Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

•  

40 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

An interesting article regarding populism and the lack of self-criticism by liberal political parties: Failures of inference: liberalism and contemporary populism

 

From the intro of the article:

 

EDIT: To be clear, the article is an opinion piece that I'm not convinced of all the intermediate arguments, but I think the conclusion is correct:

 

 

That was indeed interesting. I'm more than happy to indulge these criticisms of liberalism, as I do agree with the conclusion you quoted. In the U.S., it's often framed as "people are so sick of the establishment rigging the game that they elected Trump merely as a wrecking ball to said establishment."

 

However, there are some serious limitations to applying this author's argument to our situation in the U.S., not entirely surprising since they are an Indian publication.

 

Their premise seems to me to be that liberals are blind to their culpability in the election of populist demagogues, fascists & the like. He rightly suggests that those groups offer no more realistic or sound policies than liberals (many times worse one), but are embraced simply because liberalism is not responsive to the needs of the common person, whereas the populists promise to take on the rigged system to benefit them.

 

What exactly would this author suggest U.S. liberals need to do differently to avoid electing a Trump-style populist? How exactly could they be more responsive to the needs of the common person? I think it's exceedingly easy to make this criticism of the American liberal in the Trump era, but it's a harder argument to actually flesh out in detail beyond a lazy generalization.

 

The argument that the American liberal is no longer responsive to the needs of the average Joe or Jane, thus Trump, leaves out several complicating factors that are crucial:

• American liberals cannot merely argue that we need to disrupt capitalism in order to effectively combat climate change. They would be labeled capitalism-hating socialist loons & become immediately unelectable in a vast majority of the country unless they were in an exceedingly blue district amenable to heavy climate change solutions. It's an artifact of our uniquely pro-capitalist culture here. Is there a serious appetite in the U.S. for someone combative to capitalism as a concept in order to help the common person? I don't know.
• What of our uniquely powerful right-wing media here? So far as I know, no other developed nation has a right-wing media with such a strong foothold in so many American households as we do here with Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, etc. American liberals thus face a uniquely difficult road to hoe, so to speak, in arguing for liberal policies that help the majority of the population without being hit with gobs and gobs of the bad inference the author speaks of. Any solution the American liberal proposes will automatically be ascribed the worst possible motives (elites!) after being twisted and contorted through that same right-wing media machine... which is then beamed directly into the homes & thus the minds of millions of Americans. Thus American liberals are starting from behind the starting line in arguing their solutions.
• Lastly, the political realities of the system. Even if the liberals wanted to disrupt capitalism as needed to effectively address climate change, as the author suggests, they simply couldn't because they don't hold enough power in the current government. Hell, Republicans hold all three branches of government & they've gotten next to nothing done because they can't put aside squabbling within their own ranks & they're afraid of the consequences if they actually rammed through their true, desired agenda. Now, this is separate & apart from their messaging, which they could improve without issue, but as far as actually cementing real liberal policies that are contemporary, responsive to the people & beneficial for people's lives, it's incredibly difficult in our system to achieve and maintain the numbers to do much of anything significant. Some think this is by design.

[RedDenver]

8 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

•  

 

That was indeed interesting. I'm more than happy to indulge these criticisms of liberalism, as I do agree with the conclusion you quoted. In the U.S., it's often framed as "people are so sick of the establishment rigging the game that they elected Trump merely as a wrecking ball to said establishment."

 

However, there are some serious limitations to applying this author's argument to our situation in the U.S., not entirely surprising since they are an Indian publication.

 

Their premise seems to me to be that liberals are blind to their culpability in the election of populist demagogues, fascists & the like. He rightly suggests that those groups offer no more realistic or sound policies than liberals (many times worse one), but are embraced simply because liberalism is not responsive to the needs of the common person, whereas the populists promise to take on the rigged system to benefit them.

 

What exactly would this author suggest U.S. liberals need to do differently to avoid electing a Trump-style populist? How exactly could they be more responsive to the needs of the common person? I think it's exceedingly easy to make this criticism of the American liberal in the Trump era, but it's a harder argument to actually flesh out in detail beyond a lazy generalization.

 

The argument that the American liberal is no longer responsive to the needs of the average Joe or Jane, thus Trump, leaves out several complicating factors that are crucial:

• American liberals cannot merely argue that we need to disrupt capitalism in order to effectively combat climate change. They would be labeled capitalism-hating socialist loons & become immediately unelectable in a vast majority of the country unless they were in an exceedingly blue district amenable to heavy climate change solutions. It's an artifact of our uniquely pro-capitalist culture here. Is there a serious appetite in the U.S. for someone combative to capitalism as a concept in order to help the common person? I don't know.
• What of our uniquely powerful right-wing media here? So far as I know, no other developed nation has a right-wing media with such a strong foothold in so many American households as we do here with Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, etc. American liberals thus face a uniquely difficult road to hoe, so to speak, in arguing for liberal policies that help the majority of the population without being hit with gobs and gobs of the bad inference the author speaks of. Any solution the American liberal proposes will automatically be ascribed the worst possible motives (elites!) after being twisted and contorted through that same right-wing media machine... which is then beamed directly into the homes & thus the minds of millions of Americans. Thus American liberals are starting from behind the starting line in arguing their solutions.
• Lastly, the political realities of the system. Even if the liberals wanted to disrupt capitalism as needed to effectively address climate change, as the author suggests, they simply couldn't because they don't hold enough power in the current government. Hell, Republicans hold all three branches of government & they've gotten next to nothing done because they can't put aside squabbling within their own ranks & they're afraid of the consequences if they actually rammed through their true, desired agenda. Now, this is separate & apart from their messaging, which they could improve without issue, but as far as actually cementing real liberal policies that are contemporary, responsive to the people & beneficial for people's lives, it's incredibly difficult in our system to achieve and maintain the numbers to do much of anything significant. Some think this is by design.

I agree with your critique of the article. The author seems to think the only way for liberals to move forward is getting rid of capitalism but doesn't actually make the case for that other than some vague hand waving. Personally, I think we've gone too far to the pure capitalism side and that we need to move back to a more hybrid approach, and that the argument liberals can make is that in order to preserve capitalism, we're going to have to make real changes to combat climate change; otherwise, future generations are going to overthrow the current system if it cannot adapt.

[Danny Bateman]

I agree with your sentiments, mostly. We've definitely swung hard to the right on the socialism - capitalism spectrum & I too think a swing back leftward would be healthy. I'm extremely wary of the amount of power we hand to large corporations & financial institutions in the U.S. A pragmatic liberal would have to appeal to moderates since there aren't enough pure economic liberals to appeal to & the capitalism hardliners won't be budged. So we'd have to package a message in such a way that it appeals to middle of the road folks.

 

Ultimately, maybe we're diving in a bit deep on a simple op ed. I agree with his premise but it's just incompatible with the U.S. in some ways.

Regardless, yes, liberals do have some soul-searching to do right now in the wake of Trump & other far-right demagogues being on the rise. In a lot of ways, a liberal has a harder road to hoe than a populist demagogue or a tinpot strongman saying "Everyone else sucks - I alone can solve your problems." For one, being honest about the hard solutions complex problems require is a lot less popular & inspiring than ascribing simple but false solutions to overly simple problems.

 

I'm happy with most of the adjustments we've made here in response to Trump beating a typical but unpopular liberal like Clinton. Hopefully we continue taking the right steps. Again, certain policy goals will be harder here in our system than in a parliamentary system like in the U.K. or elsewhere.

[knapplc]

Yet more evidence that Hillary was unfit to be president. 

 

Hillary Clinton Chose to Shield a Top Adviser Accused of Harassment in 2008

 

 

Quote

 

A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.

 

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.

 

Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, a co-founder of the American Values Network, and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.

 

“To ensure a safe working environment, the campaign had a process to address complaints of misconduct or harassment. When matters arose, they were reviewed in accordance with these policies, and appropriate action was taken,” the statement said. “This complaint was no exception.”

 

The woman’s experience and the reaction to it have not been previously reported. Until now, former Clinton associates were unwilling to discuss the events for publication.

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by knapplc

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Yet more evidence that Hillary was unfit to be president. 

 

Hillary Clinton Chose to Shield a Top Adviser Accused of Harassment in 2008

 

 

 

 

Well...she had a lot of practice with Bill.

[Danny Bateman]

I completely support this premise. Dems were dominant for decades largely because of the political power afforded to them by the staunch support of unions. They completely screwed the pooch by failing - multiple times - to protect unions, and it is costing them harshly, particularly in the Midwest. The current crop of right-to-work laws popping up across the nation aren't a mistake.

 

And, for the second time today, I'm posting a tidbit about Scott Walker's Wisconsin!

 

This also contains some pretty eye-popping stats:

 

 

Quote

In a new study that will soon be released as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, James Feigenbaum of Boston University, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez of Columbia, and Vanessa Williamson of the Brookings Institution examined the long-term political consequences of anti-union legislation by comparing counties straddling a state line where one state is right-to-work and another is not. Their findings should strike terror into the hearts of Democratic Party strategists: Right-to-work laws decreased Democratic presidential vote share by 3.5 percent.

 

The study found that impacts persist in down-ballot races, and have given Republicans more power in the Senate, House, and governors’ mansions, as well as in state legislatures. This leads to a vicious cycle wherein the GOP can use that power to further suppress votes, gut union rights, and gerrymander legislatures—in other words, embark on a fundamental retooling of American political mechanics.

 

The decimation of the blue wall in 2016 may have been driven by Trump’s unique candidacy, but right-to-work laws had been weakening the foundation for years. In 2014, Republican Governor Rick Snyder’s narrow victory against Democratic opponent Mark Schauer may well have gone in a different direction were it not for the state’s 2012 right-to-work law. It’s not impossible to imagine that progressive Senate candidate Russ Feingold would have beaten Tea Party–backed incumbent Ron Johnson in 2016 if only Wisconsin private- and public-sector unions had not been completely gutted. The effect of right-to-work laws, according to this research, are large enough that it could have easily cost Hillary Clinton Wisconsin and Michigan—two states that went right-to-work before the 2016 elections.

These findings will surprise no one in the Republican leadership. Since 2010, six GOP state governments have passed “right to work” laws. Last year, Kentucky and Missouri joined the club (the latter development will make Senator Claire McCaskill’s already difficult reelection bid all the more challenging). Republicans prioritized these regressive labor law reforms because they understood how devastating they would be for the unions — and thus, to the Democratic Party. Last year, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist argued that if right-to-work reforms are “enacted in a dozen more states, the modern Democratic Party will cease to be a competitive power in American politics.”

This could have been a golden age for American liberalism. The Democratic Party — and the progressive forces within it — have so much going for them. The GOP’s economic vision has never been less popular with ordinary Americans, or more irrelevant to their material needs. The U.S. electorate is becoming less white, less racist, and less conservative with each passing year. Social conservatism has never had less appeal for American voters than it does today. The garish spectacle of the Trump-era Republican Party is turning the American suburbs — once a core part of the GOP coalition — purple and blue.

If the Democratic Party wasn’t bleeding support from white working-class voters in its old labor strongholds, it would dominate our national politics. Understandably, Democratic partisans often blame their powerlessness on such voters — and the regressive racial views that led them out of Team Blue’s tent. But as unions have declined across the Midwest, Democrats haven’t just been losing white, working-class voters to revanchist Republicans — they’ve also been losing them to quiet evenings at home. The NBER study cited by McElwee found that right-to-work laws reduce voter turnout in presidential elections by 2 to 3 percent.

 

 

Reading a Grover Norquist quote like that drives me nuts. I can't stand that anti-tax zealot.

[Big Red 40]

Flip side for me is Donald Trump getting up there and saying he’s for the little guy / middle class and having people actually believe him. All you have to do is look at history to see that’s false . I don’t know how the Democrats can change the minds of people that gullible . 

Reagan was the original butcher of Unions/ the middle class , and since then the Republican Party as a whole has done absolute zero for union workers, middle class , or the working poor . Quite the opposite as far as I can see . They sure have no problem standing up and saying they do though . 

I do agree the Democrats failed to oppose, but the major factor in my mind is the GOPs blatant disregard for the plight of middle income and below Americans. Much more damaging . 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Big Red 40

[Danny Bateman]

8 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

Flip side for me is Donald Trump getting up there and saying he’s for the little guy / middle class and having people actually believe him. All you have to do is look at history to see that’s false . I don’t know how the Democrats can change the minds of people that gullible . 

Reagan was the original butcher of Unions/ the middle class , and since then the Republican Party as a whole has done absolute zero for union workers, middle class , or the working poor . Quite the opposite as far as I can see . They sure have no problem standing up and saying they do though . 

I do agree the Democrats failed to oppose, but the major factor in my mind is the GOPs blatant disregard for the plight of middle income and below Americans. Much more damaging . 

 

I agree with your sentiments... but what is the best fix for the situation?
 

Republicans certainly aren't going to be shifting from their stance any time soon. They're pressing the advantage.

 

I guess the only way I see the situation getting any better is if Dems are the ones to do a 180 and start strongly standing up for unions as a collective again. They're going to have to beat back the anti-union interests by force.

[Big Red 40]

Lol I was going to ask you the same thing . What is the fix? I work in a Union factory, and though the Union here has weakened over the years, this place would be much worse without it . 

Baffling thing is many,  many, of my coworkers, even though they benefit greatly from the Union , are anti union,  Republicans . Any attempts to convince them otherwise , even with cold hard facts are met with fierce resistance . No idea how to fix that . I don’t know if the Democratic Party can change anything without support from those on the ground floor . 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Big Red 40

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Moiraine]

How the hell can Wolff be "absolutely sure" that she is having an affair with Trump? I hope his evidence isn't that Trump told people he was having an affair with her. All days around Trump should be considered opposite day.

[RedDenver]

Candidates Who Signed Up to Battle Donald Trump Must Get Past the Democratic Party First

 

Quote

Prioritizing fundraising, as Democratic Party officials do, has a feedback effect that creates lawmakers who are further and further removed from the people they are elected to represent.

 

Quote

Jeff Erdmann thinks he knows why Craig lost. He was a volunteer for her in 2016, phone banking and going door to door. That spring, a voter asked him a question about Craig’s position on an issue that he couldn’t answer, so when Craig held a Q&A with the volunteers, he asked her if it was OK to direct voters to the website for an answer. “No, not really,” Erdmann recalled her saying, “because we haven’t developed our website yet because we don’t want the Republicans to know where we stand, and we haven’t seen end-of-summer polling yet.”

 

[BigRedBuster]

10 hours ago, Moiraine said:

How the hell can Wolff be "absolutely sure" that she is having an affair with Trump? I hope his evidence isn't that Trump told people he was having an affair with her. All days around Trump should be considered opposite day.

 

 

It it really is absolutely disgusting and pretty much ruins wolfe’s Credibility. 

[RedDenver]

6 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

It it really is absolutely disgusting and pretty much ruins wolfe’s Credibility. 

Wolff's credibility was ruined years ago. No one should be giving him the benefit of the doubt anymore.

[Danny Bateman]

 

This is probably the best argument for the necessity of a Dem rebuild... especially for moderate minded folks without strong liberal views.

 

The GOP is simply incompetent and addicted to power above all else. They're not only failing to protect norms and ethics in government, but gleefully watching as they crumble & circling the wagons around their leader. Dems are dishonest at times as well, but objectively nowhere near the breathtaking levels of dishonesty & deflection seen from their counterparts.

 

Dems are, in most cases, the only opportunity available to defend those norms & ethics right now. Republicans simply aren't going to allow Trump to face any level of accountability or constraint because their base would punish them for it. I'm hopeful we elect Democrats now as a sort of reform towards the most basic expectations of a functioning government. I'm hopeful of a GOP reform as well - but as long as they choose to allow right-wing media drive their messaging to their voters, it's not going to happen.

 

And, jeez, the numbers in that second piece. Partisanship is a hell of a drug.