military vehicle parade, e.g. Tanks, mobile missile launchers, etc. How long before
the Don dons a uniform?
I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find
amusing.
kidneystones 01.21.17 at 12:23 am
What I told my own first-year students yesterday:
For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see
the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to
2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy.
Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of
America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world.
I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking
office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary
wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin
supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want
a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you?
Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing
countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.
We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a
president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China.
He's not interested in what goes on in other people's countries. He wants to mind his own business.
He wants to get rich and become as famous as possible. We don't know what will happen, but for
the first time in a very long time Americans have elected a president who does not want to attack
other countries.
We are not looking at a new US war in the Middle East for the first time in a very long time.
That doesn't mean the war won't happen. Americans love bombing people. But I'm immensely pleased
Hillary Clinton is not fighting more wars in the Middle East, and that for the first time in a
very long time Americans seem to have decided to leave the rest of us live our lives in peace.
Listen and you can hear the sneering "elite" liberal left narrative about how
the big dumb white working class is about to get screwed over by the incoming
multi-millionaire- and billionaire-laden Trump administration it voted into
office. Once those poor saps in the white working class wake up to their
moronic mistake, the narrative suggests, they'll come running back to their
supposed friends the Democrats.
Trump Didn't Really Win Over Working
Class America: Clinton Lost it
It's true, of course, that Trump is going to betray white working class
people who voted for him in the hope that he would be a populist champion of
their interests – a hope he mendaciously cultivated. But there are three basic
and related problems with the scornful liberal-left storyline. The first
difficulty is that the notion of a big white proletarian "rustbelt rebellion"
for Trump has been badly oversold. "The real story of the 2016 election," the
left political scientist
Anthony DiMaggio notes
, "is not that Trump won over working class America,
so much as Clinton and the Democrats lost it The decline of Democratic voters
among the working class in 2016 (compared to 2012) was far larger than the
increase in Republican voters during those two elections" If the Democrats had
run Bernie Sanders or someone else with "a meaningful history of seeking to
help the working class," DiMaggio observes, they might well have won.
Populism-Manipulation is a Bipartisan Affair
Second, betraying working class voters (of all colors, by the way) in
service to concentrated wealth and power (the "One Percent" in post-Occupy Wall
Street parlance) is what presidents and other top elected officials from
both
of the reigning capitalist U.S. political parties do. What did the
white and the broader (multiracial) working class experience when the
neoliberal corporate Democrats Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama
held the White House? Abject disloyalty towards egalitarian-sounding campaign
rhetoric and a resumption of (big) business (rule) as usual. An ever-increasing
upward distribution of income, wealth, and power into fewer hands.
It's an old story. In his 1999 book on Bill and Hillary Clinton,
No One Left to Lie To
, the still left Christopher Hitchens
usefully described "the essence of American politics, when distilled," as "the
manipulation of populism by elitism. That elite is most successful," Hitchens
added, "which can claim the heartiest allegiance of the fickle crowd; can
present itself as most 'in touch' with popular concerns; can anticipate the
tides and pulses of public opinion; can, in short, be the least apparently
'elitist.' It is no great distance from Huey Long's robust cry of 'Every man a
king' to the insipid 'inclusiveness' of [Bill Clinton's slogan] 'Putting People
First,' but the smarter elite managers have learned in the interlude that
solid, measurable pledges have to be distinguished by a reserve' tag that
earmarks them for the bankrollers and backers."
True, the Republicans don't manipulate populism in the same way as the
Democrats. The dismal, dollar-drenched Dems don the outwardly liberal and
diverse, many-colored cloak of slick, Hollywood- , Silicon Valley-, Ivy
League-and Upper West Side-approved bicoastal multiculturalism. The radically
regressive and reactionary Republicans connect their manipulation more to
white "heartland" nationalism, sexism, hyper-masculinism, nativism, evangelism,
family values, and (to be honest) racism.
But in both versions, that of the Democrats and that of the Republicans,
Goldman Sachs (and Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America et al.) always
prevails. The "bankrollers and bankers"
atop
the Deep State
continue to reign. The nation's unelected deep
state dictatorship of money (UDSDoM, UDoM for short) continues to call the
shots. That was certainly true under the
arch-neoliberal
Barack Obama
, whose relentless service to the nation's economic
ruling class has been amply documented by numerous journalists, authors (the
present
writer included
) and academics.
Obama ascended to the White House with record-setting Wall Street
contributions. He governed accordingly, from the staffing of his
administration (chock full of revolving door operatives from elite financial
institutions) to the policies he advanced – and the ones he didn't, like (to
name a handful) a financial transaction tax, the re-legalization of union
organizing, single-payer health insurance, a health insurance public option,
tough conditions on bankers receiving bailout money, and the prosecution of a
single Wall Street executive for the excesses that created the financial
meltdown.
Anyone who thinks that any of that might have changed to any significant
degree under a Hillary Clinton presidency is living in a fantasy world. She
gave
every indication
that a president Clinton 45 would be every bit as friendly
to the finance-led corporate establishment (the UDoM) as the arch-neoliberal
Cliinton42 and Obama44 presidencies. She was Wall Street's
golden/Goldman/Citigroup girl.
We are Not the 99 Percent
Third, elite liberals and left liberals often miss a key point on who white
(and nonwhite) working class people most directly interact when it comes to the
infliction of what the sociologist Richard Sennett called "
the
hidden injuries of class
." It is through regular contact with the
professional and managerial class, not the mostly invisible corporate and
financial elite, that the working class mostly commonly experiences class
inequality and oppression in America.
Working people might see hyper-opulent "rich bastards" like Trump, Bill
Gates, and even Warren Buffett on television. In their real lives, they carry
out "ridiculous orders" and receive "idiotic" reprimands from middle- and upper
middle-class coordinators-from, to quote a white university maintenance worker
I spoke with last summer, "know-it-all pencil-pushers who don't give a flying
fuck about regular working guys like me."
This worker voted for Trump "just to piss-off all the big shot (professional
class) liberals" he perceived as constantly disrespecting and pushing him
around.
It is not lost on the white working class that much of this managerial and
professional class "elite" tends to align with the Democratic Party and its
purported liberal and multicultural, cosmopolitan, and environmentalist values.
It doesn't help that the professional and managerial "elites" are often with
the politically correct multiculturalism and the environmentalism that many
white workers (actually) have (unpleasant as this might be to acknowledge) some
rational economic and other reasons to see as a threat to their living
standards, status, and well-being.
The
Green
Party
leader and Teamster union activist Howie Hawkins put it very
well last summer. "The Democratic Party ideology is the ideology of the
professional class," Hawkins said. "Meritocratic competition. Do well in
school, get well-rewarded." (Unfortunately, perhaps, his comment reminds me of
the bumper sticker slogan I've seen on the back of more than a few beat-up cars
in factory parking lots and trailer parks over the years: "My Kid Beat Up Your
Honor Student.") "The biggest threat to the Democrats isn't losing votes to the
Greens," Hawkins noted. It is losing votes to Trump, who "sounds like he's mad
at the system. So they throw a protest vote to him."
The white maintenance worker is certainly going to get screwed by Trump's
corporate presidency. You can take that to the bank. He would also have gotten
shafted by Hillary's corporate presidency if she had won. You can take that
down to your favorite financial institution too. And the worker's anger at all
the "big shots" with their Hillary and Obama bumper stickers on the back of
their Volvos and Audis and Priuses is not based merely on some foolish and
"uneducated" failure to perceive his common interests with the rest of the "99
percent" against the top hundredth.
We are the 99 Percent, except, well, we're not. Among other things, a
two-class model of America deletes the massive disparities that exist between
the working-class majority of Americans and the nation's professional and
managerial class. In the U.S. as across the world capitalist system, ordinary
working people suffer not just from the elite private and profit-seeking
capitalist ownership of workplace and society. They also confront the stark
oppression inherent in what left economists Robin Hahnel and Mike Albert call
the "corporate division of labor"-an alienating, de-humanizing, and
hierarchical subdivision of tasks "in which a few workers have excellent
conditions and empowering circumstances, many fall well below that, and most
workers have essentially no power at all."
Over time, this pecking order hardens "into a broad and pervasive class
division" whereby one class - roughly the top fifth of the workforce -"controls
its own circumstances and the circumstances of others below," while another
(the working class) "obeys orders and gets what its members can eke out." The
"coordinator class," Albert notes, "looks down on workers as instruments with
which to get jobs done. It engages workers paternally, seeing them as needing
guidance and oversight and as lacking the finer human qualities that justify
both autonomous input and the higher incomes needed to support more expensive
tastes." That sparks no small working class resentment.
It comes with ballot box implications. Many white workers will "vote against
their pocketbook interests" by embracing a viciously noxious and
super-oligarchic Republican over a supposedly liberal (neoliberal) Democrat
backed by middle- and upper middle- class elites who contemptuously lord it
over those workers daily. The negative attention that dreadful Republican
(Trump) gets from "elite" upper-middle class talking heads in corporate media
often just reinforces that ugly attachment.
2016: Hate Trumped Hate
It doesn't help the Democrats when their top candidates channel elitist
contempt of the working in their campaign rhetoric. Here's how the
silver-tongued Harvard Law graduate
Obama referred to white working-class voters
in old blue-collar towns
decimated by industrial job losses in the early spring of 2008: "They get
bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like
them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain
their frustrations." Amusingly enough, these reflections were seized on by his
neoliberal compatriot and rival for the Democratic nomination, the Yale Law
graduate Hillary Clinton. She hoped to use Obama's condescending remarks to
resuscitate her flagging campaign against a candidate she now accused of class
snotty-ness. "I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made
about people in small-town America," she said. "His remarks are
elitist
and out of touch." Clinton staffers in North Carolina even gave out stickers
saying "I'm not bitter."
How darkly ironic is to compare that (failed) campaign gambit from nearly
nine years ago with the campaign Hillary ran in 2016! Hillary's latest and
hopefully last campaign was quite consciously and recklessly about contempt for
the white working class. As
John Pilger recently reflected
:
"Today, false symbolism is all. 'Identity' is all. In 2016, Hillary Clinton
stigmatised millions of [white working class and rural – P.S.] voters as 'a
basket of deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -
you name it'. Her abuse was handed out at an LGBT rally as part of her cynical
campaign to win over minorities by abusing a white mostly working-class
majority. Divide and rule, this is called; or identity politics in which race
and gender conceal class, and allow the waging of class war. Trump understood
this."
The "deplorables" comment was a great gift to Trump, whose staffers gave
people buttons saying "I'm an Adorable Deplorable."
Disappointed Hillary voters have chanted "Love Trumps Hate" while marching
against the incoming quasi-fascist president. But, really, the 2016 U.S.
presidential election was
about one kind of hate
– the "heartland"
white nationalist Republican version –
trumping another kind of hate
,
the more bi-coastal and outwardly multicultural and diverse Democratic version.
Let us not forget former Obama campaign manager
David Ploufe's comment
to the
New York Times
last March on how the
Hillary campaign would conduct itself against a Trump candidacy: "hope and
change, not so much; more like hate and castrate."
Meanwhile, the nation's UDoM rules on, whichever party holds nominal power
atop the visible state. Pardon my French, but the working class (of all
colors) is fucked either way.
Goldman Sachs Wins Either Way
We might also think of the essence of American politics as the manipulation
of identity politics – and identity-based hatred – by elitism. Reduced to a
corporate-managed
electorate
(Sheldon Wolin), the citizenry is identity-played by a moneyed
elite that pulls the strings behind the duopoly's candidate-centered spectacles
of faux democracy. As the Left author
Chris
Hedges noted three years ago
, "Both sides of the political spectrum are
manipulated by the same forces. If you're some right-wing Christian zealot in
Georgia, then it's homosexuals and abortion and all these, you know, wedge
issues that are used to whip you up emotionally. If you are a liberal in
Manhattan, it's – you know, they'll be teaching creationism in your schools or
whatever Yet in fact it's just a game, because whether it's Bush or whether
it's Obama, Goldman Sachs always wins. There is no way to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs." (We can update that formulation to say "whether
it's Trump or where it's Hillary.")
For all their claims of concern for ordinary people and beneath all their
claims of bitter, personal, and partisan contempt for their major party
electoral opponents, the Republican and Democratic "elites" are united with the
capitalist "elite" in top-down hatred for the nation's multi-racial
working-class majority.
The resistance movement we need to develop cannot be merely about choosing
one of the two different major party brands of Machiavellian, ruling class
hate. The reigning political organizations are what Upton Sinclair called (in
the original
Appeal to Reason
newspaper version of
The Jungle
)
"two wings of the same bird of prey." We must come out from under both of
those two noxious wings and their obsessive and endless focus on the
quadrennial candidate-centered electoral extravaganzas, which have replaced the
recently closed Ringling Brothers show as the greatest circus in the world. We
cannot fall prey anymore to the reigning message that meaningful democratic
participation consists of going into a voting booth to mark a ballot once every
four years and then going home to (in
Noam Chomsky's words
) "let other [and very rich ] people run the world
[into the ground]."
Join
the debate on Facebook
"... In the face of the enormous political chasm between the 99 percent and the 1 percent, a strategy of elite-led, bipartisan deal-cutting premised on calls for "shared sacrifice" leaves this grossly inequitable economic and political fabric intact. As such, the 99 percent are caught in the vise of small-bore policies from their supposed friends and allies while their opponents encircle them with scorched-earth politics. ..."
"... The Obama administration and much of the leadership of the Democratic Party took extreme care not to upset these basic interests. As a consequence, they squandered an exceptional political opportunity. The financial crisis and the Great Recession were one of those moments when members of the business sector were "stripped naked as leaders and strategists," in the words of Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. The Great Depression was another. ..."
"... As he put the House of Morgan and other bankers on trial, Ferdinand Pecora, chief counsel of the Senate Banking Committee, helped popularize during the age of Al Capone a term not heard today: the "bankster." These hearings compelled Roosevelt to support stricter financial regulation than he might have otherwise. ..."
"... One cannot talk about crime in the streets today without talking about crime in the suites. ..."
"... The political intransigence lavishly on display in the Republican Party - which repeatedly brought Congress to a caustic standstill - obscured how a major segment of the Democratic Party was loath to mount any major challenge to the entrenched financial and political interests that have captured American politics today. ..."
"... For all the bluster about political polarization, the debate over what to do about the economy, the social safety net, and financial regulation - like the elite discussions over what to do about mass incarceration - oscillated within a very narrow range defined by neoliberalism for much of Obama's tenure. Indeed, the president repeatedly bragged that the federal budget for discretionary spending on domestic programs had shrunk under his watch to the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president. ..."
Vast and growing economic inequalities rooted in vast and growing political inequalities are the
preeminent problem facing the United States today. They are the touchstone of many of the major issues
that vex the country - from mass incarceration to mass underemployment to climate change to the economic
recovery of Wall Street but not Main Street and Martin Luther King Street.
In the face of the enormous political chasm between the 99 percent and the 1 percent, a strategy
of elite-led, bipartisan deal-cutting premised on calls for "shared sacrifice" leaves this grossly
inequitable economic and political fabric intact. As such, the 99 percent are caught in the vise
of small-bore policies from their supposed friends and allies while their opponents encircle them
with scorched-earth politics.
The Obama administration and much of the leadership of the Democratic Party took extreme care
not to upset these basic interests. As a consequence, they squandered an exceptional political opportunity.
The financial crisis and the Great Recession were one of those moments when members of the business
sector were "stripped naked as leaders and strategists,"
in the words of Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. The
Great Depression was another.
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office, the Hoover administration was thoroughly
discredited, as was the business sector. FDR recognized that the country was ready for a clean break
with the past, and symbolically and substantively cultivated that sentiment. The break did not come
from FDR alone. Massive numbers of Americans mobilized in unions, women's organizations, veterans'
groups, senior citizen associations, and civil right groups to ensure that the country switched course.
During the Depression, President Roosevelt was forced to broaden the public understanding of crime
to include corporate crime. The Senate's riveting
Pecora hearings during the waning days of the Hoover administration and the start of the Roosevelt
presidency turned a scorching public spotlight on the malfeasance of the corporate sector and its
complicity in sparking the Depression.
As he put the House of Morgan and other bankers on trial, Ferdinand Pecora, chief counsel
of the Senate Banking Committee, helped popularize during the age of Al Capone a term not heard today:
the "bankster." These hearings compelled Roosevelt to support stricter financial regulation than
he might have otherwise.
One cannot talk about crime in the streets today without talking about crime in the suites.
Over the past four decades, the public obsession with getting tougher on street crime coincided with
the retreat of the state in regulating corporate malfeasance - everything from hedge funds to credit
default swaps to workplace safety. Keeping the focus on street crime was a convenient strategy to
shift public attention and resources from crime in the suites to crime in the streets.
As billionaire financier Warren Buffet
quipped
in 2006, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making
war, and we're winning." President Obama's persistent calls during his first term for a politics
that rose above politics and championed "shared sacrifice" denied this reality and demobilized the
public. It thwarted the consolidation of a compelling alternative political vision on which new coalitions
and movements could be forged to challenge fundamental inequalities, including mass imprisonment
and the growing tentacles of the carceral state.
The political intransigence lavishly on display in the Republican Party - which repeatedly
brought Congress to a caustic standstill - obscured how a major segment of the Democratic Party was
loath to mount any major challenge to the entrenched financial and political interests that have
captured American politics today.
For all the bluster about political polarization, the debate over what to do about the economy,
the social safety net, and financial regulation - like the elite discussions over what to do about
mass incarceration - oscillated within a very narrow range defined by neoliberalism for much of Obama's
tenure. Indeed, the president repeatedly bragged that the federal budget for discretionary spending
on domestic programs had shrunk under his watch to the smallest share of the economy since Dwight
Eisenhower was president.
Cannot reconcile
your corporatist, neoliberal, war monger losing to a TV star who suggests we should not tilt with
a nuclear power with insane doctrine defining when peace should be breeched; you say the winner is
'illegitimate' or make up relations with a nationalist leader who does not toe the 'one worlder'
line.
Trump was right to point out
that the Clintons and their allies atop the Democratic National Committee rigged the game against
Bernie.
This rigging was consistent with the neoliberal corporate Democratic Party elite's longstanding
vicious hatred of left-wing of the party and anti-plutocratic populists. They hate and viciously
fight them in the ranks of their pro-Wall Street Party. It's "Clinton Third Way Democrats"
who essentially elected Trump, because Bernie for them is more dangerous than Trump.
The Democratic party became a neoliberal party of top 10% (may be top 20%), the party of bankers
and white collar professionals. "Soft" neoliberals, to distinguish them from "hard" neoliberals
(GOP).
Under Bill Clinton the Democrats have become the party of Financial Oligarchy. At this time
corporate interests were moving to finance as their main activity and that was a very profitable
betrayal for Clintons. They were royally remunerated for that.
Clintons have positioned the Dems as puppets of financial oligarchy and got in return two
major things:
Money for the Party (and themselves)
The ability to control the large part of MSM, which was owned by the same corporations,
who were instrumental in neoliberal takeover of the USA.
When the neoliberal media have to choose between their paymasters and the truth, their paymasters
win every time. Like under Bolshevism, they are soldiers of the Party.
In any case, starting from Clinton Presidency Democratic Party turned into a party of neoliberal
DemoRats and lost any connection with the majority of the USA population.
Like Republicans they now completely depends on "divide and conquer" strategy. Essentially
they became "Republicans light."
And that's why they used "identity wedge" politics to attract African American votes and
minorities (especially woman and sexual minorities; Bill Clinton probably helped to incarcerate
more black males than any other president).
As if Spanish and African-American population as a whole have different economic interests
than white working class and white lower middle class.
So Dems became a party which represents an alliance of neoliberal establishment and minorities,
where minorities are duped again and again (as in Barack Obama "change we can believe in" bait
and switch classic). This dishonest playing of race and gender cards was a trademark of Hillary
Clinton campaign.
See
10 reasons why #DemExit is serious. Getting rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not enough
by Sophia A. McClennen
"... What do you call dumping a Ukraine president? And Qaddafi, blowing up the middle east, and funding al Qaeda? Fraud/treason, both Clinton neocon connections same as Reagan, shruBush and Obama. ..."
"... "In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. "If it wouldn't have been for overt intervention Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term," he said." ..."
"... Google Camp Bonesteel. A large NATO base funded mostly by you to keep Serbia under wraps. Enforcing the Clinton neocon "just peace". With threat of US' brand of expensive high tech mass murder. ..."
"... Democrats voting against legalizing drug imports from Canada (Hall of Shame:) Bennett, Cory Booker, Cantwell, Carper, Casey, Coons, Donnelly, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Menendez, Murray, Tester, and Warner. ..."
"... progressive neoliberals are libertarians and market idolators' lackies that want gays to get their wedding cakes from Christian bakeries. ..."
"... 30000 destroyed e-mails, denying the public access to records. How many felony counts is 30000? Read the Federal Records Act. ..."
What do you call dumping a Ukraine president? And Qaddafi,
blowing up the middle east, and funding al Qaeda?
Fraud/treason, both Clinton neocon connections same as
Reagan, shruBush and Obama.
The recondite democrat bar for traitor is very high.
As arcane as the demo-neolib definition of progressive!
The old saying what's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Well considering all that the Republican party and
leadership has dissed out for 8 years or so. Hey, they need
to be dissed right back. Trump has set the "TONE" that all is
fair as he set the rules, established the rule-book way below
the belt, loves playing in the swamp and slinging mud. He
deserves any and all that gets slung back from in and out of
the swamp, in all global directions! Unfortunately everyone
else will be the only citizens to suffer. He's just way above
the maddening crowd, and protected by all his cronies!
"In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut
off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan
Milosevic from the international system through economic
sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent
millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign
costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment
provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive
factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as
Yugoslav president, according to Levin. "If it wouldn't have
been for overt intervention Milosevic would have been very
likely to have won another term," he said."
Google Camp Bonesteel. A large NATO base funded mostly by you
to keep Serbia under wraps. Enforcing the Clinton neocon
"just peace". With threat of US' brand of expensive high tech
mass murder.
MLK's memory is defiled by the fake liberals grabbing it
for revolting political gain.
Democrats voting against legalizing drug imports from Canada
(Hall of Shame:)
Bennett, Cory Booker, Cantwell, Carper,
Casey, Coons, Donnelly, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Menendez, Murray,
Tester, and Warner.
Presumably many, like Cantwell, are avid supporters of
'free' trade--trade that is rigged in favor of certain
special interests. Legalizing drug imports from Canada would
have hurt the special interests that fund their campaigns.
Considering that Trump and the GOP majority got millions less
votes than their democratic counterparts, one can question
the legitimacy (but not the legality) of the laws they pass -
since they would not represent the will of the people.
I start this sermon with poor pk, and those who of
unsound logic who think he is not jumped the shark poor pk.
John Lewis.......
From Dr King's Vietnam Sermon Apr 1967:
"Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam
because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell
are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis
maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence
becomes betrayal."
The liberals' silence is betrayal! All the democrat
sponsored fake liberal agendas around this holiday remain
damnably silent about the evil that is Clinton/Obama war to
end "unjust peace".
Here is my comment for poor pk, Lewis and the whining
do-over tools:
Last week US drones killed 3 supposed terrorists in Yemen,
they were supposed to be al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
No charges, no jury, no judge.
AQAP is related to the guys Obama is funding to take down
Assad and put Syria in ruinous hate filled group of jihadis
like run amok in Libya.
So silent on deadly evil; but so boisterous about affronts
to gay people wanting nice cakes!
Lewis and his crooked neoliberal ilk have been milking Dr.
King for 50 years!
Hey, if it's politics every pathology from torture to
assassination to bombing civilians is approved. If you did it
as a person, you would be immediately incarcerated. This
nation state worship, or religious worship in many parts of
the world, is infused with pathology. It's in our DNA
apparently. We are over killers par excellence. Only rats are
as good. I'm betting on the rats.
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals
and ethics to stay lawyers."
George R. R. Martin
ilsm :
, -1
poor democrats!
Cannot reconcile your corporatist,
neoliberal, war monger losing to a TV star who suggests we
should not tilt with a nuclear power with insane doctrine
defining when peace should be breeched; you say the winner is
'illegitimate' or make up relations with a nationalist leader
who does not toe the 'one worlder' line.
The Congressional defeat, insured by Democrats, of the proposal by Bernie Sanders to allow the
import of drugs from Canada to lower drug prices in the United States.
'
This is only the beginning of Democrats' appeasement of Trump and Republicans...it will be stunning
to watch how much damage Republicans can do during Trump's first 90 days with only a slim majority
in the Senate. During the first 90 days under Obama, who had a true electoral mandate and big
majorities in both houses, Democrats basically sat on their hands, blaming Republicans for their
unwillingness to do much for the American people.
Ever noticed that marketing costs are 30% of revenue? This is a by product of the monopoly power
in this sector. Dean Baker has often noted we could have the government do the R&D and then have
real competition in manufacturing.
You forgot that those researchers often produce useless or even dangerous drags, which are
inferior to existing. Looks as scams practiced with hypertension drugs.
This rat race for blockbuster drugs is the same as corruption in financial industry.
Actually the industry profile is very relevant but goes in a different direction - if US firms
were compelled to charge market (not monopoly) prices, we would better compete with foreign firms.
Any excuse to charge sky high prices for drugs that don't cost that much to manufacture? If these
monopoly profits were not so high, we would buy more drugs and employ more people.
Do you think we would really buy materially more drugs if prices were lower? Particularly enough
more, at those (30-50%?) lower prices, to generate the funds to employ more people?
(If that actually generated at much or more funds, it would seem like the pharma companies,
seeking to make as much money as possible, would have already set prices at that lower per unit
level.)
In any case, that seems like a LOT more drugs.
Perhaps Anne has data on the number of scripts per person in the US vs OECD.
There are lots of poor people who don't take drugs because they can't afford them. This will become
especially true if the Republican repeal Obamacare.
The point of course is wildly exploiting ordinary people in need of healthcare in every possible
way, or a reflection of what we have come to. Returning now to the market...
Conservative activists in Nashville this week for the first-ever National Tea Party
Convention gave a hero's welcome to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who closed the event
with a speech Saturday night. Palin praised the Tea Party movement and delivered a scathing
- sometimes mocking - critique of both the economic and national security policies of the
Obama administration.
After three days of workshops and speeches by movement leaders far
less well-known, Tea Party convention delegates got to see a bona fide conservative
superstar.
"I am so proud to be an American," she called out to the cheering crowd Saturday night
in a hotel ballroom at the Opryland resort. "Thank you so much for being here tonight. Do
you love your freedom?"
She drew more big cheers when she told Tea Partiers that America is ready for another
revolution.
This was the rare Palin speech these days to be open to the press, and she used the
opportunity to tear into the president. She described his foreign policy as not recognizing
the true threats America faces. She cited the decision to criminally charge the suspect in
the Christmas Day airline bombing attempt as a move that she says puts the country at grave
risk.
"Because that's not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we're
at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief and not a professor of law
standing at the lectern."
On the economy, she accused the White House of pushing a stimulus package that hasn't
created the promised jobs. Millions of dollars have been wasted, she said.
Palin also says the Obama administration has not been transparent, as promised during
the campaign.
"This was all part of that hope and change and transparency. Now, a year later, I gotta
ask the supporters of all that, 'How's that hopey, changey stuff working out?'
Enrique Ferro's insight:
There are signs that the "reports" were written with
some Ukrainian nationalist and anti-semitic background.
Just consider this passage from the July 26 "report":
In terms of the FSB's recruitment of capable cyber
operatives to carry out its, ideally deniable,
offensive cyber operations, a Russian IT specialist
with direct knowledge reported in June 2016 that this
was often done using coercion and blackmail.
In terms
of 'foreign' agents, the FSB was approaching US
citizens of Russian (Jewish) origin on business trips
in Russia.
Such tropes are typical of the anti-semitic
Ukrainian "nationalist" (aka Nazi) narrative.
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
May 23, 2016 6:17 pm 1134
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means,
but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic
supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry
Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support.
The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is
this:
"Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to
attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism,
or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of
the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not
among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men."
The point is not to demonize, but, if you like, to de-angelize.
Like any political movement (including the Democratic Party,
which is, yes, a coalition of interest groups) Sandersism has
been an assemblage of people with a variety of motives, not
all of them pretty. Here's a short list based on my own
encounters:
1.Genuine idealists:
For sure, quite a few Sanders
supporters dream of a better society, and for whatever reason
– maybe just because they're very young – are ready to
dismiss practical arguments about why all their dreams can't
be accomplished in a day.
2.Romantics:
This kind of idealism shades over into
something that's less about changing society than about the
fun and ego gratification of being part of The Movement.
(Those of us who were students in the 60s and early 70s very
much recognize the type.) For a while there – especially for
those who didn't understand delegate math – it felt like a
wonderful joy ride, the scrappy young on the march about to
overthrow the villainous old. But there's a thin line between
love and hate: when reality began to set in, all too many
romantics reacted by descending into bitterness, with angry
claims that they were being cheated.
3.Purists:
A somewhat different strand in the
movement, also familiar to those of us of a certain age,
consists of those for whom political activism is less about
achieving things and more about striking a personal pose.
They are the pure, the unsullied, who reject the corruptions
of this world and all those even slightly tainted – which
means anyone who actually has gotten anything done. Quite a
few Sanders surrogates were Naderites in 2000; the results of
that venture don't bother them, because it was never really
about results, only about affirming personal identity.
4.CDS victims:
Quite a few Sanders supporters are
mainly Clinton-haters, deep in the grip of Clinton
Derangement Syndrome; they know that Hillary is corrupt and
evil, because that's what they hear all the time; they don't
realize that the reason it's what they hear all the time is
that right-wing billionaires have spent more than two decades
promoting that message. Sanders has gotten a number of votes
from conservative Democrats who are voting against her, not
for him, and for sure there are liberal supporters who have
absorbed the same message, even if they don't watch Fox News.
5.Salon des Refuses:
This is a small group in
number, but accounts for a lot of the pro-Sanders commentary,
and is of course something I see a lot. What I'm talking
about here are policy intellectuals who have for whatever
reason been excluded from the inner circles of the Democratic
establishment, and saw Sanders as their ticket to the big
time. They typically hold heterodox views, but those views
don't have much to do with the campaign – sorry, capital
theory disputes from half a century ago aren't relevant to
the debate over health reform. What matters is their outsider
status, which gives them an interest in backing an outsider
candidate – and makes them reluctant to accept it when that
candidate is no longer helping the progressive cause.
So how will this coalition of the not-always disinterested
break once it's over? The genuine idealists will probably
realize that whatever their dreams, Trump would be a
nightmare. Purists and CDSers won't back Clinton, but they
were never going to anyway. My guess is that disgruntled
policy intellectuals will, in the end, generally back
Clinton.
The question, as I see it, involves the romantics. How
many will give in to their bitterness? A lot may depend on
Sanders – and whether he himself is one of those embittered
romantics, unable to move on.
"... In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might occur among Democrats. ..."
"... `I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."' ..."
"... These are not idiomatic one-off events due to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country. ..."
"... Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will), that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization + neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the financial robber barony. ..."
"... Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'. ..."
"... If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right wing' ones. ..."
"... I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average man and woman was played for a sucker. ..."
"... The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of the pattern you're describing. ..."
"... And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. ..."
"... And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government. ..."
"... you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily apply to other people as well. ..."
"... There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect? ..."
by Henry on January 5, 2017 A piece I wrote on Brexit and the
UK party system has
just come out
in Democracy. More than anything else, I wrote the article to get people to read Peter
Mair. I didn't know Mair at all well – he was another Irish political scientist, but was based in
various European universities and in a different set of academic networks than my own. I met him
once and liked him, and chatted briefly a couple of times after that about email. I wish I'd known
him better – his posthumously edited and published book,
Ruling the Void is the single most compelling
account I've read of what has gone wrong in European politics, and in particular what's gone wrong
for the left. It's still enormously relevant years after his death. The ever ramifying disaster that
is the British Labour party is in large part the working out of the story that Mair laid out – how
party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues out of politics
into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong.
The modern Labour Party is caught in an especially unpleasant version of Mair's dilemma. Labour's
leaders tried over decades to improve the party's electoral prospects in a country where its traditional
class base was disappearing. They sought very deliberately and with some success to weaken its
party organization in order to achieve this aim. However, their success created a new governing
class within Labour, one largely disconnected from the party grassroots that it is supposed to
represent. Ed Miliband recognized this problem as party leader and tried to rebuild the party's
connection to its grassroots. However, as Mair might have predicted, there weren't any traditional
grassroots out there to cultivate. Mair argued that the leadership and the base were becoming
disengaged from each other, so that traditional parties were withering away. Labour has actually
taken this one stage further, creating a party in which the leadership and membership are at daggers
drawn, each able to stymie the other, but neither able to prevail or willing to surrender.
This has all changed. Class and ethnic and religious identities no longer provide secure
foundations for European parties, which have more and more tried to become "catchalls," appealing
to wide and diffuse groups of voters. People are not attached to parties for life anymore,
often waiting until just before Election Day to decide whom to vote for. Party membership figures
across Western Europe have shrunk by more than half in a generation.
Do you evaluate this change (on balance) positively or negatively? and why?
Also, since I'm commenting anyway, one minor query:
(Some European countries had different parties for Catholics and Protestants.)
Which countries did you have in mind? There are few European countries that have (or had) both
enough Catholics for a significant Catholic party and enough Protestants for a significant Protestant
party.
I know about the Netherlands, which had separate Catholic and Protestant parties until
the 1970s, when the Catholic party merged with the main Protestant parties (although there's
still a small Protestant party on the margins), but that's just one country.
Germany had a distinct Catholic party (but no specifically Protestant party) under the
Wilhelmine Reich and the Weimar Republic, but not the Federal Republic;
Switzerland has a Catholic-based party but no specifically Protestant-based party; where
else? (There's Northern Ireland, of course, but that's a bit different.) What am I missing?
The Labour Party is so weak that the Conservatives do not need to worry about Labour defeating
them in the next election, or perhaps in the election after that.
I don't think this is obvious, precisely because of the volatility of the situation. I remember
people saying this about the Cameron government in 2015 and I objected at the time that no-one
knew how the Brexit referendum will turn out. Now Cameron is gone and just about forgotten. It's
true that the Conservatives are still in, but it's a very different crew.
More importantly, we haven't yet seen what Brexit means, in any sense. May has been coasting
on the referendum result, and Labour has been wedged, unable to oppose the referendum outcome
and also unable to criticise May's Brexit policy because she either doesn't have one or isn't
telling. This can't continue forever (presumably not beyond March), and when the situation changes,
anything can happen.
Some scenarios where the Conservatives could come badly unstuck
(a) they put up a "have cake and eat it" proposal that is rejected so humilatingly that they
look like fools, then cave in and accept minor concessions on migration in return for a face-saving
soft Brexit
(b) hard Brexit becomes inevitable and the financial sector flees en masse
(c) train-crash Brexit with no agreement and a massive depression
The only scenarios I can see that would cement the current position are
(a) a capitulation by the EU on migration etc, with continued single market access
(b) an economically successful hard Brexit/non-fatal train crash
It seems to me that (a) is politically infeasible and (b) is economically unlikely
That's not to gloss over Labour's problems or your diagnosis, with which I generally agree.
" how party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues
out of politics into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong."
This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country
The essay is excellent as we might expect, Henry. I'm not convinced that Labour had any other
choice but to elect Corbyn. Single data points are always suspect, but the decision by the Labor
bigwig (have succeeded in forgetting which) to mock 'white-van man' clearly suggests she was playing
to a constituency within Labour primed to share in a flash-sneer at the prols. I'd have
expected as much from any Tory. I have other quibbles, the decision by Labour to take a position
on the referendum and on Remain always seemed critical to forcing Labour to adopt anti-immigrant
Tory-light postures in order to have it both ways with working-class voters hostile to London
and Brussels.
More problematic is this paragraph: "Research by Tim Bale, Monica Poletti, and Paul Webb shows
that these new members tend to be well-educated and heavily left-wing. They wanted to join the
Labour Party to remake it into an unapologetically left-leaning party. However, the research suggests
that they aren't prepared to put in the hard grind. While most of them have posted about Labour
on social media or signed a petition, more than half have never attended a constituency meeting,
and only a small minority have gone door to door or delivered leaflets. They are at best a shaky
foundation for remaking the Labour Party." Your questionable decision to deploy 'they' and 'them'
muddies the reality a bit, as does your decision to rely on metrics from the past to predict future
behavior.
I take your point that failing to attend a political rally, or go door-to-door, means something
in a time when populist parties are in the 'ascent.' But as you point out this rise can only occur
because the 'old parties' have failed so badly to connect activists and members. Again, that said,
I'm still not convinced all is doom and gloom. Labour activists opposed to EU membership were
effectively gagged/shamed by the elite right up to the present. It is only now this week, that
Labour has elected to make English compulsory for new immigrants:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chuka-umunna-immigrants-should-be-made-to-learn-english-on-arrival-in-uk-classes-esol-social-a7509666.html
Labour wasn't anything but Tory-lite until Jeremy and the new influx of members. I'm not personally
in favor of the new policy. It does seem to me more Tory-lite. But the battles are now more out
in the open. My guess is that Labour will survive and will rule again, but only if the party can
persuade Scotland and Wales to remain part of the UK. Adopting Tory-lite policies is precisely
what alienated Scots Labour voters and drove them into the arms of the SNP, so that's that the
PLP gives you.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and greater
social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large sections
of the electorate. Strong borders and a sensible immigration policy is part of that.
@10 "This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country"
"This sounds " Yes, in general terms. Yet, the donor-class candidates could have and should
have won in Brexit and in the US.
In the case of the Brexit, I argued before and after that simply allowing Labour candidates
and members to express their own views publicly, rather than adhere to a (sufficiently unpopular)
particular policy set by Henry's elite would have negated the need to adopt anti-immigrant Tory
lite stances – a straddle that fooled nobody and drove Labour voters to UKIP in not insignificant
numbers.
In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class
candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively
run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse
of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might
occur among Democrats.
Had, however, the Clinton campaign actually placed the candidate in Wisconsin, in Michigan,
and in Pennsylvania rather than bank on turning off voters, we'd be looking at a veneer of stability
covering up the rot now on display.
The point being: there's always something transnational going on. I explained Brexit to my
own students as a regional rebellion against London, as much as Brussels. Henry's essay is good
on Brexit and UKIP. Both the US and UK outcomes could have been avoided.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and
greater social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large
sections of the electorate.
If Britain were to enter a period of jobs, housing, and respect for all, with greater social
and economic mobility, it would be reasonable to expect most people to be pleased; but there's
no evidence that anything of the kind is happening, or is going to happen.
"The PLP didn't opt to get along, they opted to fight, and got mauled."
They lost the battle but are winning the war.
Corbyn has been keeping a very low profile since his re-election, proposals for reform such
as mandatory reselection seem to have been dropped, and the left of the party is squabbling over
whether it remains a Corbyn fan club or an active agent for the democratisation of the party.
Party policy remains inchoate and receives little media publicity.
Michels hasn't been disproved just yet, and I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform,
short of a major split.
I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform, short of a major split.
There are plenty of examples from the UK and other countries, including the Labour Party itself,
of parties undergoing major splits, and the evidence doesn't suggest that the experience is conducive
to lasting reform.
Yes, after the second election, the PLP have opted for the long game, with the expectation
that a disastrous General Election (one of the reasons why the talk up the possibility of an early
one at every opportunity) will see a return to "normality". In the meantime, the strategy is to
make Corbyn an irrelevance, hence the lack of coverage in the MSM, except for a drip of mocking
articles of which today's by Gaby Hinsliff in the Graun is typical.
Corbyn and his organisation don't help themselves but, faced with such irredentism, they have
little leverage on the situation.
You don't make a single mention of Scotland, which is a massive omission to make. (And frankly,
it's a particularly odd mistake for an Irishman: it's supposed to be the English who blithely
assume that where they live is coterminous with the whole United Kingdom).
I like a lot of the essay, but it's gravely weakened by the fact that you're prepared to discuss
things like political elites and class allegiance- and, in a European context, religious allegiance-
but you don't mention national or regional political identities. You really can't leave those
things out and give an accurate picture of current British politics.
I agree that a Labour revival isn't coming along soon. The problem is that a lot of people in
Labour think and hope that it might, and that makes them very unwilling to start thinking about
electoral alliances, because they are committed to standing candidates everywhere.
Labour, imo, needs some further and serious bad shocks to get them into the frame of mind that
could make an anti-Tory alliance possible. Once it is, FPTP could turn from the secret of Tory
success into the mechanism for their destruction. But 2020 might be too soon.
Forming coalitions and alliances requires negotiation and making trade-offs and active listening:
unfortunately there are probably too many people in the Labour Party who would find that very
difficult. They appear not to be willing to negotiate even with their own members.
I really can't see the obsession with an 'anti-Tory alliance'. Given that it involves allying
with a party who recently were effectively part of a pro-Tory alliance, it only works in any sense
if you think that the Tories have morphed into the far-right, or if you have a well-worked out
programme of constitutional reform you want to implement.
The bit that concerns involving the SNP particularly baffles me. Given that they have been
at daggers drawn with the Labour Party in Scotland, and that they are highly unlikely to step
aside from any of their 90-odd % of Scottish seats to give their alliance partner a few more MPs,
it seems a non-starter. This impression is magnified when you consider that the spectre of a Labour-SNP
minority government was thought to have scared off potential Labour voters at the last election.
Corbyn is just awful. A toxic mix of naivity, ego, and blundering stupidity.
His concept of role is almost non-existant. He walks onto a train without having pre-booked,
finds it difficult getting two seats together, and decides on the spot that all trains must be
nationalised. He spots a man sleeping rough and decides ending rough sleeping is his top priority.
He blunders around like he's just landed from another planet, sees an injustice and thinks he,
Jeremy, is the first person ever to see such a terrible thing, and decides on the spot to make
it his top priority to eliminate this evil by the simple policy expedient of saying he will eliminate
it.
He doesn't do policy in any recognisable sense. He does positioning statements which he assembles
with mates and puts on his personal web site. Take his "Manifesto for Digital Democracy". It claims
to be a policy, but in reality its just a list of Things That Jeremy Thinks Are Good. It doesn't
appear to have gone through a discussion process or approval process. It is not clear if this
is a party policy or just a personal document.
His position on Brexit is a disaster. On the issue which is coming to define politics in the
UK he is neither clearly for it nor clearly against it. He gives the impression he finds it a
dull subject. He is at best second choice for everyone, first choice for no-one; at worst, he
is an irrelevance.
Worse, he appears completely oblivious to the power games being played out in his name. Neighbouring
constituencies are to be carved up so Jeremy's seat can be preserved. His son Seb is given a job
in John McDonnell's office. He is effectively held captive by a North London clique who look after
him, tell him he's great, and then use his "policies" as a checklist against which to assess conformance
of MPs to The One True Corbyn Way and pursue vendettas.
His personality is completely unsuited to the job of Leader, let alone Prime Minister. Even
if you believe in Jeremy's policies you need to find someone else to implement them because he
lacks any of the requisite capabilities.
Nothing is going to magically get better.
No matter how bad things get, under Jeremy they can always get worse.
'Unofficially limited' dies give one the wiggle room to assert just about anything. It's a way
of lying which can't be rebutted. If you say 'but there were 3 candidates', he'll respond that
he did say 'unofficially' limited. If you say 'but two of them did quite well', he'll respond
that he did, after all, say 'unofficially' limited. So he can take a case where there was actually
a competitive race, and make it seem like there was never a competitive race. Of course, his post
is, officially, approved by the moderators
While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets.
There's a strong feel of "young folks aren't doing politics the way my generation used to do
politics" about this, especially given the activities you're complaining they're not doing. Is
posting on social media achieving more or less than posting leaflets to fill up people's recycling
bins?
kidneystones @14 claims: "I explained Brexit to my own students as a regional rebellion against
London, as much as Brussels."
If that's correct, why did we get: [1] Trump/Sanders in the U.S., [2] Brexit in the UK, [3]
repudiation of Matteo Renzi along with the referendum in Italy, [4] a probable win for Marine
LePen in France (wait for it, you'll be oh-so-shocked when it happens)?
`I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they
really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe
etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists
got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People
who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be
invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."'
I would suggest kidneystones is simply wrong. These are not idiomatic one-off events due
to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country.
Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will),
that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization
+ neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the
benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the
financial robber barony.
@43 Actually, I make no claim against trans-national developments. Quite the opposite.
Elsewhere, I've written that we are dealing with a world-wide tension between advocates of
globalization and their opponents. Where you differ is in determinations and outcomes, which I
argue are based on the actors, actions and dynamics of each state and which are, as such, unique.
There is nothing at all inevitable about any of this and JQ very sensibly reminds us of the volatility
of the present moment.
What is clear to me at least is that ideas and actions matter. Labour need not have decided
in 2014, or so, to ban members from advocating either a referendum, or leaving the EU. I dug all
this up at the time and the timeline is easy enough to recreate.
Austria stepped back from the brink, as did Greece when it repudiated Golden Dawn. The French
right and left worked together to keep the presidency out of the hands of the FN, although it's
less clear how that successful these efforts will be in the future.
The next few years will be telling. I see no reliable evidence to indicate good fortune, or
end times. The safest bet is more of the same, repackaged, with all the predictable shrieks and
yells about 'never before' etc. that usually accompanies the screwing of the lower orders. The
donor class is utterly dedicated to retaining power. I think JQ is spot on regarding alliances.
We didn't come this far just to have the wheels fall off.
The populism of the right (which I support in large measure) points the way. I'd have preferred
to see a populism of the left win, but too many are/were unwilling to burn down establishment
with the same willingness and enthusiasm of those on the right. Indeed, this thread has several
vocal defenders of an utterly corrupt Democratic party apparatus busted cold for colluding to
steal the nomination. There's a reason donors forked over 1.2 billion to the Clinton crime family
and it wasn't to help Hillary turn over power to the average woman and man in America.
Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have
worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'.
'High points' in this 'epic battle' include Neil Kinnock's purging of Militant, the failure
of the trade union establishment to (in any meaningful sense) support the miners' strike (1984),
the failure of the Democratic party establishment to get behind McGovern (1972), Carter's rejections
of Keynesianism (and de facto espousal of monetarism) in roughly 1977, Blair's war on 'Bennism',
the tolerance of/espousal of Reaganite anti-Communism by most sectors of the British left by the
late 1980s/early 1990s, and so on.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
What the 'soft left' hoped is that, with 'radical' left wing options off the table, the proles
would STFU and stop voting, or at least continue to vote for a 'nice' 'respectable' soft left
party.
What they failed to predict is that (as they were designed to do) neo-liberal policies immiserated
the working class, leaving that class angrier than ever before.
And so, the working class wanted to lash out, to register their anger, their fury. But, as
noted before, the 'traditional' way to do that was off the table. Ergo: Trump, Brexit etc.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get
the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right
wing' ones.
We have all read this story book before: the 'social democrats' connived with the German state
to crush the 1918/1919 working class uprising, and then were led, blubbering, to Dachau 20 years
later. One wonders how many of them reflected that they themselves might be partially responsible
for their fate.
In the same way: the 'soft left' connived and collaborated with the Right to crush the 'radical
left' in the US and the UK (and worldwide) and then were SHOCKED!! and AMAZED!! that the Right
don't really like them very much and were only using them as a tool to defeat the organised
forces of the working class, and that with the 'radicals' out of the way, the parties of the 'soft
left' (with no natural allies left) can now be picked off one by one, at the Right's leisure.
I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and
woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody
who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average
man and woman was played for a sucker.
(Incidentally, if 'the donor class' means the same thing as 'rich people', wouldn't it be clearer
to refer to them as 'rich people'? and if 'the donor class' means something different from 'rich
people', what constitutes the difference?)
Any tirade against Corbyn is entirely pointless, because you're not addressing the reasons
why he was elected, or what he represents. I think most of those that support him have a varying
degree of criticism, and many would prefer a more able leader. The problem for Labour is that
there is not a more able leader available that understands the need to ditch Third Way nonsense.
If any of the PLP "big beasts" had done this in any meaningful way, instead of plotting against
him, they would be leader by now.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
It's true that the option of voting Communist no longer exists, because the Communist Party has
stopped running candidates, but that seems to be a realistic response by the party to its derisory
level of voter support. If there are people who still want to follow the Communist line, what
they would have done in 2016 is turn out to vote against Trump (that's what the party was urging
on its website; the information is still accessible).
In Italy, on the other hand, it's true that large numbers of voters supported Communist candidates
in the 1950s and 1960s; and in Italy, voters still have the option of supporting Communist candidates,
but the numbers of those who choose to do so have become much smaller.
People who voted for Trump weren't doing so because they were denied the option of voting Communist;
and people who voted 'No' in the Italian referendum weren't doing so because they were denied
the option of voting Communist.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the
Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so.
The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying
to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of
the pattern you're describing.
Yes, and another situation where 'mostpeople' have failed to follow the logic of a situation
through. Many intellectuals can see that it is not in the EU's interests for the UK to prosper
out of the EU lest it 'encourager les autres'. Fewer have pointed out that this works the other
way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue),
and a new nationalist orientated Conservative government might make moves in this direction.
As Jeremy Corbyn alone has had the perspicacity to point out, insofar as there is a political
movement in the UK that is most closely aligned with Donald Trump's Republicanism, it is the Conservatives
under May (the UK's latest intervention vis a vis the UN and Israel was a blatant attempt to curry
favour with the new American administration).
And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to
be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence
services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. Assuming Trump wins (not a certainty)
it is possible/likely that Trump will use the newly 'energised' intelligence services to pursue
a more 'American nationalism' orientated policy, and it is likely that this new approach will
see the EU being viewed as much more of an economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for
the containment of Russia, as it is primarily seen at the moment.
And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they
did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by
a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government.
It is not implausible, therefore, that the US and the UK will use what 'soft' power they have
to weaken the EU and sow division wherever they can. And of course the EU has enough problems
of its own, such that these tactics might work. Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will
simply not exist by 2050, or at least, not in the form that we have it at present.
"One of the consequences of the phenomenon you're discussing is that volatility is incredibly
high. I'd never before seen a politically party as totally, irredeemably fecked as Fianna Fail
in 2010, but look at them now."
I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative, and even with 20%
of the vote Fianna Fail had enough of a profile that an opportunistic campaign of opposition could
lead to them recovering their fortunes to some extent at the next election. I suspect that even
PASOK and New Democracy will receive a similar bounce at the next Greek election.
These kind of stances usually involve avoiding too close a link to certain social groups and
maintaining a distance from potentially principled and activist party memberships. This explains
the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel that ideological
commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce the party's freedom
of maneuver, damaging their chances of capitalizing electorally on Tory failure.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should support
such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are evil. And
they then wonder why many people are alienated from politics.
"Fewer have pointed out that this works the other way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests
for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue) "
Interesting, I'd not seen that elsewhere. I'd be pretty certain that this is the objective
of people like Hannan.
".. and it is likely that this new approach will see the EU being viewed as much more of an
economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for the containment of Russia, as it is primarily
seen at the moment."
Maybe less to do with competition than regulation? The Trump view is presumably that anything
that restricts continued plundering of the economy, especially transnational institutions.
@Igor
"I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative "
"This explains the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel
that ideological commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce
the party's freedom of manoeuvre, damaging their chances of capitalising electorally on Tory failure."
"Perhaps these parties are in fact in sync with global political trends because they are
all nationalist parties and nationalism is clearly on the rise at the moment. "
Yes, they are clearly part of the nationalist turn. Or at least I assume that is true of Plaid
Cymru and the SNP, but it definitely is of Sinn Fein, who are policy wise a leftist party, but
ideologically first and foremost a nationalist one. You can see this in polling on their support
base, which tends to be more reactionary* and culturally conservative than even the irish centre
right parties, yet Sinn Fein as a political party often takes position (such as their strong support
for gay marriage) in opposition to the preferences of a large chunk of their base.
This Is particularly the case with immigration, where for going on a decade local politicians
have noted that this is one of the concerns they often hear in constituency work that they don't
make a priority in national politics. It's difficult to (as Sinn Fein does) see yourself (rightly
or wrongly) as the nationalism of a historically oppressed minority, and to support the rights
of that minority in the north (I'm making no normative claims on the correctness of their interpretation)
and then attack other minorities. This is why they're institutionally , and seemingly ideologically,
commited to diversity and multiculturalism in the south of ireland, while also being fundamentally
a nationalist party. (Question is (1) does this posture survive the current leadership , and (2)
is it enough to stave off explicitly nativist parties**) Afaict this is also true of the snp,
I don't know about PC.
But there's still a lot of poison in it. "Anti englishness" , which a lot of this, (at least
implicitly") can encourage , might be more acceptable than anti immigrant sentiment, but it's
still qualitatively the same mind set.
*this is 're a big chunk if their base, but by no means the full story.
**basically what happens to the independent vote, which is (afaict)possibly the real populist
turn in ireland.
At the risk of sounding like I'm simply saying 'but Ireland is special!' I think the (partial)
resurgence of Fianna Fail is a bit of a sui generis phenomenon. Irish politics have historically
been tribal in a way that makes UK voters look like an exemplar of rational choice theory. It
is only the very slightest exaggeration to say that my father's vote in every general election
he has participated in was determined in 1922, several decades before his birth – I'm sure other
Irish Timberteers have experienced similar. Even then, FF is still far away from the kind of hegemonic
dominance it enjoyed prior to the crash – when a poll result of 38% would have been regarded as
disastrous – and the FF/FG combined vote total is still struggling to hit 60%. While I'd agree
that this looks like pretty strong evidence for the 'resurgence of the right' thesis of European
politics at first glance, the failure of the left in Ireland is more due to a) Sinn Fein and Labour
being deeply imperfect vessels for the transmission of left-wing politics (albeit for very different
reasons) b) the low-cost of entry into the Irish political system due to PR-STV leading to a splintering
of the political left.
Additionally, the attempt by former Fine Gael deputy Lucinda Creighton to tap into the supposed
right-wing resurgence via the Renua party ended in an electoral curb-stomping as comprehensive
as it was satisfying to witness. So I don't think a surge in popularity for 'the right' is what's
going on here.
It should also be noted that Michael Martin is an infinitely more talented politician than
Enda Kenny (even though that is a bit of a 'world's tallest dwarf' comparison), and has explicitly
positioned FF to the left of FG, but also as a fundamentally 'centrist' and 'moderating' force.
In other words, he's pursuing a political strategy similar to that of Tony Blair, and is reaping
political dividends for doing so. Shocking, I know! (And FWIW – I have a deep, fundamental dislike
of FF and all it stands for and would never consider voting for them, lest anyone think I'm here
to carry water for Martin).
Unfortunately, for those arguing the 'Jeremy Corbyn is only getting clobbered in the polls
because of the perfidy of the PLP/the biased right-wing media/dark forces within MI5' the Irish
experience doesn't offer much comfort. After 2010 the various hard-left groupuscules in Ireland
put aside their factional differences and were able to mount a relatively united front in two
successive elections, and under leaders like Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and Clare Daly.
All of these individuals are relatively charismatic, as well as possessing strong skills as political
communicators (attributes even Corbyn's most ardent defenders would admit he is lacking in).
They also had an issue, in the form of water charges, that allowed them to develop an extremely
clear, very popular political position which resonated with large swathes of the electorate in
every region of the country (again, something UK Labour is severely missing).
The results? Just over 5% of the vote in the last election for a total of 10 TDs, and basically
zero influence over the actual governance of the country.
This is not because of some vast array of structural forces and barriers are arrayed against
them (as discussed above, PR-STV makes the barrier to entry into Irish politics very low). It
is because, as with Corbyn, the electorate neither trusts them to competently administer the
state, nor supports their vision for its future socio-economic development. You can argue
that the electorate are ignorant, or mistaken in this regard, but given that Corbyn has at various
points in his career argued that East Germany, Cuba and Venezuela represent optimal socio-economic
systems, I would argue that they're probably right on this particular question.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
The effect is not direct. It comes down to the fact that for the average working person, there
two main ways they could be significantly better or worse off; wages could be higher, or tax could
be lower.
One of those is a thing that is promised by political parties, one isn't.
The actual rate of tax, or the feasibility or secondary effects of changing, don't really matter.
Leaving the EU, whatever else it means, means not paying tax to it. A belief that the tax paid
to the EU ends up as a net benefit to the payee requires a level of trust in the system that is
easy to argue against.
The US has lower taxes than any other developed democracy, and so presumably wouldn't carry
on functioning as one if you cut further. Which means to deliver further tax cuts, you need a
politician who doesn't understand, doesn't care, or just possibly is in hock to those who wish
the US harm.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
Kidneystones: "Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years,
effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one."
Seconding Belle here – 'effectively run' means 'defeated by another, and forced to work your
way back up'.
The Labour Party as a functioning opposition seems to have vanished – seriously: what did the
general public hear from them over the last year or so apart from party infighting and accusations
of anti-semitism?
I still support many of Corbyn's policies and ironically
so does much of the general public . But he lost my trust with his ridiculous wavering over
Brexit and ineffectiveness as a politician in general.
I actually don't think it would be too hard to organize an effective opposition considering
the fact that the Tories have no idea at all what they are doing and their policies are not in
the interest of the vast majority of people. But you have to hit them over the head with this
on a daily basis and I have no idea why nobody does it.
Well I wouldn't say it was entirely pointless. It is important to establish a baseline, and
in this case the baseline is that Corbyn's leadership is most unlikely to deliver electoral success
for Labour.
But your main point is a fair one, so time to try a different tack.
Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right. The current conservative
party is running a significant deficit, is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point
of use, has implemented a living wage, has introduced same-sex marriage, and at the last election
touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance. all these policies were traditionally
associated with left-wing parties.
Policy is free, and it isn't particularly sticky. Given those features, policy is not a particularly
reliable feature. No private company would make policy its chief USP as it can easily be replicated
and customers show little loyalty based on policy. So if policy is not a route to political identity,
what is?
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests paramount
as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy is implemented
in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the difficult and complex
world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their interests. The modern
Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just managing families
– dead centre in her Downing Street speech. And so far she has very high levels of public support.
By contrast, Labour doesn't seem to know who it represents, who it is batting for, and what
it wants for them. It doesn't give clear signals about where British workers stand in its hierarchies
of priorities. Until someone stands up and clearly articulates a vision of ambition for the mass
of the people then Labour will get out-fought in all significant political debates.
Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will simply not exist by 2050, or at least,
not in the form that we have it at present.
What a weak and trivial assertion.
It is possible that the US will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It
is possible that the UK will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible
that the Conservative Party [the Democratic Party] [the Labour Party] [the Republican Party] will
not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible that MI5 [MI6] [the CIA]
[the NSA] will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. [Lather, rinse, repeat.]
'The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being
contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning.' (Winston Churchill,
A History Of The English-Speaking Peoples )
@52
Yeah maybe I should clarify that. Obviously much of the UK's trade is done with the EU so in that
sense the UK does have an economic interest in the EU prospering, but only in terms of
individual states. The UK (arguably) does not have an interest, any more in the EU as a unified
political/economic entity and if, as seems plausible, the UK now moves in a more Trumpian
direction, this tendency might well continue.
@55 Your evidence argues against your own argument. You have persistently argued, across many
CT threads, that the only and sole reason that Labour is doing badly right now is because of Corbyn.
And then the evidence you provide is that the left is doing badly in Ireland too. Do you see the
problem?
The fact is that if there was any serious alternative to Corbyn, the PLP would have put him
or her forward in the recent leadership election, and s/he would probably have won. But there
is no such candidate because the problems the Labour party face are much more deeply rooted than
the current crisis caused by the Corbyn leadership and these problems are faced by almost every
centre-left political party in the West . (The 'radical' left, as I pointed out above, having
essentially vanished in almost all of the developed world).
Let's not forget that as recently as the late 1990s, almost every country in Europe was governed
by the centre left. Now, almost none* of them are. That's the scale of the collapse. Indeed the
usual phrase for this phenomenon is 'Pasokification'. Not Corbynification (at least not yet).
Corbyn certainly doesn't have a solution to this problem but then nobody else does either,
so there you go.
All elections for the last few decades:
Many people in the UK: "Can we have our share of the benefits of globalisation?"
Tacit cartel: "After the City has taken the lion's share and we've had our cut, there might be
something left that you can have."
Referendum:
Tacit cartel: "Vote Remain or everybody will lose the benefits of globalisation!"
It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging. Supporting ideological soulmates like Le Pen might help but could be a two edged sword
(do Le Pen voters welcome British support?)
By contrast, there's a great deal that the EU can do to harm the UK at modest cost, for example,
by objecting whenever they try to carry over existing WTO arrangements made under EU auspices.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should
support such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are
evil.
Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
It's commonplace for minimum wages to be increased without Communists playing any role.
Yes, there's a definite thread of wanting to make the EU fail from the Brexiters (at the same
time as believing that it's going to fail anyway, which is why we should get out). As you say,
it's not clear what the UK could do to make this happen, especially from the outside pissing in.
Vice versa, whatever "the EU" thinks about wanting the UK to fail, "the EU" can't do much about
it, and the interests of the member states' governments may or may not be the same. On the other
hand, if there's one way to get them to respond with one voice, the UK attempting to damage Germany's
relationship with France might be it.
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests
paramount as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy
is implemented in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the
difficult and complex world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their
interests. The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market
– Just managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech.
Anybody who thinks that the Conservatives are going to hold paramount the interests of 'just
about managing' families has been played for a sucker.
Corbyn, like Trump, is the consequence – not the cause of the some twenty years of failed policies.
Vastly more popular than Corbyn isn't saying much. Some 20 percent of those who pulled the lever
in November for Trump don't believe he's qualified for his new position.
Henry's essay does a good job, I think, of identifying the general problem Labour faces. As
for the leadership, it's going go be extremely difficult to find a senior Labour PLP big beast
who did not vote for the Iraq war/Blairites, or who did not oppose even the referendum on Brexit,
not to mention Leave. Both of these issues are deal-breakers, it seems, for some of the more active
members still remaining in Labour. Left-leaning Labour voters, especially those in Scotland, are
unhappy with Tory-lite and with the pro-war positions of the Blairites. Labour voters hostile
to London generally (many in Wales), and to the focus on Europe, rather than depressed regions
of Britain, are unlikely to rally around PLP figures who spent much of the run-up to the vote
calling Leave supporters closet racists.
Actions and decisions have consequences and the discussions that seem to distress a few here
and there (not to mention Labour's low-standing in the polls) are both long overdue and essential
if Labour plans on offering a coherent platform on anything. Running on the NHS and education
and even housing was fine for a while, and might still be so. Intervening in Syria, Libya, and
Iraq complicates matters considerably, as does forcing Labour supporters to adhere to either side
of the Remain/Leave case.
A little civility and good will here and there would do a world of good, but I'm aware that
discussion is better suited to Henry's earlier post on science fiction.
"It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging."
I don't think this is right. Australia has neighbours that we aren't in a trade and currency
and migration zone with, but I don't think Australia wants these countries to fail economically
or any other way. I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being
neighbours with stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out
of the EU I would think .??
"While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets."
My observations is that people do more voluntary work of this hands on kind with non-profit
advocacy groups than political parties.
Maybe as the major political parties became more similar, and weren't polarised in the sense
they were in the post-war era to the 80s, people prefer to volunteer for specific causes they
believe in, rather than for major political parties.
It's not 'Britain' that wants the EU to fail; it's the people who were strong supporters of
UK withdrawal from the EU who want that, because to them failure of the EU would provide vindication,
or at least a plausible appearance of it.
you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily
apply to other people as well.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in
the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that. Now there might be a big media conspiracy to drown out these voices,
but I think it's more plausible that the current Labour leadership is just not very good at this
game.
'I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being neighbours with
stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out of the EU I would
think .??'
Yeah just to be absolutely precise (again) I don't think the UK would ever want the EU to fail,
exactly. But if the perception gains ground that the EU is trying to shaft the UK (and remember
it's in the EU's interests to do just that) 'tit for tat' moves can spiral out of control and
might be politically popular.
The joker in the pack is the new Trump Presidency. Almost all American Presidents since the
war have been (either de facto or de jure) pro-EU for reasons of realpolitik. Trump might go either
way but we know he holds grudges. In recent months Angela Merkel chose to give Trump veiled lessons
on human rights, whereas the May administration has done its utmost to ditch all its previous
'opinions' and fawn all over him.Who is Trump likely to like most?
If the UK goes to Trump and begs for help in its economic war with the EU, Trump might listen.
More generally (and a propos of nothing, more or less), it might be 'number magic' but at least
since the late 19th century 'Western' history tends to divide into 30 year blocks (more or less).
You had the 40 year bloc between the Franco-Prussian war and 1914. Then of course the 30 years
of chaos between 1914 and 1945. Then the Trente Glorieuses between 1945 and 1975. Finally we had
the era of the 'two neos': neoliberalism at home, and neoconservatism abroad (AKA the 'let them
eat war' period) between 1976 and 2006.
We now seem to be moving into a new era of Neo-Nationalism, with a concommitant suspicion of
trans-national entities (e.g. the EU), a rise in interest in economic protectionism, and increasing
suspicion of immigration. Needless to say, this is not a Weltanschauung that makes things easy
either for the Left or for Liberals. One might expect both the soft and hard right to thrive,
on the other hand.
"Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me."
The problem is that merely asserting that the Tories are bad does not necessarily mean that
people will (or even should) automatically assume that you are a viable or less evil alternative.
Indeed, the response of the Labour Party's leading lights after the 2015 election was to minimise
the distance between themselves and the Tories, and their actions during the 'interregnum' between
Miliband and Corbyn demonstrated that they were quite willing to connive with evil in the shape
of Tory welfare policy as they assumed it would appease 'aspirational voters'.
This is the crux of the divide within the Labour Party. Corbyn's political career has concentrated
on defending those at home or abroad who cannot or find it difficult to defend themselves. The
majority of Labour's career politicians argue that these people are politically marginal and defending
their interests will not win elections or achieve political power. To some extent they have a
point, but they fail to acknowledge that their own brand of cynical opportunism has alienated
not just many Labour members but also many potential voters.
The accusations of anti-Semitism and sympathy for dictators made by Corbyn's enemies were so
virulent not just in an attempt to smear his reputation, but also to try and salve their own consciences,
having thrown so many of their moral scruples aside in an increasing futile quest to secure the
support of the mythical median voter.
"Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right."
You what?
I would have thought that policy, by which I mean actually implemented policies and actions,
with real effects, rather than rhetoric, sound-bites or general bullshit, is precisely how we
determine if a party is left or right.
As for the remainder of that paragraph:
"The current conservative party is running a significant deficit "
As any decent economist, and even George Osborne, will tell you, the deficit is an outcome
of the economy, not under the direct control of the chancellor so, despite the rhetoric, it's
not really meaningful to use as a policy target. Further, IIRC, in the history of modern advanced
economies, I believe they have run deficits in something like 98% of years, so the presence of
a deficit is hardly unusual if you're in government.
" is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point of use "
This is just a bullshit phrase and, in the context of actual policy, entirely meaningless.
The Tory party has a long term project to privatise large sections of the NHS, and is currently
driving it into the ground as a means to this end. New Labour laid the foundations for this to
happen, so is equally to blame. No self-respecting left party would go anywhere near those policies.
" at the last election touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance."
More sound-bites. Nothing is delivered. Believe it or not, the state spends money with this
aim all of the time. The scope of what new spending is to be delivered is likely to be small.
The other items sound like you think that we are still in the centrist liberal nirvana of Blair/Clegg/Cameron
where we were governed by managerialist technocrats, concerned with "what works", delivering much
the same policy no matter who was elected, only competing with each other on the basis of media
platitudes. But that has caused massive resentment, failed, and is the reason for Brexit and Corbyn.
Precisely because none of those parties were delivering policies that benefited most people.
Indeed, I think that you will find that 600,000 Labour Party members believe that there is,
or rather should be, a big dividing line in policy between themselves and the Tory Party.
"The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just
managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech."
This reads like it has come directly from Central Office. Do you really believe that the Tories
give two hoots about "just managing families"? Did Hammond reduce Osborne's austerity plan in
any way in the last Budget?
Labour, as a whole, certainly doesn't seem to know who it represents ATM. There are multiple
reasons for that: an irredentist PLP, a media sympathetic to the PLP and determined to trivialise
or ignore Corbyn, and the disorganisation and incoherence of Corbyn and his organisation amongst
them. But deposing Corbyn and returning to neoliberal bullshit won't solve the reasons why he
exists.
Brexit has not happened yet, so it can be whatever you want it to be: that freedom to project
counterfactuals tends to accentuate the centrifugal not the consensual as far as diversity of
opinion is concerned. I actually think Corbyn is unusually wise for a Labour leader to mumble
and fumble a lot at this stage. If it is a personal failing, it is appropriate to circumstances.
The Tories have given themselves a demolition job to do. If your opponent is handling dynamite,
best not to get close and certainly a bad idea to try to snatch it from them.
From the standpoint of Labour constituencies like Corbyn's own in North London, taking The
City down a peg or three would possibly be a means of relief, but if any Brexit negotiating "event"
triggered an exodus of financial sector players the immediate political fallout would be akin
to the sky falling and certainly would cause consternation among Tory donor groups not that supportive
of May's brand. And, failing to invoke Article 50 is likely to be corrosive to the Tories in ways
that benefit Labour as much as the Liberal Democrats only if Labour refrains from expressions
of hostility to Leave voters - a point too subtle for some Blairites, apparently.
There are a lot of different ways for Brexit to sink the Tory ship. May could be forced to
procrastinate on invoking Article 50. Invoking Article 50 by Royal Prerogative could bring on
a constitutional crisis, or at least a dispute over whether Article 50 has been invoked at all
in a way that satisfies the Treaty. Having invoked, the EU may well step in their own dog poop,
with overtly hostile or simply opportunistic gambits, underestimating the costs imo but otherwise
as JQ suggests.
The whole negotiating scheme will almost certainly run aground on sheer complexity and the
unworkable system of decision-making in the European Council. That could result in procrastination
in an endless series of extensions that keep Britain effectively in for years and years. Or, one
side or both could just let the clock run out, with or without formally leaving negotiations.
Meanwhile, at home, in addition to The City, Scotland and Ireland are going to be nervous, possibly
hysterical.
I suppose if you think the EU is fine just as it is, it is easy to overlook the glaring defects
in its design, particularly the imperviousness to reformist, adaptive politics. The EU looks to
go down with the neoliberal ship - hell, it is the neoliberal ship! I suppose the sensible Labour
position on the EU would be a set of reform proposals that would paper over different viewpoints
within the Labour Party, but that is not possible, because EU reform is not possible, which is
why Brexit is the agenda. Corbyn's instincts seem right to me; Labour should not prematurely oppose
Brexit alienating Leave voters nor should it start a love-fest for an EU that might very shortly
make itself very ugly toward Britain.
The Euro certainly and the EU itself may well break before the next General Election in Britain
opening up policy possibilities for Tories or Labour that can scarcely be imagined now. It is
not inconceivable to me that Scandanavia, Netherlands and Switzerland might be persuaded to form
a downsized EU2 sans Euro with Britain and a reluctant Ireland.
In my view, Corbyn as a political personality is something of a stopped clock, but as others
have pointed out, Labour like other center-left neoliberal parties have been squandering all their
credibility in post-modern opportunism. A stopped clock is right more often than one perpetually
fast or slow.
Labour has a chance to remake itself as a membership party while the Tories play with Brexit
c4 (PE-4). Membership support is what distinguishes Labour from the Liberals and transforming
Labour into a new Liberal party is apparently what Blair had in mind. Let Brexit mature as an
issue and let Labour try out the alternative model of an active membership base.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
You're not, of course. But when you wrote 'I have no idea why nobody does it', it wasn't immediately
clear to me that what you meant was 'I have no idea why the Labour leadership doesn't do it' (where
'it' referred back to 'hit them over the head with this', and 'them' referred back to 'the vast
majority of people' and 'this' referred back to 'the fact that the Tories have no idea at all
what they are doing and their policies are not in the interest of the vast majority of people').
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the
interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that.
Perhaps that's a result of where you've chosen to look. Seriously, where have you looked? have
you, for example, looked at the Labour Party's website?
Igor Belanov
If you think Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives, then obviously you have no motivation
to support Labour against the Conservatives.
Is that what you think, that Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives?
Sidenote to J-D @ 8 on parties with religious identification
The disappearance of religious affiliation or identity as an organizing principle in Europe
is interesting. You might recall that the British Tory Party was an Anglican Party, committed
to establishment and the political disability of Catholics and Dissenters, as defining elements
of their credo. Despite the extreme decline in religious observance in Britain, I imagine there
remain strong traces of religious identity in British party identification patterns.
Elsewhere in Europe, the Greek Orthodox Church plays a political role in Greece and Cyprus,
though the current SYRIZA government is somewhat anti-clerical. Anti-clerical doctrines have been
revived in France by tensions with Muslims.
"... I guess the good part is that writers, though shaking their heads, are admitting Sanders has even more closely aligned with the Ds and their money and his reputation from 20 years ago is no longer enough to coast on and will lose if he runs in 2020. ..."
Sanders problem isn't his age. He looks like a hypocrite supporting Ds no matter how noxious, being
the first to trot out a Trump tweet on the floor (he was memed for it), doing a Russia, Russia, Russia
townhall.
Every time he does this, a few more dozen are 'done'. Imploring Sanders to choose people over
money?
I guess the good part is that writers, though shaking their heads, are admitting Sanders has
even more closely aligned with the Ds and their money and his reputation from 20 years ago is no longer
enough to coast on and will lose if he runs in 2020.
"... "A lot of the inequality in the U.S. comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government To the very considerable extent that inequality is generated by rent seeking, we could sharply reduce inequality itself if rent seeking were to be somehow reduced." ..."
"... "In all areas of economics, the rules of the game are critical-that is emphasized by the fact that similar economics exhibit markedly different patterns of distribution, market income, and after tax and transfers income. This is especially so in an innovation economy, because innovation gives rise to rents-both from IPR and monopoly power. Who receives those rents is a matter of policy, and changes in the IPR regime have led to greater rents without having any effects on the pace of innovation," said Stigltz. ..."
"... Other than the loss of income, he said, "many men in the Rust Belt in Appalachia have lost meaningful work and are unable to find another. People want work that provides them with some agency-they want a chance to prosper, to have the satisfaction of succeeding in something. They would also appreciate the experience of developing in the course of a career, to have self expression through imagining and creating new things. The good jobs in manufacturing offered these men the prospect of some learning, some challenges, and some attendant promotions. The bottom-rung jobs in retailing services that these men are forced to take do not. In losing their good jobs, then, these men were losing the meaning of their very lives. The rise of suicide and drug related deaths among Americans might be evidence of just that sense of loss." ..."
"... The last four decades of slow growth in the U.S., said Phelps, fit Alvin Hansen's definition of secular stagnation "to a tee." Phelps traced the roots of this secular stagnation, characterized by slower growth and loss of innovation, to a "corporatist ideology that had come to permeate the government at all levels" starting with the 1960s, and has "replaced the individualist ideology supporting capitalism" ever since. ..."
"... The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble. ..."
"... I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured ..."
"... Honestly, greed might just be so thoroughly baked into the makeup of base instinct that it is unreachable. My Father reminds me regularly that males are intrinsically sexually competitive, which drives them to acquire territory, resources, and access to females at whatever the cost. To ask humans not to be greedy is to be tinkering with deep biological drives tied to successful reproduction. ..."
"... The last thirty years have been all about "firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government" while everyone has been talking about the opposite thing, "free markets". Why has it taken so long to notice this? ..."
"... "Eat People" ..."
"... The elites should worry the day when the mob turns from destructive introspection, to directed agency at an external foe. That foe being the rent seekers and economic manipulators of injustice. Propaganda and monopoly violence don't last forever, and the hysterical response of the bourgeoisie to this possibility is what we are witnessing. ..."
Trump's
unexpected Presidential win appears to have delivered a wake-up call to the economics discipline.
At a major industry conference, the annual Allied Social Sciences Associations meeting, a blue-chip
panel of four Nobel Prize winners, Angus Deaton, Joe Stiglitz, Roger Myerson and Edmund Phelps, was
in surprising agreement that capitalism had become unmoored and in its current form was exacerbating
inequality. These may seem like pedestrian observations, but the severity of the critique,
as reported in the Pro-Market blog , was striking.
No video of the panel is available yet; I hope one is released soon and will post it if/when that
happens.
Tellingly, even though the panelists also included a fall in innovation, globalization and secular
stagnation as contributing to inequality, the discussion focused on rent-seeking.
Deaton was blistering by the normally judicious standards of the academy. Recall that he and his
wife Anne Case performed the landmark study, published at the end of 2015, that showed that
the death rate had increased among less educated middle aged whites, due largely to addiction and
suicides . Thus the plight of economic losers is more vivid to Deaton than his peers, and he
sees the disastrous human cost as a direct result of rent-seeeking and untrammeled monopolies.
Key extracts :
"A lot of the inequality in the U.S. comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry
seeking special protection or special favors from the government To the very considerable extent
that inequality is generated by rent seeking, we could sharply reduce inequality itself if rent
seeking were to be somehow reduced."
While some forms of inequality could be linked to progress and innovation, said Deaton, inequality
in the U.S. does not stem from creative destruction. "A lot of the inequality in the U.S. is not
like this. It comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry seeking special protection
or special favors from the government," he said.
Deaton highlighted a particularly salient example of rent seeking: the American health care
system which, he said, "seems optimally designed for rent seeking and very poorly designed to
improve people's health."
Deaton outflanked Stiglitz on the left. Stiglitz argued that taxes could help reduce inequality,
in concert with other policies to curb rent extraction:
"In all areas of economics, the rules of the game are critical-that is emphasized by the fact
that similar economics exhibit markedly different patterns of distribution, market income, and
after tax and transfers income. This is especially so in an innovation economy, because innovation
gives rise to rents-both from IPR and monopoly power. Who receives those rents is a matter of
policy, and changes in the IPR regime have led to greater rents without having any effects on
the pace of innovation," said Stigltz.
Deaton begged to differ:
"I don't think that rent seeking, which is incredibly profitable, is very sensitive to taxes
at all. I don't think taxes are a good way of stopping rent seeking. People should deal with rent
seeking by stopping rent seeking, not by taxing the rich," he said.
Deaton is clearly outraged by how opiate manufacturers (meaning Purdue Pharma) have profited by
killing poor whites:
"There are around 200 thousand people who have died from the opioid epidemic, were victims
of iatrogenic medicine and disease caused by the medical profession, or from drugs that should
not have been prescribed for chronic pain but were pushed by pharmaceutical companies, whose owners
have become enormously rich from these opioids," said Deaton, who later advocated for a single-payer
health care system in the U.S., saying: "I am a great believer in the market, but I think we need
a single-payer health care system. I just don't see any other sensible way to address it in this
country."
Mind you, the Case/Deaton study, despite its shattering findings, got front page treatment and
then the press and pundits moved on to the next hot news tidbit. Matt Stoller had a tweetstorm yesterday
on this issue, related to the impending revamping, which almost certainly means further crapification,
of Obamacare. You can read the whole tweetstorm staring
here . These were the linchpin of his argument:
... ... ...
Edmund Phelps, who leans conservative but is know for being eclectic, echoed Deaton's observations:
Other than the loss of income, he said, "many men in the Rust Belt in Appalachia have lost
meaningful work and are unable to find another. People want work that provides them with some
agency-they want a chance to prosper, to have the satisfaction of succeeding in something. They
would also appreciate the experience of developing in the course of a career, to have self expression
through imagining and creating new things. The good jobs in manufacturing offered these men the
prospect of some learning, some challenges, and some attendant promotions. The bottom-rung jobs
in retailing services that these men are forced to take do not. In losing their good jobs, then,
these men were losing the meaning of their very lives. The rise of suicide and drug related deaths
among Americans might be evidence of just that sense of loss."
The last four decades of slow growth in the U.S., said Phelps, fit Alvin Hansen's definition
of secular stagnation "to a tee." Phelps traced the roots of this secular stagnation, characterized
by slower growth and loss of innovation, to a "corporatist ideology that had come to permeate
the government at all levels" starting with the 1960s, and has "replaced the individualist ideology
supporting capitalism" ever since.
Even though the panelists disagreed somewhat on remedies, all were troubled by Trump's policy
proposals However, it's still telling that even if protectionism might not be a great remedy (or
would have to be applied surgically to yield meaningful net gains, something Trump's team appears
unwilling to game out), the group seemed constitutionally unable to accept that globalization had
made the working classes in the US worse off even when that is exactly what the Samuelson-Stopler
theorem predicted. For instance:
Phelps, for instance, criticized Trump's assertion that job and income losses among the American
working class were caused by trade and not by losses of innovation, and the President-elect's
"assumption that supply-side measures to boost after-tax corporate profits will bring generally
heightened incomes and employment to America," which he said runs the risk of explosion in public
debt and a deep recession.
The most hazardous, said Phelps, "is the assumption that by bullying corporations, such as
Ford, and stepping in to aid other corporations, such as Google, the Trump administration can
achieve various objectives that will widely boost employment."
Nevertheless, the very fact that a panel like this didn't even dispute the claim that rent-seeking
was the biggest contributor to the big jump in inequality is in and of itself a big step forward.
I wish Deaton would go a speaking tour of wealthy Democratic Party enclaves or become regular
on NPR (assuming the tote-bag carrying classes did not swiftly demand his removal). The gap between
the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials
like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.
The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone
with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.
Either these words, although I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured, or class
violence, coupled with a decline and fall of Continental empire.
The US is the only remaining 19th century empire, all the others have fallen to self-determination,
and the EU appears to be falling apart for the same reasons.
I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured
That is it in a nutshell. Greed. One destructive emotion has been elevated as the guiding principle
for our Western societies. The fail is baked into the cake. We are monkeys with nuclear weapons
and Donald Trump is the new leader of the Free World™. What could possibly go wrong?
Jane Goodall reported on a chimp who hit on the novel tactic of banging fuel cans together
to achieve alpha status. The noise scared his competitors witless. He didn't know what the cans
were, what they were for, or what they held, but it worked anyway. For a little while.
Honestly, greed might just be so thoroughly baked into the makeup of base instinct that it
is unreachable. My Father reminds me regularly that males are intrinsically sexually competitive,
which drives them to acquire territory, resources, and access to females at whatever the cost.
To ask humans not to be greedy is to be tinkering with deep biological drives tied to successful
reproduction.
Except we have millions upon millions of individual instances of US men over whom greed holds
no power, and scores of historical societies and even today a handful of countries so constituted
and evolved over time that there simply is no comparison on a scale of 'greed' with what goes
on in the US.
Greed obviously has a biological basis, as does everything else humans do, but culture
is quite capable of virtually erasing it.
But if you guys find a copy of this panel, also mentioned in the pro market article, please
post it.
"The Vested Interests Versus Rational Public Policy: Economists as Public Intellectuals,"
Stiglitz and Baker, along with James K. Galbraith of University of Texas at Austin, Stephanie
Kelton from the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Lawrence Mishel from the Economic Policy
Institute discussed competition, trade, consumer protections, and how to reach effective public
policy. "We need to rewrite the rules of the market economy," said Stiglitz during the same
panel.
The last thirty years have been all about "firms and industry seeking special protection or
special favors from the government" while everyone has been talking about the opposite thing,
"free markets". Why has it taken so long to notice this?
Very effective propaganda and a complicit MSM. I will say it again: spend a day or two at any
statehouse in the country and you will see that the ENTIRE business of government is doing favors
for business people and their lobbyists. The notion that business people are in favor of small
or non-activist government is a big lie.
Which gets to a point that seems to get glossed over even by the better economists – that corporate
"investment" in lobbying generally has a way better ROI than real investment, often times on the
order of 1000-to-1 (for specific tax breaks).
I don't get what Deaton is saying about rent-seeking. Surely the return of the 90% tax bracket
for high incomes and estates would put a dent into modern rent-seeking. When he says, "People
should deal with rent seeking by stopping rent seeking, not by taxing the rich," what kind of
policies is he talking about? Does he mean single payer, and extended that kind of economic organization
to other industries? Once you get outside health care, that seems kind of radical for an economist.
The Mississippi Delta is just north of where we live. The "rent seeking" is mixed up with Paternalism.
Each feeds off of the other. What we have seen in our multi year search for affordable living
space has been an unending stream of overpriced habitats, and insularity.
The Paternalism encourages
an ethos of exploitation, the rent seeking finances it. At root, all these "base" motivations
are "rational." Thus, any "rational" critique undergirds the edifice of selfishness.
A corollary
of this is that any significant change requires a clean break with the past. An irrational ideology
needs must arise, if only for long enough to nurture a radical change. As with the present American
experience, an absurd excess is needed, and is looming. It sounds hardhearted, but a cleansing
fire must purge the dross from out the gold of the nations soul. Before we allow horrified sentiment
to deter us from this course, we must remember that the present system is itself the embodiment
of hardheartedness. Why else do many cultures have a myth of a Phoenix in their socio-cultural
tool kit? It has happened before. It will happen again.
As someone more erudite than myself likes to say; "Kill it with fire."
My only worry is that when mainstream economists start accepting the problem of rent seeking,
their solution is usually 'better, freer markets'. Its this logic which did so much damage to
the national electricity networks of Europe and the UK railway system and (my personal bugbear),
the domestic waste collection system in Europe. There is sometimes a fine distinction between
highly regulated markets which benefit both private companies and the consumer (for example, in
electricity generation and distribution), and manipulated regulated markets which benefit only
the seller, such as with medicines.
Plus, from what I am gathering from the summary, statements about how it was innovation that
destroyed jobs and not globalization seem to ignore the fact that the retraining and skills reeducation
that's supposed to happen after "disruption" has become rent seeking.
Education has become a massive, government controlled, rent seeking operation in the form of
student loans. Anyone seeking to better themselves with education now has become a victim.
Are taxes going to solve that, according to Stiglitz? As you say, is it going to be a "freer
markets" solution? I don't know.
Innovation destroyed jobs because Silicon Valley investors realized that corporations would
pay HUGE dollars for new processes that eliminated people. Human labor is an enormous cost, not
just in wages but in support (that useless HR team), benefits, and worst of all – pensions. The
goal of the modern corporation is to reduce head count, not to make better and more innovative
products/services. Once the investment community clued in on that, it was all about finding new
ways to eliminate jobs.
Andy Kessler's book "Eat People" is all about this topic.
I'm not an economist but even I can see that trade can increase average income while decreasing
incomes at the bottom of the distribution. Am I missing the point or are the Nobel laureates missing
it?
Do they think that some new industry will appear by magic to fill the void?
Wow! If this is what it takes to capture the attention of the American elites then I think
this society needs to think really hard about what's up with it.
I wish Deaton would go a speaking tour of wealthy Democratic Party enclaves or become regular
on NPR (assuming the tote-bag carrying classes did not swiftly demand his removal). The gap
between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable
credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.
You are never going to get the 10% to admit that their lifestyles are not possible without
the underlying economic conditions described at this website. All you have to do is look at Massachusetts
and see what "liberalism" has become there to understand this. The NIMBYism is rampant, and the
isolation of minorities and people of other classes is so obvious that no one can deny that it
happens. Most of the employment is so dependent on the rent seeking (Education, Biotech and Pharma,
Technology, Medical) that there is no way that they could be convinced of another way.
I believe you are right and the hysteria after the recent election demonstrates this resistance
to change (even if in the current case it may turn out to be bad change). The whole rationale
of our so-called democracy is to allow change at the top without resorting to violence which is
why attacks on the democratic process itself are the most sinister. Therefore the most interesting
story of 2016 may not be the dreary two year slog itself but what happened afterwards. One comes
to suspect that large portions of the "progressive" left have even less interest in democracy
than the Republicans do. If only those pesky proles could be kept down the comfortable middle
class of Boston could rest easy.
It's probably true that only when those middle class professionals themselves start to feel
economic pain that we will see more enthusiasm for leveling and social cohesion. A crash in the
stock market might do it or–god forbid–riots and chaos but it doesn't seem like there's a painless
way out.
Deaton highlighted a particularly salient example of rent seeking: the American health care
system which, he said, "seems optimally designed for rent seeking and very poorly designed
to improve people's health."
There is rent seeking even within sectors. Yesterday's Links had an article about large layoffs
at one of the premier academic cancer centers, driven by losses due to overruns in implementing
an electronic health records system.
Sh*t flows to the bottom and money floats to the top.
The elites should worry the day when the mob turns from destructive introspection, to directed
agency at an external foe. That foe being the rent seekers and economic manipulators of injustice.
Propaganda and monopoly violence don't last forever, and the hysterical response of the bourgeoisie
to this possibility is what we are witnessing.
We need a new term or word for the class of people dedicated to the spread of inequality. The
terms bourgeoisie, corporatists, capitalists, and fascists have been rendered ineffectual in raising
the consciousness of working people to their plight. Occupy brought the 1% into consciousness,
but there still is a lingering faith that somehow the business community can provide the necessities
for a good life, if only "something" can be done to "free" their creative potential. My take on
the Fake News phenomenon is yet another phase to keep the working population even more confused
and misdirected. It is a strategy to double down on propaganda. Propaganda questioning the validity
of propaganda.
In America, the psychic health of the nation is coming into question. Leadership that can provide
a vestige of calm amid the rising storm brought about by economic uncertainty will easily gain
followers. The crisis of leadership is daily becoming more acute.
Maybe a better strategy would be to come up with a new term for the 80% ruthlessly exploited
by the current system. A new term is needed because all others have been corrupted into impotence.
"In American, the psychic health of the nation is coming into question."
We are confused, in denial, projecting furiously Freud would have a field-day exploring our
cognitive dissonance. All this 'fake news' has begun to undermine our vision of ourselves as 'the
exceptional nation;' our mental pictures of soldiers handing out candy bars to starving child
refugees have morphed into drone operators taking out toddlers at wedding parties.
We have elders preaching the American virtues of 'self reliance,' 'personal responsibility,'
and the dangers of being coddled by an inefficient nanny state, while enjoying the benefits of
a guaranteed monthly social security check deposited into their bank accounts, and having their
hip replacements and open heart surgeries paid for by Medicare.
We are still entranced by our national narrative of 'go west, young man,' with acres of fertile
prairie and lush coastal valleys ours for the taking; all we need to follow is our sacred 'work
ethic' and success will be ours. Well, all the land is posted 'Private' and the water is in the
process of being purchased by faceless corporate entities. And the native Americans, whose land
we stole, are pissed and getting organized.
Spot on, Norb. We need new words, a new national narrative, a new vision of where we are, what
crimes we committed to get here, how we have managed to bring the planet to the brink of destruction
and, finally, how we can salvage what remains and forge a new identity, a better and more sustainable
story.
Until then, the next few years (decades?) will be messy. But filled with promise.
for all of the Media/Academia Left's obsession w/identity politics, the issues facing poor,
rural African-Americas are forgotten and "uncool" to address-just as with Appalachian whites.
Over several months many commenters have said something like the following: there can't be
any real deflation because prices keep going up. Food, health care, rents, etc. If there's deflation
why aren't prices coming down?
My opinion is you can have real deflation *and* increasing prices at the retail level if those
prices are determined by monopoly pricing power – price jacking and uncontrolled rent seeking,
which is what I think we have now. Iinstead of lowering prices for the little guy deflation increases
the profits for the monopolists and rentiers through lowered base costs for them coupled with
higher selling prices for customers, plus fees and other purely extractive costs. Monopolists
and rentiers have deformed various markets in a way such that deflation *and* higher selling/access
prices can co-exist, imo.
Longer comment lost in modland. Shorter: It's possible to have both deflation and rising sale
prices if monopolists and rentiers are setting the sale price. imo.
I keep hearing the idea that innovation can provide jobs: algorithms and robots consume many
more than they produce, AI is taking jobs from insurance agents in Japan, all seem to point the
other way. So the response is a basic minimum income, but with so much wealth off shored to tax
havens and the rest building bombs to replace the ones being dropped daily, where do the experts
see the money coming from? Sooner or later the mass' will have to stop buying the glossy widgets
which pays for the yachts and mansions.
Yves, thanks very much for this. Speaking for myself, I'd really appreciate more posts/guest
posts on this and related topics.
I'm currently reading Joe Bageant's Deer Hunting with Jesus, which addresses the desperation
of small-town northern Virginia – I knew Bageant's work (had read his essays), but the book is
great. Separate chapters, btw, on the mortgage scam in his hometown (for trailers, for heavens'
sake) and on the health care system and how that's working out in rural Virginia (it's not, and
it's a national disgrace).
It riffed off a piece by some person called Ben Shapiro, who was venting about health care
being a consumer product (he compared it to buying expensive furniture). I think I finally realized
that there are some people whose understanding of the value of human life and the basic rights
of man differ so much from my own that the divide cannot be bridged, ever. (He also sort of compared
sb who needs medical treatment but can't afford it to stealing bread. Made me wonder if he and
his physician-wife had recently caught a production of Les Miserables.) I was so appalled at his
thinking I couldn't even comment on the post.
I can't see how rent-seeking is to be reduced given the incoming regime, which appears to me
to be filled with rent-seekers of the highest order.
It's heartening to see renowned economists identifying these issues (poverty/unemployment/increasing
morbidity-mortality rates) as a genuine crisis – which it is, and it's only going to get worse;
in a few years, it won't be the lower and middle classes that are affected, but the white-collar
professional classes as well (i.e. the top 10%).
But as my Dad used to say, it's somehow "a day late and and a dollar short" – the Dems should
have been addressing this crisis years ago – if a humble citizen-observer like this commenter
saw it as a serious issue ten years ago, why didn't the professional policy guys?
I wouldn't just credit the Trump candidacy for shining the light on rent seekers, but kudos
to Yves for hosting economists who have also done this, among them Michael Hudson and (to a lesser
degree) Bill Black.
At the risk of seeming un-intellectual, I confess to having been also enlightened by library
reading the works of John Grisham – his theme is often how lawyers profit or do not profit from
big pharma medications that are introduced with great fanfare only to be discovered as the cause
of injury and/or death a few miles down the road. At which point the victims are rounded up by
low-income lawyers seeking a big windfall. One only has to be aware of certain tv commercials
to realize this is still happening, and it happens to low income people for the most part. In
the novels they are always the ultimate victims, no matter what the outcome of the lawsuits. The
money changes hands, but the poor get shafted.
juliana – I like Grisham a lot, too; the fact that he is himself a native of the "poor south"
(Arkansas, Mississippi) lends a gritty realism to his novels. More members of the credentialed
classes should read him, maybe they'd understand what's happening in the heartland better.
I've never much cared for his legal thrillers, but I was really impressed by his semi-autobiographical
novel, "A Painted House" set in rural east Arkansas in the 50s. My mother was from a small farm
in that area and I grew up not far away in Memphis and visited east Arkansas often as a kid in
the 50s and 60s. I am Grisham's age and the novel was spot on in my experience
Thinking out loud here, so take with a grain of salt: could IPR-related rents be fixed by switching
the "carrot" from monopoly on the IP to tax credits? Instead of "You are the only one that gets
to sell this for X years, unless others pay you a fee," the creator of the IP gets a tax credit
equal to a certain % of sales and/or profits that others make from use of said IP. This would,
of course, be a non-transferable right to the credit; some company cannot come along and buy it
out from the creator, nor can it be passed along to next of kin. Creator gets compensation, consumers
avoid the artificial rent cost, and by opening up the IP to the market, competition and refinements
can begin immediately.
shorter: current Bangladesh life expectancy is: males – ~ 70, females – ~73, total – ~71, world
rank – 99th.
The declining life expectancy for too many rural US populations, especially for females, is
caused by increased deaths in the 45-55 age range. Fewer are reaching the age of 60 or 70. Ergo,
these areas have lower than Bangladesh's overall life expectancy. These early US deaths are numerous
enough to lower the overall life expectancy of the US cohort, which is shocking.
adding: while the lowered overall US life expectancies are still above overall Bangladesh's,
in US counties with these large increased death rates in the 45-55 age cohort the the counties
life expectancy is lower than Bangladesh. There are so many of these US counties and such a large
percentage of the population that the overall US life expectancy has tilted down.
I suggest reading 'Deep South' by Paul Theroux for a scorching look at the day-to-day life
of the denizens of this area. That it might, in some areas, be compared to the 'Third World' is,
tragically, a compliment. How can these conditions exist in the richest country in the world?
And how can one be an American and tolerate this?
What were the economic conditions in Cambodia prior to Pol Pot and the killing fields? I'm
too young, but I that seemed to be a more modern tail of the 90% taking out the top 10%.
There has to be some shred of truth to drive people to eliminate an entire swath of their population
along economic lines only.
But the term "rent seeking" doesn't have much punch. To a moderately well educated reader,
It sounds like something we would all do in a "capitalistic" system and therefore, in some sense,
rational, and exempt from the jaundiced, deep consideration it deserves.
I believe that much of what ails us in the larger effort to make changes in (what's left of)
the Republic, is our more or less universal aversion to using the proper vocabulary to address
how one goes about "rent seeking," which is to engage in wholesale, long term and systematic bribery
of public officials who can (and will) enshrine our sought for "market" advantages.
When did "bribery" morph into "campaign finance"? There may have been a time and place in American
history when there could be fine distinctions, maybe even legitimate distinctions, drawn between
the two, but today? Any trip to "the Hill" or our state legislatures, to advocate for a policy
or law-unsupported by a major league checkbook-will convince a person that the Congress, etc.
has devolved into a massive "system" for soliciting money in exchange for agreeing to vote against
the public interest.
In short, I'd like to advocate that we bring back bribery into the "civic lexicon." The sooner
the better.
In a post-Reagan/Bush environment the third way Democrats simply adopted what seemed moderate
in relation to the zeitgeist. The failure of all those poor rural people to pick up and move to where the jobs were is a
choice which they must have rationally assessed the cost/benefit of and made decisions as autonomous
adults.
Their failure to educate and train for the jobs of the future was a choice. They were warned.
Like we are being warned now that we are redundant or soon to be, replaceable by peasants from
abroad or algorithms at home. I don't think we are going to get the Star Trek economy. I think we are getting the Logan's
Run, Aldous Huxley, Eloi vs. Morlock economy.
"Reeling from their inability to stop his election, envious of his power
to make people believe his most ridiculous statements, and rinsed by a needy
mood for self-soothing, the media and other American institutions are
greeting the era of Trump by lowering their ethical and professional
standards and indulging in attention-seeking hysteria. However cathartic it
may be, the effect is suicidal for the media and dangerous for the nation" [
The
Week
]. "[O]ur institutions can't temporarily suspend the very standards
that grant them credibility and expect to survive." And it's always possible
to make things worse
"[B]oth parties are built upon unstable coalitions. For Democrats, it is
a coalition driven by demographics. The Democratic mantra for the last eight
years has been built around the idea that an increasingly diverse and
urbanizing electorate was going to build them a permanent Electoral College
majority. But, as we saw in 2016 and every midterm election since 2008, the
only Democrat who was able to
mobilize the "Obama coalition" was Barack Obama himself" [Cook Political]. A
coalition held together by one man isn't a coalition at all, as
I
pointed out in early in 2016. As for the Republicans: "Speaker Ryan and
Majority Leader McConnell have had their policies and priorities teed up for
years. They've just been waiting for a GOP president to help implement them.
Trump, meanwhile, has shown an incredible, um, flexibility on issues,
policies and priorities. Without an ideological core to drive him and with
no experience in the give and take of the legislative process, there's no
telling what, or how, he will govern."
"The [Democrat] party is approaching the confirmation process as one of
the first steps in its rebuilding effort following painful November losses"
[
RealClearPolitics
].
"That effort includes getting opposition research and outside messaging
groups into high gear, fundraising off of certain confirmation hearing
highlights or controversies regarding some nominees, and coming up with a
way to paint the administration they will run against in four years in an
unflattering light." Hysteria is good for fundraising, so expect it to
continue.
So Booker signals he's going to run in 2020 by the noise he made at the
Sessions hearing. Then he took care to build up his campaign warchest:
"In 2020, the Democrats could run Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyonce,
Matt Damon, or Rosie O'Donnell. Some might guffaw at this idea. After all,
wouldn't running a celebrity candidate further associate Democrats with
coastal elitism?" [
The
New Republic
]. "But Democrats' main problem last year wasn't in
appealing to anti-elitist voters; it was in getting out the party's base. A
magnetic, attractive movie star would have a far better chance of
accomplishing that than just another accomplished, dowdy politician."
"Bernie Sanders can win in 2020, but he has to make a critical choice
right now" [
CNBC
].
I wish Sanders were four years younger .
"Is Bernie's Revolution Taking Over The California Democratic Party?" [
Down
with Tyranny
]. Yes,
according this story in Links this morning
. Note the role played by the
(badass) National Nurses Union. Organizing infrastructure really, really
helps and where else to you find it?
"... Bill Clinton's generation, however, believed that concentration of financial power could be virtuous, as long as that power was in the hands of experts. They largely dismissed the white working class as a bastion of reactionary racism. Fred Dutton, who served on the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1970 , saw the white working class as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." This paved the way for the creation of the modern Democratic coalition. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of party leaders who have bought into the ideology of these "new" Democrats, and he has governed likewise, with commercial policies that ravaged the heartland. ..."
Democrats can't win until they recognize how bad Obama's financial policies were
He had opportunities to help the working class, and he passed them up.
By Matt Stoller January 12 at 8:25 AM
During his final news conference of 2016, in mid-December, President Obama criticized Democratic
efforts during the election. "Where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte-sipping,
you know, politically correct, out-of-touch folks," Obama said, "we have to be in those communities."
In fact, he went on, being in those communities - "going to fish-fries and sitting in VFW halls
and talking to farmers" - is how, by his account, he became president. It's true that Obama is
skilled at projecting a populist image; he beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa in 2008, for instance,
partly by attacking agriculture monopolies .
But Obama can't place the blame for Clinton's poor performance purely on her campaign. On the
contrary, the past eight years of policymaking have damaged Democrats at all levels. Recovering
Democratic strength will require the party's leaders to come to terms with what it has become
- and the role Obama played in bringing it to this point.
Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued:
The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts. The resulting policy framework
of Tim Geithner's Treasury Department was, in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home
(the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power. The second was
the administration's pro-monopoly policies, which crushed the rural areas that in 2016 lost voter
turnout and swung to Donald Trump.
Obama didn't cause the financial panic, and he is only partially responsible for the bailouts,
as most of them were passed before he was elected. But financial collapses, while bad for the
country, are opportunities for elected leaders to reorganize our culture. Franklin Roosevelt took
a frozen banking system and created the New Deal. Ronald Reagan used the sharp recession of the
early 1980s to seriously damage unions. In January 2009, Obama had overwhelming Democratic majorities
in Congress, $350 billion of no-strings-attached bailout money and enormous legal latitude. What
did he do to reshape a country on its back?
First, he saved the financial system. A financial system in collapse has to allocate losses.
In this case, big banks and homeowners both experienced losses, and it was up to the Obama administration
to decide who should bear those burdens. Typically, such losses would be shared between debtors
and creditors, through a deal like the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s or bankruptcy
reform. But the Obama administration took a different approach. Rather than forcing some burden-sharing
between banks and homeowners through bankruptcy reform or debt relief, Obama prioritized creditor
rights, placing most of the burden on borrowers. This kept big banks functional and ensured that
financiers would maintain their positions in the recovery. At a 2010 hearing, Damon Silvers, vice
chairman of the independent Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to monitor the bailouts,
told Obama's Treasury Department: "We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure
crisis, or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can't do both."
Second, Obama's administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the
crisis. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) referred criminal cases to the Justice Department and was ignored.
Whistleblowers from the government and from large banks noted a lack of appetite among prosecutors.
In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder ordered prosecutors not to go after mega-bank HSBC
for money laundering. Using prosecutorial discretion to not take bank executives to task, while
legal, was neither moral nor politically wise; in a 2013 poll, more than half of Americans still
said they wanted the bankers behind the crisis punished. But the Obama administration failed to
act, and this pattern seems to be continuing. No one, for instance, from Wells Fargo has been
indicted for mass fraud in opening fake accounts.
Third, Obama enabled and encouraged roughly 9 million foreclosures. This was Geithner's explicit
policy at Treasury. The Obama administration put together a foreclosure program that it marketed
as a way to help homeowners, but when Elizabeth Warren, then chairman of the Congressional Oversight
Panel, grilled Geithner on why the program wasn't stopping foreclosures, he said that really wasn't
the point. The program, in his view, was working. "We estimate that they can handle 10 million
foreclosures, over time," Geithner said - referring to the banks. "This program will help foam
the runway for them." For Geithner, the most productive economic policy was to get banks back
to business as usual.
Nor did Obama do much about monopolies. While his administration engaged in a few mild challenges
toward the end of his term, 2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another
busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet
platforms to airlines, power has concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush's
before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Instead, in the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music
teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much
a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest
of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.
With these policies in place, it's no surprise that Thomas Piketty and others have detected
skyrocketing inequality, that most jobs created in the past eight years have been temporary or
part time, or that lifespans in white America are dropping . When Democratic leaders don't protect
the people, the people get poorer, they get angry, and more of them die.
Yes, Obama prevented an even greater collapse in 2009. But he also failed to prosecute the
banking executives responsible for the housing crisis, then approved a foreclosure wave under
the guise of helping homeowners. Though 58 percent of Americans were in favor of government action
to halt foreclosures, Obama's administration balked. And voters noticed. Fewer than four in 10
Americans were happy with his economic policies this time last year (though that was an all-time
high for Obama). And by Election Day, 75 percent of voters were looking for someone who could
take the country back "from the rich and powerful," something unlikely to be done by members of
the party that let the financiers behind the 2008 financial crisis walk free.
This isn't to say voters are, on balance, any more thrilled with what Republicans have to offer,
nor should they be. But that doesn't guarantee Democrats easy wins. Throughout American history,
when voters have felt abandoned by both parties, turnout has collapsed - and 2016, scraping along
20-year turnout lows, was no exception. Turnout in the Rust Belt , where Clinton's path to victory
dissolved, was especially low in comparison to 2012.
Trump, who is either tremendously lucky or worryingly perceptive, ran his campaign like a pre-1930s
Republican. He did best in rural areas, uniting white farmers, white industrial workers and certain
parts of big business behind tariffs and anti-immigration walls. While it's impossible to know
what he will really do for these voters, the coalition he summoned has a long, if not recent,
history in America.
Democrats have long believed that theirs is the party of the people. Therefore, when Trump
co-opts populist language, such as saying he represents the "forgotten" man, it seems absurd -
and it is. After all, that's what Democrats do, right? Thus, many Democrats have assumed that
Trump's appeal can only be explained by personal bigotry - and it's also true that Trump trafficks
in racist and nativist rhetoric. But the reality is that the Democratic Party has been slipping
away from the working class for some time, and Obama's presidency hastened rather than reversed
that departure. Republicans, hardly worker-friendly themselves, simply capitalized on it.
There's history here: In the 1970s, a wave of young liberals, Bill Clinton among them, destroyed
the populist Democratic Party they had inherited from the New Dealers of the 1930s. The contours
of this ideological fight were complex, but the gist was: Before the '70s, Democrats were suspicious
of big business. They used anti-monopoly policies to fight oligarchy and financial manipulation.
Creating competition in open markets, breaking up concentrations of private power, and protecting
labor and farmer rights were understood as the essence of ensuring that our commercial society
was democratic and protected from big money.
Bill Clinton's generation, however, believed that concentration of financial power could be
virtuous, as long as that power was in the hands of experts. They largely dismissed the white
working class as a bastion of reactionary racism. Fred Dutton, who served on the McGovern-Fraser
Commission in 1970 , saw the white working class as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism
and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." This paved the way for the creation of the modern Democratic
coalition. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of party leaders who have bought into the
ideology of these "new" Democrats, and he has governed likewise, with commercial policies that
ravaged the heartland.
As a result, while our culture has become more tolerant over the past 40 years, power in our
society has once again been concentrated in the hands of a small group of billionaires. You can
see this everywhere, if you look. Warren Buffett, who campaigned with Hillary Clinton, recently
purchased chunks of the remaining consolidated airlines, which have the power not only to charge
you to use the overhead bin but also to kill cities simply by choosing to fly elsewhere. Internet
monopolies increasingly control the flow of news and media revenue. Meatpackers have re-created
a brutal sharecropper-type system of commercial exploitation. And health insurers, drugstores
and hospitals continue to consolidate, partially as a response to Obamacare and its lack of a
public option for health coverage.
Many Democrats ascribe problems with Obama's policies to Republican opposition. The president
himself does not. "Our policies are so awesome," he once told staffers. "Why can't you guys do
a better job selling them?" The problem, in other words, is ideological.
Many Democrats think that Trump supporters voted against their own economic interests. But
voters don't want concentrated financial power that deigns to redistribute some cash, along with
weak consumer protection laws. They want jobs. They want to be free to govern themselves. Trump
is not exactly pitching self-government. But he is offering a wall of sorts to protect voters
against neo-liberals who consolidate financial power, ship jobs abroad and replace paychecks with
food stamps. Democrats should have something better to offer working people. If they did, they
could have won in November. In the wreckage of this last administration, they didn't.
"... High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity). ..."
"... "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific market. ..."
"... Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" ..."
"... The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent peace" ..."
"... Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law ..."
"... "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" ..."
"... US Trotskyites gravitated mostly to neoconservatism, not "pure" neoliberalism. They were definitely contributors and players at later stage, but Monte Peregrine society was instrumental in creation of the initial version of the neoliberal ideology. And only later it became clear that neoconservatism is "neoliberalism with the gun". ..."
"... I think that after "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered, it became clear that the idea of proletariat as a new "progressive" class that destined to become the leading force in the society was a utopia. ..."
"... But if you replace "proletariat" with the "creative class" then Trotskyism ideology makes a lot of sense, as a "muscular" interpretation of neoliberalism. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have "neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution we have permanent "democratization" via color revolutions with the same key idea. In this case creating a global neoliberal empire that will make everybody happy and prosperous. So it makes perfect sense to bring neoliberal flavor democracy on the tips of bayonets to those backward nations that resist the inevitable. ..."
"... From this point of view neoliberalism is yet another stunning "economico-political" utopia that competes as for the level of economic determinism with classic Marxism... ..."
"... Consider Christopher Hitchens: the former Trotskyist wrote, following his 2002 resignation as a Nation columnist, that by not embracing things like the Iraq War, "The Nation joined the amoral side . I say that they stand for neutralism where no such thing is possible or desirable, and I say the hell with it." ..."
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind,
and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional
wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help
feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are
seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that
it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a
long time.
This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda,
the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.
And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had
been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism
can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no
longer work well and are starting to course the backlash:
High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via
higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
"Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market.Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity
seen as a specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should
be governed as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as
learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs
them with market techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly
tend to their own present and future market value.
Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under
neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.
The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war
for permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant
regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of
citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1%
or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura"
was in the USSR.
"Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making
transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said.
Who decide about level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that
previously were prerogative of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism
in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its
power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling
the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism"
of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR
to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up
the USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
This is a difficult question. They did not spawned neoliberalism and for some time neoconservatism
existed as a separate ideology.
US Trotskyites gravitated mostly to neoconservatism, not "pure" neoliberalism. They were
definitely contributors and players at later stage, but Monte Peregrine society was instrumental
in creation of the initial version of the neoliberal ideology. And only later it became clear
that neoconservatism is "neoliberalism with the gun".
I think that after "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered, it became clear that the idea
of proletariat as a new "progressive" class that destined to become the leading force in the society
was a utopia.
But if you replace "proletariat" with the "creative class" then Trotskyism ideology makes
a lot of sense, as a "muscular" interpretation of neoliberalism. Instead of "proletarians of all
countries unite" we have "neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution
we have permanent "democratization" via color revolutions with the same key idea. In this case
creating a global neoliberal empire that will make everybody happy and prosperous. So it makes
perfect sense to bring neoliberal flavor democracy on the tips of bayonets to those backward nations
that resist the inevitable.
From this point of view neoliberalism is yet another stunning "economico-political" utopia
that competes as for the level of economic determinism with classic Marxism...
Also this process started long ago and lasted more then 50 years. The first who did this
jump was probably James Burnham. The latest was probably Christopher Hitchens.
https://www.thenation.com/article/going-all-way/
Consider Christopher Hitchens: the former Trotskyist wrote, following his 2002 resignation
as a Nation columnist, that by not embracing things like the Iraq War, "The Nation joined the
amoral side . I say that they stand for neutralism where no such thing is possible or desirable,
and I say the hell with it."
It is the turncoat's greatest gift to his new hosts: the affirmation that the world exists
only in black and white.
Lord -> likbez... ,
Boudreaux assures us it would be unethical and uneconomical to do otherwise, by those with the
gold anyway.
"... The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform. ..."
"... At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions. ..."
"... I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson. ..."
The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election
issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break
up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform.
For a while we had the Russian hacking accusations, which have suddenly gone dormant (will we
ever get proof?). Now we have divide and conquer identity issues. But no proposed alternatives to
Trump for curing our economic malaise along the lines suggested by Sanders.
We are headed back to business as usual, with the right fighting the so-called center left (our
two neoliberal factions) for dominance. Apparently conditions have not deteriorated enough yet for
a populist uprising. How much more does it take before we reach a critical mass?
Some change is happening. Even Cuomo is now seeking the seal of approval from Bernie for supporting
a new college tuition plan for families making less than $125,000.
It's going to be a slow process though. There is a group within the Democratic Party that is
on the way out historically, and they want to do nothing other than turn the Party's politics
into nothing but vendettas, distraction and obstruction.
This is classic Cuomo. Give a bit to the right - then a bit to the left. Of course the ultra-rich
Uppity East Siders are whining we can't afford this while the Green Party is upset it does not
also cover food and rent. You can't win in NYC politics no matter what you do.
" At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied
away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats
will soon face enormously risky decisions.
Does the party move left, as a choice of Keith Ellison for D.N.C. chairman would suggest? Does
it wait for internecine conflict to emerge among Republicans as Trump and his allies fulfill campaign
promises - repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform and deporting millions of undocumented aliens?"
It's funny how there has been no discussion of the DNC chair contest, and yet the progressive
neoliberals here still whine that the forum isn't an echo chamber which reflects their views.
And then they fantasize about banning people with whom they disagree.
State governments famously (or infamously) give away billions in tax breaks to lure in firms that
make jobs. 19 Republican governors -- by rejecting Medicaid expansion -- have rejected TAKING
IN federal tax money to generate good medical jobs, not to mention the multiplier effect of new
spending ...
.. and it's the states' own money that they sent to the federal government that they don't
want to TAKE BACK ...
... oh, almost forgot; it's good for uninsured poor people too (almost forgot about that).
There was a reason why the Annapolis Convention that led almost directly to the Constitutional
convention was organized on the need to stop interjurisdictional competition in the favoring of
commercial interests so as to favor uniform commerce rules across the US, should the national
legislature exercise on the matter.
I sure like competition, recognize the federal system as a having great socio-political value,
even appreciate non-uniformity until it grabs the attention of more thoughtful view (experimentation),
but more and more I think Congress should enact the law to proscribe these crony actions by States.
Many politicians, and I've worked with many at the State level would appreciate it if these pandering
and favoring pleadings just went away.
Fed Officials See Faster Economic Growth Under Trump, but No Boom
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
JAN. 4, 2017
"Ms. Yellen has warned that fiscal stimulus, like a tax cut or a spending increase, could increase
economic growth to an unsustainable pace in the near term, resulting in increased inflation. The
Fed quite likely would seek to offset such policies by raising interest rates more quickly."
Progressive neoliberalism...
And Alan Blinder said Hillary's fiscal plans wouldn't be large enough to cause the Fed to alter
its path of rate hikes.
And Trump promised more better infrastructure like clean airports.
An update on the Chevy Cruze controversy. US consumption was 194,500 vehicles with 190,000 made
here in the US. That's 97.7% of them being produced locally. Tweet that.
I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief
that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson.
Can you spend time on the republicans too?
Just asking for a little balance. You and I both share a dismay about the last eight years
and the presidential campaign. Your energy focused on the party in power now, even a bit, would
probably be helpful.
How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for
Trump
Nate Cohn
DEC. 23, 2016
....
Mr. Trump's gains among white working-class voters
weren't simply caused by Democrats staying home on
Election Day.
The Clinton team knew what was wrong from the start,
according to a Clinton campaign staffer and other
Democrats. Its models, based on survey data, indicated
that they were underperforming Mr. Obama in less-educated
white areas by a wide margin - perhaps 10 points or more -
as early as the summer.
The campaign looked back to respondents who were
contacted in 2012, and found a large number of white
working-class voters who had backed Mr. Obama were now
supporting Mr. Trump.
...
Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump ran against the establishment
- and against a candidate who embodied it far more than
John McCain or Mr. Romney did. The various allegations
against Mrs. Clinton neatly complemented the notion that
she wasn't out to help ordinary Americans.
Taken together, Mr. Trump's views on immigration,
trade, China, crime, guns and Islam all had considerable
appeal to white working-class Democratic voters, according
to Pew Research data. It was a far more appealing message
than old Republican messages about abortion, same-sex
marriage and the social safety net.
...
Mrs. Clinton's gains were concentrated among the most
affluent and best-educated white voters, much as Mr.
Trump's gains were concentrated among the lowest-income
and least-educated white voters.
She gained 17 points among white postgraduates,
according to Upshot estimates, but just four points among
whites with a bachelor's degree.
There was a similar pattern by income. Over all, she
picked up 24 points among white voters with a degree
making more than $250,000, according to the exit polls,
while she made only slight gains among those making less
than $100,000 per year.
These gains helped her win huge margins in the most
well-educated and prosperous liberal bastions of the new
economy, like Manhattan, Silicon Valley, Washington,
Seattle, Chicago and Boston. There, Mrs. Clinton ran up
huge margins in traditionally liberal enclaves and stamped
out nearly every last wealthy precinct that supported the
Republicans.
Scarsdale, N.Y., voted for Mrs. Clinton by 57 points,
up from Mr. Obama's 18-point win. You could drive a full
30 miles through the leafy suburbs northwest of Boston
before reaching a town where Mr. Trump hit 20 percent of
the vote. She won the affluent east-side suburbs of
Seattle, like Mercer Island, Bellevue and Issaquah, by
around 50 points - doubling Mr. Obama's victory.
Every old-money Republican enclave of western
Connecticut, like Darien and Greenwich, voted for Mrs.
Clinton, in some cases swinging 30 points in her
direction. Every precinct of Winnetka and Glencoe, Ill.,
went to Mrs. Clinton as well.
Her gains were nearly as impressive in affluent
Republican suburbs, like those edging west of Kansas City,
Mo., and Houston; north of Atlanta, Dallas and Columbus,
Ohio; or south of Charlotte, N.C., and Los Angeles in
Orange County. Mrs. Clinton didn't always win these
affluent Republican enclaves, but she made big gains.
But the narrowness of Mrs. Clinton's gains among
well-educated voters helped to concentrate her support in
the coasts and the prosperous but safely Republican Sun
Belt. It left her short in middle-class,
battleground-state suburbs, like those around
Philadelphia, Detroit and Tampa, Fla., where far fewer
workers have a postgraduate degree, make more than
$100,000 per year or work in finance, science or
technology.
"... George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists. ..."
"... Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist. ..."
"... Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it. ..."
"... They sold their souls for campaign dollars and look what it got them. lmfao. ..."
"... I wouldn't give Soros that much credit. Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties. ..."
"... I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck 'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged Democrat Party ..."
"... Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became increasingly subdued by identity politics. ..."
"... It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy. Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism & ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable. ..."
"... Neoliberals control by divide and conquer tactics. ..."
"... I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society, and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings to mind the following quote, actually: ..."
"... " Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " - Hermann Goering ..."
"... It makes one wonder what else neoliberals and the far-right might have in common beyond the mutual adoration for corporate welfare & racial hierarchy. ..."
"... Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior". ..."
"... And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski, Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. ..."
"... yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" - G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014 ..."
"... Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit. ..."
"... The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and large. The same ist true for the republicans. ..."
"... Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either. He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own personal enrichment no matter what. ..."
"... His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people. ..."
"... His only "principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not! ..."
"... Soros did a great job helping Oblivio and Hillary obliterate the Democratic Party. ..."
"... And nobody seems to discuss how Putin became Public Enemy Number One in the minds of the Dems after Russia put out a warrant on Soros. Coincidence? ..."
"... Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious. ..."
"... "They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon. They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are. ..."
"... The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that was needed to complete the complete destruction. ..."
"... I can think of no finer display of corrupt pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell. ..."
"... Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same. ..."
"... Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party. They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around. ..."
"... Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. ..."
"... The neoliberals needs demons as they don't have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies. ..."
"... The Washington Post is now referred to as Bezos' Blog. Get with the program, man. ..."
"... If Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens. ..."
"... The neocons can easily move over to the Democratic Party. Some of them already are. The Democrats would welcome them. ..."
"... Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war was bad for business. ..."
"... Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor. ..."
It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office
records. You couldn't set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling,
"Oops, I Did It Again." And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures
in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.
In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That's up from 16 in 2000.
What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base
and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.
... ... ...
Obama's wins concealed the scale and scope of the disaster. Then the party woke up after Obama
to realize that it had lost its old bases in the South and the Rust Belt. the neoliberals had hollowed it
out and transformed it into a party of coastal urban elites, angry college crybullies and minority
coalitions.
Republicans
control twice as many state legislative chambers as the Democrats. They
boast 25 trifectas
, controlling both legislative chambers and the governor's mansion. Trifectas had gone from being
something that wasn't seen much outside of a few hard red states like Texas to covering much of the
South, the Midwest and the West.
The Democrats have a solid lock on the West Coast and a narrow corridor of the Northeast, and
little else. The vast majority of the
country's legislatures are in Republican hands. The Democrat Governor's Association has a membership
in the teens. In former strongholds like Arkansas, Dems are going extinct. The party has gone from
holding national legislative
majorities to becoming a marginal movement.
... Much of this disaster had been funded with Soros money. Like many a theatrical villain, the
old monster had been undone by his own hubris. Had Soros aided the Democrats without trying to control
them, he would have gained a seat at the table in a national party. Instead he spent a fortune destroying
the very thing he was trying to control.
George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care
about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly
over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe
that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable,
the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his
fellow elitists.
Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its
vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The
idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists
and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros
believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist
nationalist.
... ... ...
Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered,
and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the
United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with
it.
"I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave
in 2010.
But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.
"There should be consequences for the outrageous statements and proposals that we've regularly
heard from candidates Trump and Cruz,"
Soros threatened this time around. He predicted a Hillary landslide.
I wouldn't give Soros that much credit.
Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years
to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties.
I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal
group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck
'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged
Democrat Party
" they ditched the working man to court the various hate groups - nyc skype, gay, black, illegal,
globalist warmers, etc "
Inclusive politics are not at the root of the crisis which the center-left is now experiencing
on both sides of the Atlantic. Neoliberalism is.
Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left
over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity
for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took
a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed
to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became
increasingly subdued by identity politics.
Today, we witness this phenomenon across all major center-left parties & their associated media
pundits. A prominent example would be the vocal support that mainstream neoliberal outlets, such
as the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist, are consistently offering to the Social
Democratic parties & candidates. These neoliberal platforms take on a public profile of social
radicalism on key social issues, while they relentlessly advocate for unfettered free trade and
a form of laissez faire capitalism at the same time.
It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy.
Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically
low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism &
ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of
affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events
as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable.
Erik, when haven't England and the US been governed by neoliberals? Neoliberals control by divide
and conquer tactics. In the US, elections have always been rural vs city, young vs old, white
vs non-white. Even when Obama won, he didn't win the white vote, the rural vote or the old vote.
Brexit, too, was about young vs old, rural vs city and white vs non-white.
In the big national elections, it comes down to which sides get out the vote. In the case of
the Presidential election, the Democrats, who couldn't have picked a more entitled, crooked and
repulsive candidate, just couldn't get out enough of their own vote out her. In the case of the
Brexit election, it was the fear of the non-urban whites being over run by immigrants, that made
the difference.
I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society,
and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel
it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings
to mind the following quote, actually:
" Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. "
- Hermann Goering
Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American
legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done
with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior".
Perhaps the legacies of class warfare & racial hierarchy should end.
EML, would it kill you to be a bit more balanced in your comments? You always end up with a rant
about the "far-right" and "identity politics". Do you deny that the far left constantly disparages
Jews and working class whites, who these leftists refer to as "white trash" and "trailer trash"?
And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski,
Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. Try not being such
a polarizing one-trick pony, or at least save yourself time by using the term, 'ditto' for your
posts, since most of your posts appear to be redundant pleas for negative attention.
Hermann Goering, please. Now you are resorting to Godwin's Law. How pathetic.
yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" -
G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014
Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit.
The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars
at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and
large. The same ist true for the republicans.
Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either.
He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own
personal enrichment no matter what.
His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some
empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people.
He sold out his fellow jews to the Nazis
back in the dark times of the 1930s/1940s; he virtually delivered them to the Nazio slaughterhouse
and never ever regretted it. He is doing and always will do the same to everybody else.
His only
"principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining
life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not!
Putin showed the world that you could aspire towards Christian nationhood, and take yourselves
out from under the debt enslaved thumb of Zoinist Rothchild Bankers. For that he must be stopped.
Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that
let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious.
"They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon.
They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are."
Actually, I find this post to be a very accurate summation of what the 2016 election turned
out to be. It is true that it was not Soros alone who created the evil that was done, but he was
the money bags behind it.
The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that
was needed to complete the complete destruction. What is disturbing is how incapable those whose
guilt is writ in this fiasco are of coming to terms with their very own failures. All you see
them do is try to blame others for their iniquities.
I can think of no finer display of corrupt
pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running
this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell.
Since it came from Soros, Its "good" influence. Its only bad when such things hurt democrats.
Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference
in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same.
They import millions of
foreigners who overwhelmingly vote democrat. They wouldn't stand a chance in a national election
without a shitload of non americans voting. How exactly that isn't defined as 'foreign interference
in our elections' is beyond me.
Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party.
They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery
her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you
for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to
remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around.
Also have to thank Soros for Black Lives Matter. When the revolution comes, there will be
a bunch of cops on our side, and most of the angry nutbags who kill random cops will be black,
which means there will be even more cops on our side.
Within a few years maybe we will thank Soros for a fascist Europe and the giant enema which
will follow. And the Farce will come full circle for this devil who got his start betraying
his own people to the Nazis so he could steal their shit.
"Excerpts from Perfidy are printed below. We begin with Adolf Eichmann's testimonial to Kastner's
activities, which Hecht quoted from "Eichmann's Confessions" published in the November 28 and
December 5, 1960 editions of LIFE magazine.
In Hungary my basic orders were to ship all the Jews out of Hungary in as short a time as possible.
. . . In obedience to Himmler's directive, I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish
political officials in Budapest . . . among them Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative
of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and
a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation -- and even keep
order in the collection camps -- if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand
young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price . . . was not too high for
me ....We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarets as though
he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking
them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve
he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.Dr. Kastner's main concern was to make it
possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel. . . .
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and
the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders . . . . I believe that Kastner would
have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. .
. . "You can have the others," he would say, "but let me have this group here." And because Kastner
rendered us a great service by helping to keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his
group escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. . . .
That was the "gentleman's agreement" I had with the Jews. (p.261) - See more at:
https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Zionists-Sacrificed-Jews-in-Holocaust...
Everyone, especially politicians. Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the
world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. As long as they are getting
rich they are "winning".
The Koch brothers stayed out of the fray as they do not like Trump. The neoliberals tried to make
the Kochs a demon but no one was buying the bullshit. The neoliberals needs demons as they don't
have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled
with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies.
Not this year really. They were not behind Trump, supported HRC if I am not mistaken, after Trump
won the nomination.
Thing about the Krotch brothers that is different from Soros is they try to influence thing
to benefit themselves financially, not necessarily to destroy the country, where Soros is flat
out anti traditional American values and US constitution. The constitution is the only thing that
has kept us from being a full blown totalitarian state run by global government so far, so it
has to be destroyed in his mind.
I could be wrong, but don't think the Krotch brothers are out to destroy the constitution,
just obscenely enrich themselves bordering on illegally.
Russians put the weeds in your lawn ... at night. Soros has always been a major problem for the
entire world, and that is why the news will be very interesting this year, because everyone knows.
Happy new year.
Goodbye, Democratic Party. See you maybe in 16 years, but I doubt it. My guess is
a different party will be formed to challenge the Republicans in 2032, and the Democrats will
go the way of the Bull Moose Party, as in extinction.
The status of the national part of the Republican party seems a little up in the air to me.
If
Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon
warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens.
Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats
became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they
moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war
was bad for business.
Then the self perpetuating MIC that Eisenhower warned of became ascendant
and then war was even more of a racket than it always was. Their influence came to the fore with
Bush Sr.
Reagan had some in his administration, but he fired many or moved them out of positions of
power when it came to his attention they were following their own agenda. And yet, he had enough
to convince him of the Iran contra stuff.
Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's
where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor.
"... Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough. ..."
"... Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was. ..."
"... The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism. ..."
"... Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. ..."
"... At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them. ..."
"... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
"... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
"... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
"... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
"... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
"... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43
v 0bama question.
Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be
"yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama
still sucks".
IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse
than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2
policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to
privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed
to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some
of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired
Iran War.
IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S
or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare
eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma
patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed
the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama
could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen &
House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher
& others.
Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing
to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would
have been worse.
"What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz
How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect
of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an
ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now
Reganesque Presidents.
It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century.
#AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and
unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate
anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because
of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity
helped defeat Clinton 2016.
HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm.
Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the
Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated
100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't
even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens
without trial.
Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that
receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs,
expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
Libya.
Expansion of our droning program.
While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria
mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel
before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.
Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.
Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of
the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded
upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait
we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.
And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli
determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed
there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?
I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late
in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But
see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are
probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.
But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been
at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices
– something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization
and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down
the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible
to stop the wheel.
As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison
that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.
Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included
Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which
as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them
absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime
in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks
on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his
Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents.
Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist
to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House.
History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any
remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations
of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation
where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently
branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.
"HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm."
Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.
I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous
presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing
we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.
I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see
Chain of Title by David
Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What
to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of
it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage
fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in
the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase
Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable
to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
* The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities
are accountable under the law.
* The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental
rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
* The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair,
and efficient.
* Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals
who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities
they serve.
I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about
the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.
The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by
the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism.
Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced
by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the
neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting
homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but
that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit
the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable
rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods
in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is
connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.
However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining
to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent
representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect
the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there,
and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation.
But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair.
This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns
of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and
then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law
officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy
taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value
= Trillions?
Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is
the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours
to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of
mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same
makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the
pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of
honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of
Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of
course also work their playbooks on other folks.
To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies
to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism
and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of
the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle
East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader
will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig
into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule
of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop.
Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First
because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague
promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming
about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change
our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw
those away fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow
jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took
power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember
"never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican.
At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what
they voted for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it.
You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played
important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.
GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort
of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy
stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities
in both house of Congress.
Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features
of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you
get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented
the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until
decades have passed, if we make it that long.
Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama
should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he
was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.
You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago
Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of
Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable
that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the
"message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it
was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid
calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two
Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed
over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might
be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general.
Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?
The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan
wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had
and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and
ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and
workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president
Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began
the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines
and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.
And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign,
even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.
dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the
throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe
anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was
a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..
the grey lady
5-11-2008
In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the
country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz
greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.
Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to
walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year
later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard
than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.
But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States
senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on
a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer,
Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.
but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)
A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion
of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington
had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy
black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.
At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white
Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a
perfect fit.
"He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go
to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."
also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the
bud billiken parade
peaceful, fun, successful
heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence
might confuse the closet racists
There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.
The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:
The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in
the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed.
Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including
two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation
involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around
12:30 pm.[39][40]
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.