Open thread Jan. 22, 2016 Dan Crawford | January 22, 2016 11:00 am Tags: open thread Comments (26) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
I just need to put this somewhere :
Screw Paul Krugman.
“In the war for endorsements in the Democratic presidential primary, there is a clear trend.
Every major union or progressive organization that let its members have a vote endorsed Bernie Sanders.
Meanwhile, all of Hillary Clinton’s major group endorsements come from organizations where the leaders decide. And several of those endorsements were accompanied by criticisms from members about the lack of a democratic process.
It’s perhaps the clearest example yet of Clinton’s powerful appeal to the Democratic Party’s elite……”
Screw the Democratic Party’s elite. All of ’em. Good n’ hard.
Krugman has it right: “Sorry, but there’s nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends. Don’t let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence.”
The left sees this very very clearly when they look at Trump or Cruz versus Bush or Kasich. But somehow Bernie is different. Not so. It’s possible to be as unelectable from the far left as it is to be unelectable from the far right.
When Clinton said “Sanders is naïve on relations with Iran” she is winking at the PNAC war profiteers PAC.
” It’s possible to be as unelectable from the far left as it is to be unelectable from the far right. ”
Have you noticed what’s been happening in other advanced countries lately ? Now , it’s just as true that : “It’s possible to be as unelectable from the center-left as it is to be unelectable from the center-right. ”
Besides , Bernie is not far left. He only appears that way compared to Clinton , who’s way , way over there , to his right.
“Bernie is not far left. He only appears that way compared to Clinton , who’s way , way over there , to his right.”
So who in U.S. politics is left of Sen. Sanders?
Does this campaign remind anyone else of George McGovern?
If there’s nobody to the left of Sanders in politics today , it’s only because we no longer have a left , as it’s been commonly defined over the last century or so. Let me put it in pictures , using the historical ideology of the Supreme Court as an analogy :
If Sanders had been a justice in 2010 , he would have been on the far left (liberal) end of that court ( near zero , on the blue line ) , but far from the farthest left of the court historically. Clinton might fall on the yellow line , far to the right ( conservative ) compared to Sanders , but not as far right as the most extreme members of that court (red line).
By your standards , I suppose the Golden Years period following WWII was “far left” , politically. Sanders would fit comfortably in the mainstream of that era. That’s the kind of “left” , or “far left” I’m looking for.
If the accepted definitions have changed these days , so be it. It’s an irrelevant distraction – a pissing contest – and nothing more.
This is a powerful speech , worth the 8 minutes :
Is Australia really a multicultural safe haven of equal opportunity? Or is racism more prevalent than ever before? Stan Grant took to the stage for the last IQ2 debate of 2015……
“…every time we are lured into the light we are mugged by this country’s history .”
The taint on the “Australian Dream” is comparable to that on America’s , but maybe we can take solace in the prospect that the ” Israeli Dream ” may come to be seen as the most tainted of them all.
The Cycle of Monetary Grief
Sanders enjoys an old, more mature, and affluent brand of idealists and hippies. Sanders’ hippies are 40 years older than the Mc Govern version.
Hillary is not going full Nixon. She is looking for more Vietnam with Iran not less. She is however, using some of Dick’s tricks.
Sanders is naïve on Iran in a very “not part of the mad hatters’ party” way.
I remember 1972! there was no donations for wounded warriors project for the draftees!
Mc Govern was the real deal in WW II flying B-24’s from Italy to Austria, and Germany.
People if we want change regardless of party, we need to eliminate the leadership in DC.
Clinton is a democrat in name only. Aside from a history of lies she is also a war monger.
If making America great again means making all my rich friend even richer and more powerful then that is not the kind of greatness we want. But if making America great again means to empower and employ more citizenry with better paying jobs and stronger economy and middle class power then I could vote for you. When the oligarchs take control of everything as they have it becomes rather difficult for a middle class citizen to take a stand on anything as he will become trivialized by the elites as you soon will see. Do you remember profiles in courage by JFK? We are there again to find someone who has the testitude and fortitude to stand up to the almighty oligarch strangle hold on America’s values.
Three ways to take the money back from the oligarchs (especially that extra 10% of income share they have garnered lately which is responsible for permanently sluggish demand (secular stagnation):
Tax it back — 50% tax incomes over $650,000 (the entry to the 1%), 90% tax over $2 million (just to pull numbers out of air);
Collectively bargain it back — labor can squeeze for a bigger share of what the consumer pays for products and services produced here; leaving top exec pay untouched for products produced w/o bargaining in other economies;
German style labor representatives on corporate boards could keep a sharp eye on exec overpay (CEO of Daimler Benz got a raise from $3 mil to $12 mil when they acquired America’s Chrysler).
One way to get the power back:
Union busting is a much more injurious crime (and it is a crime; there’s just no just punishment) than union racketeering. Racketeering only bleeds off some of the bargaining strength of a union (and pretty much none of its political strength) — union busting deprives Americans of their entire economic and political mojo (sickening society across the board).
Local minimum wages supplement inadequate federal levels.
And some states (CA only one I have any specifics on) have stronger protections (relatively) of organizing than the fed. Every other form of market warping is treated as a serious felony (try to take a movie in the movies and tell them you were just kidding — a couple of years).
States cannot subtract from federal protections but they can add. So when are states with good progressive attitudes going to add? In Maryland for just one instance Democrats have a 33-17 edge in the State Senate and a 91-50 edge in the House. WA, OR, CA, IL, NY, anybody listening?
It’s a matter of freedom as much as anything else. Why shouldn’t economic actors (employees) be able to just organized or join a collective bargaining unit if the just want to? What’s with all the heavy hands? They don’t do that in any other civilized economy.
Just about every problem we have in this country now from street gangs to pharma gouging to trillion dollar student loans would not be happening if we had high union density. SO (let me shout),
ACCIDENTALLY HIT WRONG BUTTON OR SOMETHING
SO (let me shout) WHEN ARE WE GOING TO (START — IN SOME STATES) MAKING UNION BUSTING A FELONY, ultimately backed by RICO prosecution for persistent violators (the ultimate protection to keep management from playing endlessly at the edge of union busting).
PS. Confiscatory taxation and/or German style worker reps may be only way to take back 10% of the 1%’s 20%. Mere collective bargaining stateside may not take back enough labor share. Ditto, for higher labor prices taking much back from the 1% at the market — if only because the 1% demand is inadequate.
Well here is an interesting new development, Bloomberg looking into an independent run. The article gives a good synopsis of the race as it is to date. Bloomberg’s potential candidacy and chances should he actually run is less clear. And the most uncertain aspect is who will he, if he does decide to run, draw the most votes from. “Bloomberg, Sensing an Opening, Revisits a Potential White House Run”
Ilsm; I have no idea why you equate Nixon and VN with Hillary and Iran.
As i know you recall, in 1972, McGovern (yes, a WWII hero) wanted to give each American $1,000. Most Americans would have welcomed the money and sent him down to one of the worst defeats in American electoral history. They also wanted out of the VN war which Nixon told them in 1968 he had a secret plan to end. It’s doubtful many believed him.
True, the hippies of that day are now complaining of aches and pains and watching out for their social security. I’m not saying the situations are directly analogous but perhaps you’d agree they’re “reminiscent” ?
Iran:Vietnam US fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong ways. Invading Cambodia in spring 1970 was the secret to [not] defeating not getting out.
1973, another air campaign and US would have run out of B-52’s or the will for more collateral damage.
Lemay would have demanded nuking them.
Nixon:Clinton warriors for the military industry complex.
Nationalisn:terrorism US cannot kill enough of them to defeat an “ism”.
Actually I think the B52’s are still flying!
I don’t think she’s trying to defeat an ism; rather, she’s after an acronym, ISIS, which unfortunately is more dangerous than word salad.
ICYMI the first time…..
Screw Paul Krugman.
( Stand by for further updates , which I fear may become more frequent.)
” And the most uncertain aspect is who will he, if he does decide to run, draw the most votes from. ”
Speaking for myself , if Bloomberg runs in a race that includes Sanders , I would without doubt – and happily – vote for Bernie. If Clinton wins the Dem nomination I would vote for Bloomberg , with similar certainty , and with some enjoyment as well , since I’d really be voting against Clinton.
I’d be surprised if there aren’t many Sanders supporters thinking along the same lines , especially as they begin to understand that the entrenched good ol’ boy Dem Establishment is engaged in a vile campaign to torpedo Bernie and rescue Clinton and her billionaire benefactors.
Yes!! Because nothing sticks it in the eye of Billionaire Benefactors like voting for the Billionaire that sells them their Bloomberg Terminals!
Bloomberg is an authoritarian neo-liberal charter school loving guy who will take Big Gulps away from kids and supports gay marriage and abortion (yay progress!) even as he chokes the life out of Teachers’ unions and any actions that actually threaten the wealth of condo owners on the Upper East and Upper West Side. He combines all the flaws of Hillary with all the flaws of Donald Trump while being a microscopically tiny fraction less self-regarding than Ralph Nader.
Way to Stick it to the Man!! By voting for the Man!! You might as well vote for the Soup Nazi as voting ‘strategically’ for Bloomberg: “No Wages for YOU!!!”
Here’s a pretty good analysis of the reality of H. Clinton’s political ideology, best summarized as a DNC Democrat at best, but more like a conservative Republican. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/22/hillary-clinton-and-the-northern-strategy/ Read it. You’ll like it.
Careful how you chart your course. Lack of a majority in the electoral college would throw it into the House of Representatives.
If Sanders doesn’t become Potus , then someone who I oppose will. I’ll then have to hope that Congressional opposition can limit the damage done. If Clinton wins , Democratic opposition largely disappears , but it remains in force , and energized , if either Bloomberg or a Repub wins. The general policy preferences of Bloomberg and Clinton would be equivalently contrary to my tastes. It’s important to maintain the capacity to oppose and block those types of policies.
“…….the reality of H. Clinton’s political ideology, best summarized as a DNC Democrat at best, but more like a conservative Republican. ”
Yep , the signs are clear , some blatantly obvious ( We came , we saw , he died ! ) , others might be missed :