Another key factor: Bill Clinton’s sexual history. In my view, the Access Hollywood tape bombshell would have sunk Trump for good if not for Bill. In enough people’s minds, they said “Both sides do it!” and it (basically) cancelled out Trump’s history of sexual assault.

I don’t think it should have done that, but it did, IMO. And if the Dems had run a candidate without that kind of baggage, the spotlight remains on Trump. He doesn’t get to shift it to his opponent.

But, again, I don’t think the Dems have learned a thing from any of this. And zooming out further to just generalized strategy . . . . They have no room to grow to their right. The GOP owns that. It’s a done deal. So the Dems are wasting their time courting more of the right.

They’re only “growth opportunity” is to their left. Which means a massive about face, the implementation of truly “progressive” policies at least, and authentic, genuine, honest to goddess outreach to their left.

Another solid analysis of why the Dems lost and what they need to learn from that:

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

Excerpt:

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.

It’s worth reading the whole thing.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I agree with some of that article, but I think Pilger, just like so many recent articles from assorted lefties, makes several strange leaps in logic and aims his rhetorical guns on the oddest targets.

George Clooney? Really? That’s like what we heard from so many voices on the right during the Bush years, when they’d pick some nugget from a talk show host and hold it up as somehow representative of “the left.”

Or Oates? To me, if a black writer wants to say good things about Obama, the first black president, after 43 white guys, many of whom owned slaves, I can’t get worked up about it. Sorry.

I also find it bizarre that he picks a fight with the Writers Resist group. Me? I’m damn happy to see any kind of vocalized rejection of Trump. Would I rather see this as an across the board rebellion against mass inequality and the capitalist system? Definitely. But some protest is better than “shut up and clap louder,” and that seems to be what Pilger would prefer, when it comes to Trump’s coronation.

Beyond that, isn’t Pilger guilty of the same thing he says “liberals” are doing? Isn’t he all too narrow in his own focus? Where is the broad-based class analysis of our government, which would certainly have to include Republicans, including Trump? Did Obama do all of these things all by himself? Did he start these Deep State assaults? All I see is him lashing out at one part of the monstrosity, while ignoring the other and worse part — and, by extension, suggesting we just shut up about Trump altogether. Cuz, well, apparently, according to some leftists, being critical of Russia, Trump and white supremacy is a sign of pickled brains.

—————–
My own view is that i agree with everything Pilger says about Obama,
but over the last couple months I’ve found him to be too cozy with Trump.

To me, saying Obama is a mass murderer is accurate. Same with Bush. Same with Clinton. Same with Reagan. Etc.

But for some reason Pilger sometimes writes like he thinks Trump will be different. I think Trump will be the same or worse.

w
v

Agreed. That makes sense.

Also, I’m glad he mentioned William I Robinson. Will look him up, definitely. Had never heard of him and I like that passage.

Also, have read two books by Eagleton. He does a really nice job debunking myths about Marx and Marxism in his Why Marx was Right.

I just don’t get it. Pilger gives great reasons for condemning the duopoly and I agree with them. At the same time, he’s mocking the idea of condemning the incoming duopolist who is highly likely to be even worse. In fact, there’s no doubt in my mind about that.

So, again, it would be awesome if people would blast the entire duopoly and the Deep State behind it, along with the economic system they protect and defend. Ironically, Pilger doesn’t. He goes after only one part of it too, while condemning others who do the same.

They just have different targets.

MLK was a leftist, not a liberal. He considered himself a Democratic Socialist, in the Norman Thomas, Michael Harrington vein. In some ways, more radical than both of them. Not a Franz Fanon, by any means. But radical enough.

It kills me when I see Republicans trying to claim him for the right. He detested the conservative vision, especially when it came to capitalism, inequality, Labor, etc. But, as the article mentions, he was no fan of “liberal” complicity, either.

A leftist hero, like Camus, Orwell, Malraux, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Einstein, Helen Keller, Dorothy Day, Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin . . . to name a few.

By the way, did you guys see the new Oxfam report? It’s now the case that just eight human beings hold more wealth than the bottom half of the planet (3.6 billion).

Eight humans. Same total as 3.6 BILLION.

Capitalism is evil.

WV,

This just occurred to me as well. In case my response seemed like it ignored your central point about providing context . . . I thought it was implicit in what I said, but now I’m not so sure.

Anyway, in just the same way we need to discuss what Russia did, we also need to discuss the history of American aggression, oppression, exploitation — foreign and domestic — etc. etc. So the article you posted above is essential. We need a gazillion more of them, and for this to be taught in our schools. Historical context everywhere.

Open up all of this to deep analysis and stop hiding from our own history, etc.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Thanks, WV.

But I’m still not getting from that point A to the point B of, basically, Let’s stop talking about what Russia did cuz of our own history

————-
Billy i have never once said “stop talking about what russia did”. I said “put it in context”. Thats all. PUT…it…in…context. The MSM rarely if ever does that, as you know.

Russia hacked, and tried to influence the election. Indeed. They did.
(we do NOT know if they supplied Assange with the email info — we have no specific EVIDENCE of exactly WHAT russia hacked and how they did it and what they did with the true and accurate info)

Along with the ‘context’ of history there is the context of what exactly certain elements in the CIA/MSM are trying to accomplish with their spin on the hacking stories. Why are certain things emphasized and certain things suppressed or ommitted. Its pretty obvious to many of us that certain elements in the CIA/MSM are taking Trump to the woodshed and trying to establish their power.

Gangsters-states are not pretty, are they. Trump. Hillary. Obama. CIA. NSA. Russia. Capitalism. Mega-Corpse. MSM. Propaganda. Banks. Fed. …its like making sausage — not pretty to see it all smushed-together, up close.

w
v

WV, I know you’re not saying this, but some of the articles decrying the focus on Russia seem to be. That seems to be their main point. We can’t discuss this stuff because of our own despicable history. And, yes, it’s despicable. Again, I think it very likely covers far more of the earth than Russia’s attempts, and likely generated far more violence. Some may argue otherwise, but it’s at least as bad as theirs.

But where do we go from there? What is the way forward? And we also should take into consideration that it’s pretty “natural” for every country to place more import on what other countries do to them than what they do to other countries. I don’t think you’re going to find too many cases of the reverse.

I was thinking about that last night when I watched my team, the Terps, play Illinois. We take sides. A “bad call” on our guys is met with one reaction, while a “bad call” on the other side is met with, “meh.” Or, “they deserved it!!”

That basically is the foundation for how we view the battle of the gangster-states, too. So, again, how do we go forward from there? I don’t have a clue.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by Billy_T.

Thanks, WV.

Very good article. The US, in order to protect, defend and extend the rule of Capital has engaged in horrific acts for a long, long time. That’s what it does. And, if memory serves, Kinzer is a very good historian of this stuff.

But I’m still not getting from that point A to the point B of, basically, Let’s stop talking about what Russia did cuz of our own history.

It’s kinda like saying (on a wholly different plane of existence, of course): We can never talk about any dirty plays against the Rams, because the Rams have engaged in that at other times. Or, because a kid in our neighborhood beat up a kid from another neighborhood, we can’t talk about the reverse happening.

And I also don’t see the “howls of anti-Russian rage” that many critics say they hear. With exceptions, I think the reaction to this stuff is actually a bit weak and too late. It should have been a bipartisan issue going back months before the election, and if the Media really were in Clinton’s pocket, it would have been a major, ongoing story. It wasn’t. We know now that several news outlets sat on much of this until after the election.

Another interesting aspect, at least to me. It’s chicken and egg, perhaps. But the reality is that under the sway of Keynes and others of his ilk, government regulation of business was at an all-time high, and the number of lobbyists pushing government on behalf of business was at an all-time low. This changed radically and dramatically in the early 1970s. Waves of lobbyists showed up in DC and, little by little, they basically took over the writing of legislation, and the rest is history.

When it comes to regulating business, the two parties still diverge, though not as much as they once did. The Dems still retain vestiges of the Keynesian vision, while the GOP never really accepted it and believed the neoclassical was more accurate and much better for business.

I suspect FDR’s long presidency was a huge factor in getting rid of the previous wave of business dominance over government. Just a theory. Not that he was against business. He just sought enough of a middle ground between the establishment right and those to his left to allow for this. FDR was, in a sense, a “centrist” and the New Deal a centrist compromise between the right and an actually strong and vibrant left at the time.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

If the question is:

Is neoliberalism one of the worst forms of capitalism ever?

If we narrow the time frame down to the last 80 years or so, yes. It’s safe to say it’s the worst. But things were even worse during the first Gilded Age, and probably all the way up until FDR.

It’s odious, regardless. But I think capitalism is odious, in all its forms.

I think it would help this discussion if someone explained the key differences between keynsian and neoliberal economic policies.

YOu game?

It would be a very good way to further the discussion.

I can take a stab at a few things, but would have to review some of my past readings to do it justice. I have Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian, by Richard D. Wolff and Stephen A. Resnick, in front of me now, for instance. But, again, I’d need to review that and other sources.

But, quickly, neoliberalism was largely a reaction to, and a successful overthrow of, the Keynesian consensus that basically lasted, with back and forths, from FDR through most of Nixon. And our one and only middle class boom (1947-1973) was largely a result of that consensus.

Keynes was a “liberal” economist, who likely was further left than liberal politically. But he wasn’t a Marxian economist. He was not opposed to capitalism and didn’t seek its replacement. He taught that the government should be proactive and speedy when the economy faltered. Countercyclical spending was key. But not just any kind of spending. It should be directed toward “demand” and not “supply.” And he also taught that we should pay down debts once the economy was solidly back on its feet.

Regulation of business to prevent it from going off the rails was key, as were high taxes on the wealthy, in order to fund spending and better allocate demand-side forces. The more money the wealthy have, the worse the economy, and Keynes knew this. He knew that they don’t spend as much as the poor, the working poor, and the middle, as a percentage of what they do make . . . which means, in a consumer-driven economy, the rich are the worst possible holders of capital. They sit on the vast majority of what they make, so the “velocity of money” is greatly reduced in their hands.

Anyway, to make a long story short — I’ll pop back in with some more of this tomorrow — when Keynesianism seemed to falter in the early 1970s, the Empire Struck Back (hard), took advantage of that to deregulate, slash taxes and privatize everything in sight — with the theoretical support of people like Hayek, Friedman and the Chicago School (fresh water).

In a way, this was the first case of “Disaster Capitalism” in the 20th century — it strikes me. It got much worse under Reagan, and kept getting worse right up through Obama, though the Dems and the GOP (can) have different versions of the neoliberal version of capitalism.

____

Folks, enjoy your Saturday night.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

;>)

If I understand you correctly, WV — and I probably don’t — you’re saying that CIA, NSA and MIC support and “defense” of our economic system is integral to the “neoliberal” project, and that this is unique to its particular form.

————
Yes, I’m saying all that stuff supports/defends the neoliberal-project in the real-world. I dont think GLOBALneoliberalism could survive without that stuff.

But no, i am not saying that stuff is ‘uniquely integral’ to neoliberalism. I dont know enough about history to have an opinion on that one way or the other.

w
v

We agree that those things fit together and that the neoliberal project would fall apart without the big guns protecting it and bailing it out, etc. But from my study of the history, that’s true of capitalism itself, in every form we’ve seen to date.

As in, as soon as the CIA, NSA, etc. were formed, they and our military protected and advanced the capitalist system worldwide. That’s basically right after WWII, and roughly thirty years before neoliberalism took off. And before that, it was some other intel nexus here, with another name, working with the military, etc. etc.

In short, it’s not really “neoliberalism” per se that generates the need for Deep State protections. It’s the capitalist system itself, in whatever form. We know this because the Deep State, in one form or another, has been doing this for more than a century . . . and America’s project, for more than a century, has been the defense, expansion and projection of capitalism globally.

zn wrote:

i have a
more broad idea in mind than just ‘domestic econ policy’.

Again, it’s economic policy.

Not domestic per se.

And, different foreign policies can be attached to neoliberal economics.

One does not dictate the other in any kind of necessary way. And you choosing to use the word a certain way is just you. But it is leading to a lot of analytic confusion.

If you want to look at the combination of foreign policy and neoliberal economics, it’s a case of one from menu A, then the only thing (neoliberal) on menu B.

So it could be A1 and B, or A2 and B, or A3 and B, and so on.

..

ZN,

Another way to say that: Prior to the neoliberal era, which began roughly in the early 1970s, the same Deep State actors pushed the dominant version of capitalist economics at the time, which was, for all intents and purposes, “Keynesian” — though they tended to go for its “vulgar” form. And before the Keynesian era, they pushed the dominant version in that moment as well. And before that. And before that.

We also have to factor in the rise and fall of various Deep State actors, but America has been the evangel for capitalism’s dominant form, whatever it is at that moment, going back to the 19th century. We became the primary evangel, taking over for Britain, after WWI, and then the unrivaled hegemon after WWII.

Capitalism itself wasn’t dominant in America until after the Civil War, so our status as main pusher came later. But it’s more than safe to say that none of that began with the neoliberal era, and once it ends, if capitalism still survives, our Deep State actors will likely push the new dominant form.

Also, WV, you mentioned you were going to look up neoliberalism. The article I posted by David Harvey is a really good one. He literally wrote the book on the subject.

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

Where is this idea coming from that Trump’s policies are NOT neo-liberal?

Look at his appointments. Combined with a republican congress if anything he’s the most extreme version of that we have seen yet.

Anyone who exonerates Trump in any way at any level automatically loses my interest. It’s just a form of blindness and it’s irritating as such. It is invariably based on bad analysis.

————
I dont think Hedges is saying Trumps policies are ‘not-neoliberal’ — i think he is saying they are ‘neoliberal mixed with fascism’ which is different than just ‘neoliberal’.

Though there is this odd anti-nafta strain in Trumps rhetoric. Its not neoliberal rhetoric on that one subject, but we dont know if trump is serious about that or what he might do about that, etc. I agree with Hedges that Trump is not an intellectual with principled-ideas about policies. He’s more malleable than that.

Plus trump has this thread of pat buchanon isolationism at times. Thats not neoliberal. Then again Trump says things that are the opposite of isolationism sometimes. So we dunno. But he is not
your garden variety neoliberal.

w
v

I get what you’re saying, WV. But “neoliberalism” means domestic policy too. So, at least theoretically, a person can be an Pat Buchanon isolationist and still want neoliberal policies implemented at home.

Again, like deep tax cuts for the rich, severe deregulation of business, and accelerated privatization.

Buchanon favored all of those things on the domestic front. As does Trump. Trump has called directly for the three main aspects of neoliberal doctrine.

Being kinda, sorta against “free trade,” from one degree to another, doesn’t conflict with that.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.

zn wrote:

Where is this idea coming from that Trump’s policies are NOT neo-liberal?

Look at his appointments. Combined with a republican congress if anything he’s the most extreme version of that we have seen yet.

Anyone who exonerates Trump in any way at any level automatically loses my interest. It’s just a form of blindness and it’s irritating as such. It is invariably based on bad analysis.

ZN, I mentioned that in the Greenwald thread. And, apologies to the entire board for my anger last night.

Neoliberalism is pushed big time by both parties, and tragically dominates the world. It has, roughly speaking, since the early 1970s. It’s not a Democratic thing or a GOP thing. And, as you mentioned, it looks like Trump and his team will ramp it up to another level.