Death of Clintonism, Victory of Sandersism

Terrific and transparent. So so golf game. Travels too heavy though. Should get the Mrs. to fly on his jet.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by bnw.

Zooey wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Who was the last president to enact legislation that had a meaningful, long-term positive effect on the poor and middle class?

FDR?

LBJ got food stamps, and Head Start, and Civil Rights Act.

So it’s only been 50 years since the poor were more than an afterthought to a US president? Then what’s the issue?

Zooey wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

So it’s only been 50 years since the poor were more than an afterthought to a US president? Then what’s the issue?

Hmm. I’ have to say, Yes. Very few of us are old enough to remember anything that the government did in our lifetime that actually helped poor people.

Although we have given them non-stop opportunities to go out in a blaze of glory defending our freedom from brown and yellow peasants. There’s that.

—————

I keep thinking of the Bernie quote about McDowell County in WV.
Average lifespan for males is 64. Six hour drive to Fairfax County in Va — 82 years. Think about that. But dont just think of the quantity of years, think about the ‘quality’ of life of poor people. In a gazillion ways they are dehumanized. Start with simple obvious things — like dental care. Think about daily ‘stress’. Think about trying to raise children under overwhelming ‘stress’… I could go on. But all the politicians (and voters) want to talk about is ‘the middle class.’ It makes me crazy.

w
v
—————–
Harold Laski (1930): “A State divided into a small number of rich and a large number of poor will always develop a government manipulated by the rich to protect the amenities represented by their property.”

Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison (in Growing Prosperity, 2000): “If you pour enough wealth into the funnel at the top, those at the bottom eventually receive a little of the benefits themselves. One might ask, what kind of decent society requires making the rich that much richer to prevent everyone else from getting poorer?”

“Plato told Aristotle no one should make more than five times the pay of the lowest member of society. J.P. Morgan said 20 times. Jesus advocated a negative differential – that’s why they killed him.” Graef Crystal (compensation expert 1998)

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862):”It is not enough to tell me that you worked hard to get your gold. So does the devil work hard.”

Dak wrote:

Yes, that was a very good article.

American politics is disgusting. In a fair and open-minded arena, the media would be fawning over Sanders the underdog. Instead, he’s held nearly in contempt. How dare he continue to challenge the anointed Democrat? Hillary has “paid her dues.” … What’s amazing is that Trump could be president simply because he’s facing Hillary. And, the only way she wins is sounding more and more like Sanders. Surreal.

—————-

Its like a Salvadore Dali painting,
aint it.

Only instead of flaming giraffes and melted clocks,
we got melted Clintons and flaming Trumps. And stuff.

w
v

As most of you guys know, the idea of a social safety net, and the “welfare state” in general, was originally a “conservative” idea. Bismarck is usually given the credit for its invention. As in, it’s really not an idea “from the left.”

Again, a much better way to go is to ensure the following:

1. Anyone who wants to work can, without down times.
2. Anyone who does work is guaranteed more than a living wage.
3. We have a maximum compensation structure to go along with the minimum, and a max ratio of top to bottom
4. Prices and wages match up closely enough to guarantee a high quality of living for all citizens.
5. Society sets aside a big enough Commons (at least) to make sure there are no obstacles for anyone who desires life-long learning, the best medical care, myriad parks and rec opportunities, myriad cultural venues, green food and water systems, etc.

Arm everyone with the tools to reach their highest potential. Promote this. Promote independence and self-sufficiency to the degree possible. Have the economy do what it’s supposed to do, so we don’t need a social safety net or a welfare state — with exceptions.

That, to me, is the much better angle to attack this.

Billy_T wrote:

IMO, even those liberals who talked about the poor and wanted to do something about poverty (RFK), or did do something (LBJ), attacked it from the wrong angle. From “liberal” to “Social Democrat,” a bit to their left, the idea of the social safety net just adds another dimension of dependence. Not in the sense that conservatives say this, as a form of rebuke or a way to shame the poor. But as an indictment on the economic system itself which requires additional supplements.

I think it’s time to start looking directly at capitalism as a failed system, an epic failure, if for no other reason than the fact that it has never, ever sufficiently allocated resources broadly enough to avoid massive poverty. That, to me, is damning. It proves it doesn’t work. No economic system can be said to “work” if it leaves so many people behind in dire poverty, and the vast majority living week to week.

Public sector supplements aren’t the answer to this, and they just keep capitalism going long past its expired date. No social safety net, really, should be needed — except for the disabled and those who simply can’t work. A truly effective economic system, however, would be one wherein anyone who ever wanted to work could, and that no one who works can possibly be “poor,” or have to even struggle to get by. The proper functioning of an effective economy would mean that all workers make a wage that guarantees at least “comfortable,” and that means the ratio of top to bottom shouldn’t (or can’t) be more than 4 to 1, give or take.

In short, the key is income and compensation up front. We shouldn’t need to help out citizens on the back end. The economy should do the vast majority of the work all by itself — again, up front. That’s actually the least it should do.

4 to 1 compensation. I actually agree with that. Heart stopped? <<<Oh boy do I want to be the one to apply those charged paddles to you!>>>>> I remember going back and forth with Thordaddy (RIP) on this. I see it as more equitable to the workers and much fairer to the shareholders. I used the Japanese model as my example. Thordaddy was all about those in charge should have no restraint on how much they can compensate themselves other than a BOD or shareholders action. I also believe CEO compensation should be determined by progress in market share, innovation, increase or maintenance of work force level rather than share price.

bnw,

I just saw that you agreed to that 4 to 1. Yes, I needed resuscitation after reading it.

;>)

Good to see we can have at least some common ground.

Zooey,

Great point about the ideology. Though it’s important to consider that the ideology helped produce the legal structure for capitalism, which was manufactured by the state, by states, and kept alive by the state, and states. If we actually control the state — which we theoretically do, at least — we can change that legal structure again. It’s not part of nature, as some would have us believe.

It’s all an applied fiction anyway. And it’s time for a much better fiction, one that helps 100% of the population instead of 1%.

FYI, there’s a youtube channel called “liberal redneck”. It’s really something…funny and enlightening, challenging and thought provoking, the author of the channel (or whatever you call the content creator) embraces being a redneck AND being liberal and challenges the notion that one excludes the other.

I think the grad student is dead on about her critique.

The DLC’s embrace of the professional class has only FURTHERED neoliberalism which had been the sole domain of the Republican “trickle down” crowd since Reagan got elected.

With both Clinton’s not just embrace of the professional class, but the embrace of the professional class to the exclusion of the working class, it allowed the DLC to fashion a message that co-opted the Republican financial message with social moderation. Basically, they could be Republicans that weren’t openly racist, antagonistic assholes. They didn’t engage in openly hostile dog whistle politics. They nominally tried to fix social problems, etc. People could get dirty stinking rich AND feel good about helping brown people…over there…somewhere.

It became de rigueur to play politics with social and financial policies without taking into account the consequences.

I came up with a quote for that (I do have the time for such contemplations…)

Politics is pornography for polite society. It is the observation, embrace, acceptance and engagement in social intercourse and/or engagement of governmental processes regarding the non-consensual violation of the people for the express purpose of self-gratification.”
William Keyser

When policy makers engage in politics, we truly see obscenity displayed before the masses.

No three way or German fetish was more obscene than a white man in bad suit giving an uninspired speech enumerating badly articulated and poorly thought out reasons as to why a program that actually helps people in need should be cut, leading to a direct increase in children going hungry or a direct increase in women being exposed to harm or a direct increase in veterans going homeless or direct increase in Active Duty Service Members’ deployment length…

The DLC Dems who made the “compromise” seem fucking incredulous that young people see the hypocrisy and obscenity of what they’re continuing to propose.

At least the Republicans are only proposing obscenity. And even if the obscenity is worse, for some, that’s the difference. There’s such an aversion to hypocrisy that they’d rather choose extra obscenity than be part of any hypocrisy.

Worse, the Clinton campaign is in full attack mode online for anyone who has issues with her obscene policies.

In word and deed, it’s tribal, traditional “party first” politics where policies are secondary (if they rank that high). So, when someone points out to the Clinton Campaign that their policies are harmful, truly harmful…the reaction is visceral, defensive and feral. And it’s not on policy. They don’t defend the policy. It’s all about fearmongering about a Trump Presidency and about how everyone needs to get in line.

Which is kind of funny because the criticism all along is that DLC Dems are Republican lite and Bill Clinton’s own quote is “Democrats want to fall in love. Republicans want to fall in line.” The Clinton Campaign is desperately making the argument that Dems need to fall in line and are making NO arguments about falling in love. Compounding that dilemma for them is that Bernie Sanders has said that he’ll be “against Trump”, but if Clinton wants to WIN his supporters, she’ll have to earn them herself using…POLICY. Which has them freaking out because all along the Clinton and surrogates online have promoted the idea that “to the victor go the spoils”. Actually, they’ve used those exact words so often that it looks coordinated as if through Correct the Record as if it’s a building meme with Clinton supporters.

This whole thing is looking to become a steaming pile of clusterfuck and anyone’s who’s either in the bottom 80%, of color or disadvantaged or serves their country is going to get completely shit on no matter who gets in. The only difference will be where the shit meteor hits.

So, in that vein, I can see why some folks would want to be further away from ground zero from the massive shit meteor strike, but it’s still going to be catastrophic for nearly everyone…

Saying Hillary Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” is overstating it. Different evil, maybe. Lesser? Tell that to the families who lose loved ones in the military due to her sending troops to Libya or back to Iraq or staying in Afghanistan or who continue to lose jobs due to manufacturing jobs going overseas. Lesser of two evils is a false narrative. In order to believe that you have to diminish the power of flag draped coffins and why we have them.

Well the main point is that politics is pornography for polite society.

When Supreme Court Potter Stewart said regarding obscenity, “I know it when I see it” in Jacobellis v. Ohio, he unwittingly said something profound.

By every definition of obscenity and pornography, politics fits the definition and description.

As I describe, even as a sex act may be described as obscene, it is fitting to ask is it less obscene for consenting adults to engage in carnal acts than for disinterested politicians to trade the well-being or maybe even the survival of a constituency for personal or professional considerations or those of a contributor?

Is it any less obscene for the mass media to make sport of such obscenity, the trade in human suffering?

I know we live in hypocritical times. I know that in just about every room I walk into, almost everyone has or does enjoy oral sex and not by a little, but to openly talk about it would be considered obscene. Talk about the amount technique, body positioning, etc would be frowned upon in nearly every venue.

And yet, in almost ANY venue, one could detail any story in which some social program was cut and children went hungry or battered women’s shelters were closed or veteran’s services were curtailed and that story could be openly bandied back and forth like a badminton shuttlecock at a fourth of July picnic.

Politics is porn for polite society. It’s a process by which policy is subverted in favor of monied interests. Rather than refute this and rebuke those who trade in this, most of the nation seems content to observe it. Some observe and feel good because they feel bad about it (which is the same cop out as saying, “I’m not really into porn because I only like the romantic stuff”) all the way to the other spectrum which is only too quick and happy to blame any misfortune on the victim (that’d be the rape porn folks).

Politics is porn for polite society. Actually, it’s worse, like I was saying because unless it’s non-consensual (in which case it’s a crime), it’s consenting adults engaged in entertainment. Politics is the harming of masses of people by the selling off, bargaining away or outright giving away their rights, lands, treasures, or even lives.

So why does the average person do it? Because the MSM has convinced the average person that this is what political engagement looks like. Any porn star will tell you that porn isn’t what real sex looks like. It’s a caricature. Throw on fancy graphics and lots of people with quick segments with people who are photogenic and who argue, but ultimately enforce this status quo narrative and people think they’re being informed and that they are engaging in the process. So now, they can freely and without guilt discuss openly the murder of children by the US Government abroad or homeless Veterans in the same breath as a school bake sale. They can feel good that they’re talking about it (well, really it’s the meta in that they’re usually talking about talking about it). That’s the gratification part.

That in our lives there’s even ONE freaking candidate who steadfastly keeps sticking with the issues and stays on POLICY and away from the political porn is just …mindblowing.

Mackeyser wrote:

… status quo narrative and people think they’re being informed and that they are engaging in the process. So now, they can freely and without guilt discuss openly the murder of children by the US Government abroad or homeless Veterans in the same breath as a school bake sale. They can feel good that they’re talking about it (well, really it’s the meta in that they’re usually talking about talking about it). That’s the gratification part….

=======================

Wonder what the odds are, that Hillary will name a VP candidate
that is far-left? Would she invite Bernie to be VP?
would you vote for her, if she added a Kucinich, or Warren, or Bernie as VP?

Wouldnt it be in her interest to do that? Or would it be in her
interest to add another pro-corporate, DNC-type like herself?

w
v
—
“I hate goddamn fruits and vegetables. And your omega 3’s, and the treadmill, and the cardiogram, and the mammogram, and the pelvic sonogram, and oh my god the-the-the colonoscopy, and with it all the day still comes where they put you in a box, and its on to the next generation of idiots, who’ll also tell you all about life and define for you what’s appropriate. My father committed suicide because the morning newspapers depressed him. And could you blame him? With the horror, and corruption, and ignorance, and poverty, and genocide, and AIDS, and global warming, and terrorism, and-and the family value morons, and the gun morons. “The horror,” Kurtz said at the end of Heart of Darkness, “the horror.” Lucky Kurtz didn’t have the Times delivered in the jungle. Ugh… then he’d see some horror. But what do you do? You read about some massacre in Darfur or some school bus gets blown up, and you go “Oh my God, the horror,” and then you turn the page and finish your eggs from the free range chickens. Because what can you do. It’s overwhelming!”
— Woody Allen