"Incremental change" is a Third Way lie.

[woo me with science]

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 10:11 PM - Edit history (3)

See this thread by WillyT:

JFK: What it means to be Liberal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6652893

In JFK's own words:

[font size=3]"Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor."[/font size]

Empty Third Way claims to care about the 99 percent, while bleating lies about "incrementalism" and fellating the One Percent...

That con game does not fly anymore.




The endless Third Way lecturing to be patient and trust "incremental change" is a rhetorical con game. It is a bid to believe a flat-out lie: that corporate politicians have the same goals we do but are merely moving toward them more slowly and pragmatically.

It is a lie. Third Way politicians and their propaganda mouthpieces do not have the same goals as traditional liberals. They work for Wall Street and corporations, and their purpose is to use slick advertising and manipulation to sell you a product that will increase their own power and profit.

To claim that progress is being made but is merely incremental is overwhelmingly untrue in the most important areas of policy. We are being thrown bones on social issues but inequality has been escalated viciously through policy, the power of corporations is being relentlessly increased, our fundamental civil liberties are being dismantled, journalism is under assault, peaceful protesters are being surveilled and brutally suppressed, whistleblowers are being persecuted, our president has claimed the right to imprison indefinitely and even kill without due process, militarization of our police forces has been expanded, our public education system is being corporatized and even dismantled, corporate power over the internet has still not been denied, and our environment is being opened to drilling and fracking. In addition to all this, this government is engaging in mass surveillance against its own citizens and assaulting us with propaganda and disinformation.

Corporatists have been installed in virtually every area of government by our Democratic president.

The most significant policy proposal on the horizon is the most predatory free trade agreement in history, which will force Americans to compete with workers in Third World countries. It will kill jobs, reduce wages for over 90 percent of American workers, restrict freedom on the internet, make obtaining life-saving medications more difficult and more expensive, and allow multinational corporations to sue for profits and overrule national decisions on everything from wages to regulations for environment and safety. It is an assault on all of us, and it is unconscionable coming from a Democratic president. However, it is wholly consistent with this administration's long record of working on behalf of corporate interests.

Nothing is fixed unless we are honest about what is happening. All the propaganda notwithstanding, more and more courageous liberals are standing up to do just that. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich....the launch of FirstLook....Bill Moyers' excellent work....These are all positive signs.

People who care deeply about this country are telling the truth about what we really are facing...the corporate hijacking of our party and our government....because the rose-colored glasses are malignant. The rose-colored glasses are a corporate lie, and they prevent real change.

[polichick]

1. It's amazing how easy it is to con people - over and over and over.

[BainsBane]

14. That is the effect of national mythology

And it's evident every day on this site, most prominently in the absurd level of emphasis placed on the presidency, as though a new president were enough to change the system.

[polichick]

17. An honest and brave prez candidate can help the people see the con...

and talk about all the ways the game is rigged - but of course it really will take a "political revolution" for the people to change the system.

[BainsBane]

20. Yes

Both true. My problem is when people believe that the president can do it by himself. Whatever he can enact through executive order is not substantive enough to meet the criteria of transformative change, at least in my view. Though it seems for some the bar for what constitutes profound change is far lower, as i learned when someone insisted funding food stamps dramatically addressed poverty.

[dreamnightwind]

67. Yet his push for the TPP goes on

It isn't just that he can't do it himself, it's often that he doesn't try, or is working for other interests. And I am not a hater, it is about policy, I see where he puts his energy and judge accordingly.

[AgingAmerican]

100. Defeatism

Defeatism is the acceptance of defeat without struggle.

[BainsBane]

114. Not at all

It's merely looking through the artifice constructed by capital. If one refuses to recognize a problem, there is no way to confront it. If people care about the influence of corporations, they need to look rationally at the role capital plays in society, not just presently but historically. Keeping blinders on achieves nothing.

[sabrina 1]

118. Who said a new president is enough to change the system?? No one I know believes

that. What we do know is that with a candidate who has a record behind him of ACTING on what he SAYS for over 25 years, with voters who support nearly every position he has taken over the years, but have been denied a voice even when they have a few Reps like him trying to fight the system, overwhelmed by the poisonous money that has been buying elected officials, The PEOPLE will support candidates who are WITH him for the Senate and for Congress, not just him.

Because we know, that we do have good Reps in Congress. People like Sanders and so many others, but their voices are silenced by the bought and paid for Reps on both sides of the aisle.

And we know that the current leadership of the Dem Party will support the Corporate candidate every time over the candidate who actually represents the people.

So now that there is a candidate with a long record to make his campaign words credible, those who support him will also support those not supported by the party leadership.

It is going to take decades to undo the harm that has been done. We know that too.

And that is why the sooner the work begins to do that, the better.

[BainsBane]

120. The meme says "I'm ready for oligarchy"

(ETA, sorry. I thought I was in another thread, so my post isn't entirely responsive to this context).

Meaning they believe electing Clinton is putting oligarchy in place and presumably not electing her will avoid that.

Who said it? The entire vitriol directed toward Clinton supporters or merely those who fail to conform to site orthodoxy and despise her as aligned with the 1 percent and Goldman Sachs, the obsessive focus on the presidency generally on this site, and claims that people demand real change yet their only plan is to vote for Sanders is evidence of just that.

It's great you have a candidate you like.

I don't believe people know it will take decades. In fact, that very point is denounced as being Third Way by the OP.

[Fumesucker]

139. The President is really the only national level politician

It's entirely natural that a board which not only covers the fifty states but is international in scope to focus on the Presidency, we certainly focused on Dubya before 2009.

There has been plenty of mutual vituperation on DU ever since 2008, it's a regular feature of the site and not limited to any one side. I can easily remember the primary fights back then and as the old saying goes, politics ain't beanbag.

[yurbud]

24. it's not so much that we are conned, it's that by the general election our choice is down to getting

screwed with or without lube.

Democrats barely make a pretense of taking us to dinner and movie first anymore either.

[zeemike]

41. Agreed, the real choice is made before the election

And not in a democratic manner.
If you have a choice of the lesser of two evils you have already lost.

[polichick]

99. Colorfully but aptly put...

I do think that many of us saw Obama as a corporatist during the primaries, but allowed real hope for change to creep into our hearts during the campaign.

I truly don't know how TPP-Warrior Obama sleeps at night remembering the millions of people who gathered around the world to cheer him on.

[hifiguy]

108. He consoles himself knowing that if he pushes this turd through

the lavish rewards received by the Clintons for their services to the billionaire class and the rest of the plutocracy will look like small change compared to what he is going to get.

Pushing TPP through is his post-presidency insurance plan. You know damn well he doesn't want to wind up building Habitat for Humanity homes with Jimmy Carter.

[woo me with science]

140. I wonder how the shills sleep at night, too.

I couldn't live with myself, distributing talking points for today's totalitarian neoliberals, driving millions into poverty and despair and dismantling democracy itself. My conscience is worth more than anyone could possibly pay me.

Chris Hedges: A society of captives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025927255

[polichick]

141. "A society that no longer recognizes that the natural world and life...

have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic value beyond monetary value, commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves. This is what we are undergoing. Literally."

(from the Hedges link above)

Many years ago in a college economics course I told the prof that his models were meaningless if they didn't take into account natural resources used and quality of life lost in the continuous quest for "growth" and the accumulation of profits. He said that those things weren't considered by economists in the U.S., so I countered with "We'll see how long that works." And here we are. Makes me sick - so many saw this coming but weren't able to stop it, or, rather, stop THEM - the soulless whores on both sides of the aisle and the greedy fuckers calling the shots.

[bvar22]

126. PT Barnum made only one mistake:

He radically underestimated the rate at which Suckers are born in America.

[KansDem]

127. It's the basis for capitalism...

America's No. 1 religion.

[JaneyVee]

2. Incremental change aka evolution.

We have a lot of work to do, but you are naive if you think we aren't progressing towards a better society. Ask any single person other than straight white christian males which era of US History they would prefer to live in. I bet nearly all would choose the present day. Together we are progressing towards forming a more perfect union. It is naive to believe that we can create utopia during one lifetime.

[Hoyt]

31. +1.

[jalan48]

53. So what happens to our incremental change/evolution when the eco-system collapses?

[dreamnightwind]

68. Crickets

Your post got no response but the sound of crickets. And the sound of ice melting...

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. I think the question was met with crickets ...

because nearly everyone that failed to respond considered/knew the question is unrelated to the OP.

[mythology]

116. If only there wasn't some other explanation

Like it was the middle of the night.

But also the question is loaded as it presumes incremental change can't resolve climate change which I think is obviously false.

It was a series of incremental changes that led to the problem. Fixing it will also be a long term process. As the saying goes Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Oilwellian]

89. THAT is a good question to ask

It definitely will smack you upside the head. There is nothing incremental about the level of pollution now occurring worldwide and we are quickly spiraling backward where environmental protection is concerned. Odd how fast that has occurred in this "incremental" country.

[cali]

71. My father was a prescient man- not just about politics

a weirdo for sure, and not particularly a nice guy, but brilliant. Trained as an anthropologist, historian and sociologist, he ditched those as professional pursuits and became a very successful inventor and manufacturer of computer peripherals. I can remember him saying repeatedly, starting in the 1970s that income disparity and the gap between rich and poor was by far the gravest threat to the fabric of our society; then he'd reel off the historic parallels.

And yeah, he was a liberal and dem- one of Carter's earliest supporters, big supporter of Adlai's and Kennedy's.

You cannot have an equitable society when the wealth of that society has been captured by the few.

You are the naive one. shockingly so.

[malthaussen]

84. Shouldn't be hard to test...

... although the question is problematic, since few people have any real understanding of periods before they were born, and so would tend to default to the present unless they were afflicted with some romantic notion. But it is still a bit of a disingenuous argument, since saying "we're better off now" doesn't equate to "we are well-off now." Or, in more traditional style, "Is this the best of all possible worlds?"

-- Mal

[AgingAmerican]

101. We are evolving to the right

And poll after poll show most of the public doesn't want it.

We are progressing away from a better society. Civil and voting rights are under heavy attack and being chipped away at.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. +1 ...

But it's not the non-straight white Christian males calling incrementalism a "3rd-way lie" ... in fact, very few even use the term 3rd-way.

[Cali_Democrat]

110. "Ask any single person other than straight white christian males"

Bingo!!!

[Doctor_J]

117. like how fdr passed the new deal in a couple years. And lbj passed the

vra, car, Medicare, Medicaid in two years. Now the BOG cheers for heritage care, because it might morph into healthcare in a century or so.

It is heartbreaking that so many democrats have given up their souls because of Obama.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Your post shows a stunning lack of historical knowledge ...

is you don't know/can't recognize that the "New Deal", vra, car, Medicare, and Medicaid were decades in the making.

[Doctor_J]

123. wrong again, but I expect little in the way of facts from a BOG er in his twenties

Seriously, the new deal was decades in the making?

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. LOL ...

a BOG er in his twenties

That is as ignorant a statement as your belief that the "New Deal", vra, car, Medicare, and Medicaid weren't decades in the making.

[rhett o rick]

121. I think the Tories were begging our Founders for incremental change. "Please don't revolt"

Granted some things are getting better but a number of scholars think that we've gone past the tipping point of having a Democracy. If we continue to slide toward total Oligarch control, we can lose all those gains we've taken decades to achieve in seconds.

The 99% might be better off than 100 years ago, but not 40 years ago. We've been going backwards for 40 years, all the while some are begging for "incremental" change.

"It is naive to believe that we can create utopia during one lifetime." But of course no one believes that. STRAWMAN.

The poverty rate for our children keeps growing and yet we have some that beg for the status-quo.

[LondonReign2]

143. Socially yes, economically no

[CrawlingChaos]

3. Cannot REC this enough

[Doctor_J]

4. The fan club are at this point as deluded as the limbeciles

That heritage care is a step toward single payer is as nutty as Bill Clinton killing Ron Brown. They are nuts, and have killed the party.

[BainsBane]

15. I like single payer

I want single payer. Is saying that enough? if you think you can make it happen, you have my full support. Go for it.

[bvar22]

132. In 2008, we had a Majorities & a window throught which Single Payer could have been passed....

(Medicare expanded, incrementally if necessary. Cheaper and easier)
Chances like that happen only once a generation.

[font color=white]......[/font][font size=3]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=3]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[KittyWampus]

33. when you say fan club… are referring to some DU'ers? Cause you then call the fan club

deluded and nuts.

[bettyellen]

119. And in the OP - fellating sheep. Way to insult friends and influence no one.

[L0oniX]

5. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I kinda think of it as decremental change, myself.

They take a little more away, nibble, nibble, every year. But the chocolate ration has been increased.

[Ed Suspicious]

39. They stick the knife in you 9 inches, pull it out six, and tell you they just made your life better.

[A Simple Game]

92. Ummm... that brown stuff hasn't been chocolate for a few years. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

125. Shhhhhh--

Just be quiet and eat your cat food steak.

[Rex]

7. People need to be comforted by lies and denial. They can sleep easier at night.

For them, the status quo is something to die for.

[MohRokTah]

8. UNREC

ALL change in the US has been incremental.

For god's sake, read some history.

[JEB]

10. Yeah, we killed the native population little by little,

took their land and resources in increments. Corporations have gained power one increment at a time. The privacy of the citizens has been destroyed incrementally. Our middle class is shrinking little by little. The poor will starve in long slow increments.

[LanternWaste]

130. And the corollaries illustrated in US history are just as true, also...

And the positive corollaries illustrated in both US and world history are just as true, also...

How odd it must be to perceive both history and the present with such myopia.

[morningfog]

12. There is no such thing as "UNREC."

[NRaleighLiberal]

16. It's all a game to you, isn't it - and it is important to blindly follow your "hero"

take off the blinders and try actually thinking.

[canoeist52]

134. +1 To them that can afford to live, it is a game,

while the rest of us try to tread water.

[F4lconF16]

32. Are you kidding me?

In what world do you live in? What change we have been able to make over the last 200 years has been almost entirely through generally unpopular radical left-wing social uprisings, and that change has come not through many small steps, but many individual steps that add up to very rapidly paced change that is realized for an arbitrarily long time depending on the resistance of the state and capital owners and the severity of the change. Those changes then seem incremental because they are constantly being rolled back by an actively resisting elite and its economic and political arms.

Since I don't feel like summarizing 200 years of radical labor and working class history at the moment, I won't. Maybe I'll do so in a future post--I'll let you know if I do, and we can have a fun debate about it there

(A genuinely friendly challenge, more so than an attack, btw. I think it could be productive, and it'd give me an opportunity to reread all of my labor history again.)

[KittyWampus]

36. you totally just negate your own words. LOL

"and that change has come not through many small steps"

"but many individual steps"

You don't need to summarize jackshit about history to me.

Change is incremental. Like molasses falling off a spoon.

You want it to be about the moment the mass falls off the spoon and ignore the long, agonizing ooze towards the edge.

[F4lconF16]

51. Small steps in society in general vs. many large steps taken by individuals.

I was not clear about that, apologies.

Change is not incremental. The class division and labor history of the US does quite well as an explanation.

[BainsBane]

57. Yes, but most are only aware of how presidencies have responded to those social movements

For example, the emphasis on FDR as acting out of personal enlightenment rather than responding to widespread social movements that threatened to overturn capitalism.

[F4lconF16]

62. Oh yes, FDR is my favorite.

He is not quite the liberal hero that many want to believe he is. Not to mention that much of what he "did" was also in large part due to global economic and political conditions of the time. You'll notice that the (developed) countries we left behind then have now caught up, and are experiencing in large part the same economic conditions that we are. The emerging third-world economies are beginning to enter the same boom cycle that we did then--China is even starting to hit the wall that we did 30-40 years ago. I highly recommend Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" if you have not read it. Though I disagree with his conclusions, I think that data he presents is invaluable.

Edit to add that of course the foreign situations are different in their own ways from ours. It's the more general economic trajectories that I refer to. I don't have a good enough understanding to really go into detail on this, but it's the best summary of some of the ideas presented by Piketty that I have.

[hifiguy]

109. The data Piketty assembled and analyzed speaks for itself.

And the picture is bleak indeed.

[woo me with science]

146. +1

[progressoid]

34. Snort.

You forgot the sarcasm smiley.

[Katashi_itto]

55. .

[JEB]

9. K&R

[Enthusiast]

11. Right on!

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

The Third Way mission is to turn the Democratic Party into the Republican Party of the 1980s.

[bvar22]

128. Then.....MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[Enthusiast]

129. I never liked the polices of the 1980s Republicans then or now.

[LondonReign2]

144. Edit: Their mission is to turn the ECONOMIC polocies of the Democratic Party into the

Republican Party of the 1980s. They don't give a rats ass about the SOCIAL policies one way or another except as a sop to the marks.

[Enthusiast]

145. True.

[BainsBane]

13. We can all wish for change

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 11:20 PM - Edit history (1)

The question is how it gets enacted. I have seen no discussion of that on this site, none. Nor have I seen a discussion of particular changes that people would like to see enforced. What I have seen is a singular obsession with the presidency, which is the surest way I can think of to ensure change doesn't come about. Seems to be your condemnation of gradual change doesn't comport with your own actions and priorities. We can all want change. That's the easy part. It's making it happen that is difficult.

So I ask you specifically, what changes do you want to see enacted? How should we work to enact those changes? How will they become policy, practice, or law? Perhaps if you set something specific forward as a goal people can work toward, it might be possible to at least make some progress toward something? If you want some sort of change, wouldn't it make more sense to encourage people to join you rather than simply denouncing people you suspect of heresy as "Third way"? As it stands, this strikes me as a completely hypothetical sort of discussion.

I think the key to lessening the power of big money over our political system is public financing of elections, which can only be accomplished through constitutional amendment because of a series of SCOTUS decisions and the fact that every new campaign finance law is in turn challenged in the courts. I have suggested this goal before, only to have it denounced as Third Way, despite the fact the Third Way think tank has never supported pubic financing. Nor have I seen any politicians endorse it. Absent that change, I think money corrupts the entire process. No president can transform that by himself.
So I again ask you, if not public financing, what change do you propose?

[YoungDemCA]

27. I'm stealing your proposal re: public financing of elections

And you said it so well...mind if I use that last paragraph?

[BainsBane]

29. Sure. Of course.

[F4lconF16]

44. No discussion of how to get that change enacted?

You are on very different parts of the site than I am, then. For all the usual presidential blather, there are most definitely real and productive discussions happening. They for the most part do not involve working within the system, which I know you disagree with. Unfortunate that you have missed them. Your constructive comments would be valuable, because you clearly have a deeper understanding than most here. It would be better than simply hearing about why everyone else is incorrect in their approach.

As for a constitutional amendment, I think that accusing others of being naive is a bit ironic here. In what world can you see a constitutional amendment overturning that ever being passed? 38 state legislatures voting for that? That is naiveté at it's finest, if you ask me. I'd think we'd see a revolution before that happens. I could see a presidential candidate appointing judges for that, but the only candidate who has explicitly said that is a litmus test for their appointments is the same one that you seem to have so much contempt for. So, I must ask: what is your realistic plan of action? How do you plan to address the staggering inequalities in place at the moment? How do you plan to address the institutionalized racism endemic to the capitalist state? How do expect to fix, and with immediacy, for that is the nature of the problem, climate change?

For all your scorn of others and their methods here, I have yet to see you propose any methods of working within the system that can address these issues in a timely fashion. And time is of the essence--a post from another thread I just made:

I'm done with incremental change. I don't have the time. I and others my age (and really, many, many others) are going to be here when climate change kicks into high gear.

In the streets, blacks, the homeless and poor, and the mentally ill are getting assaulted on a daily basis. They're being incarcerated for years and years because of worthless drug policies designed to oppress them. They don't have time for incremental change.

I'm sure the thousands (if not millions) of dead and wounded in the middle east that we are responsible for appreciate your optimism. I'm sure they're just fine with the fact that it's taken us over a decade to get our guns out of their faces...kindofnotreally. The children that we have made fear the blue sky they live under actually love us, don'tcha know?

I'll bet that the women who are losing all their protections under the law are just fine with incremental change. Not like all that incremental change is being trashed before our eyes because your incremental change was worse than useless elsewhere.

Our education system, our infrastructure, our social safety nets--those are all falling apart, but hey guys, it's okay! We'll fix it through incremental change. It's worked really well over the last 50 years.

Our political system wasn't devised by the uber-rich owners of capital back in the beginnings of our country's history and specifically designed to oppress and divide the labor class--nah, we have our Founding (and Benevolent) Father (Figure) democracy(tm)!

America!



You go ahead with your incremental change. It's somehow managed to get us almost nowhere except on a few issues, and even those, barely so. I'm not playing this game. You play the game, you lose. They're winning right now. Your incremental positive changes are pathetic in comparison to the total dismantlement of even an appearance of democracy in this country. (And I say that recognizing full well how far we have come on issues like gay marriage--something that even now is being attacked. Sad part is, that's just marriage. Not even equality.)

Every moment you don't take to the streets to fight this, every moment you waste waiting for that next little bit of change is a moment that those with wealth and power are laughing at you.

Call me bitter, call me pessimistic. I don't care. I live in the reality of the world that is literally hell on earth for millions. I live in the reality of a world that doesn't pretend we're somehow going to be just fine when in fact we are deathly ill. I live in a world where I don't have the privilege to say, "Wait." I live in a world where perfection isn't the goal, but human decency is.

I don't have the time. Neither do billions around the globe.

I am not bitter--I'm fucking angry. Really, really fucking angry, and I burn with the smoldering heat of oppression that will eventually ignite a firestorm.

I'm not fighting the symptoms of a sick system. I'm fighting the entire corrupt oppressive system itself.

It's time for a goddamn revolution, and I'm proud to say I will stand in solidarity with men and women around the globe. I will speak up and our voices combined will be heard, like so many movements before us.

Hear us cry,

Enough!

[BainsBane]

52. You think a revolution is more likely than a constitutional amendment?

Perhaps it isn't possible, or maybe it's a heavy lift. But I can tell you that electing a president, any president, is not going to alter society in the way some seem to imagine. And you are quite right that new SCOTUS appointments over time is a more likely scenario, but that of course is incremental, and the OP wants rapid change. Not that a constitutional amendment would be rapid change, but it is something people could work for. I'm really not sure what change they imagine because I don't see specifics. I was told Sanders would enact "income redistribution." It turned out addressing poverty, that member thought, was taken care of by funding food stamps, which I thought every Democrat including DLCers supported. If the change they want is not structural, then of course it's easier to accomplish.

At the national level, I don't have other suggestions. My suggestion would be to work locally like we do in MN, for increases in min wage, workers rights, etc... It is hardest to enact change at the national level. I think vesting so much in the presidency is dangerous because it creates the illusion that it constitutes transformative change, when in reality a president is limited in what he can do by the other two branches of government. I think the Obama administration has been a demonstration in just that, but some think the problem is that his ideas weren't liberal enough, not that he hasn't been able to get the agenda he ran on implemented. But then of course the question is what is the level of change people want to see. That I don't know. I see frustration about what they describe as a recent sell out by the party to "corporations," which I see as reflective of the fact they have only recently been effected by the inherently unequal and exploitative nature of capitalism. The most I can really offer is some perspective from history and the point of view of someone who didn't grow up in the middle class. I'll always happy to get out and volunteer, canvass and do what's necessary to press for specific proposals.

I have seen none of the discussions you describe, and when I have asked specifics I haven't been given any. Merely asking HOW leads to charges of being Third Way. My impression is people seem more concerned with creating an in-crowd on DU of people who think and express themselves exactly how they think they should and not much about the country.

I don't know what you think I do or don't agree with in regard to working within the system. I wonder if you're making assumptions that may not be true.

[F4lconF16]

59. I do, actually.

There is no way--just, flat out, no way--that any Republican controlled state legislatures will ever pass a constitutional amendment. I think that is impossible. The pressures on our system would cause a revolution (not necessarily one I would support or one that would be successful) before that happened.

Second, have I ever said that electing a president would change everything? I have not, and I think that I have said the opposite explicitly. As a matter of fact, I made multiple posts earlier today expressing surprise at the idea that Obama would do much but support anti-working class policy proposals when he was under pressure from large corporations and his financial backers. The presidency is certainly not the be-all end-all of US politics. Actually, I have quite a few concerns about Sanders, echoed nicely by this post:

I have been overwhelmed by the support for Bernie here ~ make no mistake ~ he is not a revolutionary. In fact I have serious qualms about trying to elect someone who could very well be the next FDR. Yes, some see that as a huge plus but I can't help but have mixed feelings because it will only drag on this farce that is capitalism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10248289#post4

Sanders worries me because of his serious potential to deradicalize the left. The absolute last thing we need is the loss of what movement we are seeing right now. Already, the Democratic Party is doing its best to appropriate the Black Lives Matter movement. That is NOT a good thing--we are already hearing the conversation begin to be limited in the usual method--restricted to debates between two parties that will do nigh-on everything to hold the source of their power. The debate has already been shifted to include, for the first time in many years, a serious discussion about the nature of capitalism. That is something I do not want to see lost.

I see frustration about what they describe as a recent sell out by the party to "corporations," which I see as reflective of the fact they have only recently been effected by the inherently unequal and exploitative nature of capitalism.

I think you're dead on about this. These are not new problems--we can trace them back easily to the 1800s, and even earlier, I think.

Now here is where I find your ideas quite interesting: how do you propose to work locally for change for workers rights, min wage, etc.? I don't believe that can be initiated successfully through a party that has historically resisted said changes, to the point of outright denying them in some cases. Attempting to work up the chain step-by-step is a losing proposition--there is too much opposition, and it takes too much time to maintain a strong base of support. I believe in the power of direct action and constant agitation by radical leftists outside of the party system. I have yet to see a good example of a major change happening because the Democratic Party initiated it--almost always, they have been forced to do so by outside pressures. LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement is an excellent example, and I'm going to assume you know that history better than I do.

It is extremely hard to enact changes at the national level--this is why almost all of my efforts are focused locally. However, these efforts are not meant to work our way up through the various levels of state and national legislative bodies, but instead are meant to catalyze a reaction using already present elements of tension in society. The BLM movement is another great example: it capitalizes on already present tensions on a local scale with results that echo on a national scale, much like the Civil Rights Movement did. That has a far greater chance at affecting change nationally, in my opinion.

Again, it is unfortunate you have missed some of the discussions. Often they are not OPs, but sub-threads, and I can see how it would be easy not to see them. I think also your comments and their comments to you often antagonize each other, intended or not. That may have blinded you to the fruitful discussions occurring comment by comment elsewhere, and I don't mean that as a slight against you. It is hard to sift through the general crapfest that is GD without missing quite a bit. I will read through a thread and come back later, and the entire dynamic will have changed. It is an interesting place, DU.

As for working within or without the system, I thought we had discussed this before. I feel like I remember you being more interested in system reform for eventual system change, rather than radical action for more immediate and direct pressure for system change, be it revolutionary or not (though my politics certainly are). I apologize if I mischaracterized what you may or may not have said--my memory is failing me.

[BainsBane]

65. I know you haven't said it

But that is definitely the general view on the site. People are heavily invested in the presidential election and think electing Sanders is itself transformative. Before that they were hoping for Warren. I can only imagine they viewed Obama similarly.

I think you're right about my comments and theirs antagonizing one another. I imagine I do antagonize people, as your response indicated, even though it wasn't my intent. I react quite badly to being called Third Way or centrist, when I see myself as far from that. In fact, I find it far more offensive than any number of profane insults. Such charges have often come in response to my discussions of the nature of the capitalist state. I posted a thread with some Marxist theory several months ago and a couple of people came in and claimed it was all a DLC plot to get Clinton elected, when the post made no mention of her anywhere and was in no way conceived as being about her. I simply do not place that much importance on the presidency or individual public figures, and my conception of history (which is my formal training) is strongly influenced by Marxism.

I would submit historical evidence shows that the interests of capital were central to the founding of the nation, not just since the 1800s. The US emerged in response to liberal ideas, Adam Smith, John Locke, the stuff we all learn in survey classes. Liberalism was the political corollary of capitalism, and the US constitution is the quintessential liberal, and hence capitalist, document.

Look, I'm old--well, middle-aged. I don't have your enthusiasm, though I appreciate your dedication. I have for sometime thought that if this country turned outside the political system for change the direction would more likely be right than left. Perhaps that is changing now. My academic training focused heavily on social movements, and I know how extremely difficult and rare it is for them to succeed without being violently suppressed. I know that when people take up arms it is because there are no alternatives left to them. I can't envision an uprising that would take place in enough parts of the country to threatened the state, and of course the US has the most powerful military on earth. A government, even a Sanders-like administration, would use it internally. Yet I claim no predictive ability. I could be proven wrong at any point.

I agree that the only role the Democratic party would play is to co-opt, as it did under FDR. Part of what I find frustrating is that people seem to think there was an ideal past when the Democratic Party represented the people. You know that has never been the case, but the general view of the majority of people on the site is that it was.

The changes in MN are indeed incremental rather than structural. We raised the minimum wage. Local groups are now working for mandatory sick leave. We got gay marriage passed and protecting voting rights. Though MN has a history of socialism (early 20th century) and is more progressive than most of the nation, nothing I mentioned challenges capitalism. And you are correct that such changes hold capitalism together. The US is nothing if not remarkably stable, so I expect much of what is happening now will be co-opted. I think it ironic people call for populist reform because populists have been expert at coopting popular frustrations.

The only thing I have talked about in regard to working with in the system is that in 2000 I reconciled myself to being a loyal Democratic voter. Before that I had periodically voted third party because I didn't see the Democratic Party as representing my views. It still doesn't, however, I approach voting entirely pragmatically now. George Bush, the Iraq War, and Katrina were all so awful, I decided I had to do what I could to contribute to Democrat's electoral chances. Its not that I have become less leftist in ideology. Rather, I approach Politics (meaning electoral, as opposed to politics) quite pragmatically now. I know there is no potential for profound change within the electoral system. As I have said repeatedly, the US is a capitalist state. Its function is to serve capital. In recent years, the relationship between capital and government has become more naked, but it has not fundamentally changed. It has instead been made more visible.

I don't wish for revolution, not because I am enamored of the status quo but because I know how rarely they succeed and how many have been brutally repressed. Nor am I a revolutionary, someone with leadership ability, or anything particularly useful in that regard. It's not that I think the system holds the potential for transformative change. I know it will always promote capital above all else. Like most people, I just do my best to get by.

[F4lconF16]

133. It certainly is.

I was in 8th grade when Obama was elected, so I can't really say I was paying that much attention then. I remember watching the inauguration, and that was cool. But that really was about my involvement in politics until 2012. I have, however, seen people place their hopes in Warren this last year, and those hopes appear to have moved to Sanders. It is an unfortunate situation, as most of them will be disappointed. Sanders is not nearly as radical or even as liberal as most believe--his record is far better than almost anyone else in Congress, but at this point, that isn't a particularly high bar.

What I find most sad about this situation is the excitement for his presidency--yes, he would make a significantly better president than any of the other candidates, and he would make more use of the bully pulpit than our current or past few Democratic presidents have. However, that is about the extent of the change I expect to see.

When he inevitably cannot change the power structure in place for the last 200+ years, the people we see in places like Reddit, the youth who are getting excited to vote for the first time, the people who he has re-energized--they will all be crushed. Their involvement in his campaign will be huge, and when they realize that Sanders will be forced to accede to the demands of the elite, they will withdraw from the political arena yet again. The last thing we need is more "disillusionment" without an effort to change things in a different way. I think the two of us would consider ourselves disillusioned with politics, but in an entirely different manner--we are still working to change, because we believe change is possible (though our manner of implementing it may be different). Most of the people invested in Sanders will take the wrong lesson from this whole process, and simply give up.

In a way, I almost want Clinton to win the primary. As bad of a president as I think she might be, she wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. And it would be about time we finally had a woman in the presidency. If Sanders does not make it through the primary, those elements dissatisfied with the Democratic Party may radicalize further, which would be a very good thing. If Sanders wins, all of that anger with the party and the system may dissipate into a general withdrawal from politics rather than heavier involvement in a more radical manner.

I can understand your frustration with being called a DLC-er. I think your perspective is much, much more nuanced than most people see it, and that's regrettable. I don't agree with some of your conclusions, but I think you see things more clearly than most here. If possible, try to avoid getting sucked into the little arguments--there are better, less painful ways to spend your time on this site. I don't use them myself, but I've heard ignore and trash thread does wonders for your site experience. Maybe stop in the socialist-progressive group on occasion--I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the things posted in there.

I entirely agree that we can trace back the influence of capital and wealth back to the founding of this country. I'd even go so far as to say we can see the origins of some of our country's power and economic structures back in the 1300s and the emergence of the capitalist system in Europe.

"Liberalism was the political corollary of capitalism, and the US constitution is the quintessential liberal, and hence capitalist, document."

This is something that people here would do well to remember. Liberalism and capitalism have never been anything but hand-in-hand.

I think...you have a very good point about where this country would head if we were to have some sort of massive uprising in this country. I don't believe our organization and influence on the radical left is anywhere near large enough to have a significant effect on the outcome of such an uprising--yet. I will get back to the idea of a revolution.

The US is impressively stable. Other than at the end of the Gilded Age and the 20s/30s, we have never been seriously threatened by revolution or massive popular change. (That's arguable, but I think it's true. More on that another time.) Our system was revolutionary back in the 1700s not because it's fundamentally different than so many other capitalist political/economic systems, but because it is so stable. I don't know of any other "democratic" country that has survived without some sort of change to the basic structure of the country's systems. Despite the many varied layers and threads of oppression in the US, it has managed to have a solid hold over its people for centuries. Of course, that does mean that parties like the Democratic Party are fully entrenched in maintaining the systems as they are. They are a very hard vehicle to use for change. (And yes, the call for populism is quite ironic).

The changes you mention are valid and good. However, here is where I think we diverge. I believe revolution, despite the low chances of success, is our only chance to address some of the issues that are pressing on us harder and harder. The biggest one for me is climate change--other issues like race and gender ones have been around for centuries and will continue to be. They can be addressed in more moderate ways for the time being, though I don't believe there will be any meaningful change as long as we can still derive profit from the oppression of women and minorities.

Climate change is a recent emergence, and about as bad as a problem can get. It's the literal ending of the world we live in, and possibly our species in 50-1000 years. The changes that will come from it will be drastic, and though we may survive, we will have changed the face of this planet forever. We will require international cooperation as well as a system that puts the health of our environment above the ability to profit from it in order to have any chance at addressing the problem. I don't think that can be done with our current system, and I'm willing to take the (admittedly very large) gamble that a socialist revolution is.

The US is a key player internationally--we have enormous influence, and if it is possible for us to somehow change our economic structure, many other governments may fall to the same changes. A revolution is a long shot, but it's the only thing I can see that can possibly bring about a viable solution or response to these issues.

I have no disagreements with you on the difficulty of bringing about a successful revolution. I will be surprised if it happens successfully in my lifetime. At this moment, there is a significantly greater chance that it would bring about fascism rather than socialism. The left-wing of this country is beginning to emerge again, but it is very limited in scope and influence for the time being. It will require significantly further shifts to the left for a revolutionary spirit (for lack of a better term) to take hold. With a Sanders presidency, I do not think we will see that. With a Clinton presidency, I think there is a reasonable chance we will see continued radicalization. With a Republican presidency...all bets are off. I have no idea what may happen then. They're...less than predictable, as well as the reactions they would provoke.

Either way, for a revolution to be successful, it will have to be a national (and really, an international) movement. There are the beginnings of a successful organization of activists at the moment--the Black Lives Matter movement is still drawing people leftward and calling attention to the issues with capitalism. That will only continue as the state represses more in response to agitation. As long as we maintain our current path, I think we will see radicalization happening. I personally think that there is a chance that in the next 20 years we will have a large enough economic collapse or enough instability that we will see a sort of repeat of what happened back in the early 1900s. Whether or not that will produce a viable socialist movement is a good question, and one that I think we have the chance to actively influence.

The state's response to any perceived threat will certainly be harsh. I think you're absolutely right that the military will be used to prevent an uprising--it's already happening in places like Ferguson and Baltimore to a very minor extent. The assault on the working class will be brutal, but if anything, I think that will spur further reactions. The danger is that we might fall into a fascist state rather than a socialist one in the process. This is the other reason I believe a revolution is necessary: there is going to be enough unrest in the coming decades that we may see an uprising anyways. I'd rather that uprising be governed by socialist ideals rather than (for instance) tea party separatist ideals.

This is where I see my role as a socialist at the moment. I need to educate myself and the people around me in the possible alternatives to our current system in the hopes that there will be enough of us to capitalize on the general unrest that is inevitably going to occur. We are already seeing a general trend toward leftist politics among individuals, if it is not reflected in the actual mechanization's of the state. With continued agitation, I think the left has a good chance of influencing those who are radicalizing.

I don't really know, though, and I don't think anyone does. This is where I'm at politically at the moment--I have no idea how that may change in the future. A revolutionary path is a difficult one, fraught with things to go wrong, and horribly so. But it's (so far as I can see) the only possible way to address the systemic and immediate problems that we have. If we cannot do this successfully, the future 30-70 years from now is rather bleak. The environmental change will not slow down while we catch up.

Anyways, this is probably far too long a response as it is. I didn't mean to continue writing this far, so I'll end it here. I don't expect a full response to this, but I have very much appreciated your responses so far--you've challenged me and forced me to justify my ideas more than most people do, and it's extremely helpful. Thanks.

[BainsBane]

66. As for the local changes

I referenced, most weren't initiated by the DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, the D party in MN), but instead by local groups that pressed the issue to the state legislature. The DFL did of course support the vote no initiatives that preserved same-day voter registration and rejected voter ID, and one that prohibited the legislature from outlawing gay marriage, which in turn paved the way for the Democratic leadership in a subsequent term to pass a law establishing marriage equality.

[BainsBane]

54. As for racism

One concrete thing people here could do is listen to members of color. When It comes to racism, I think white Americans should do a hell of a lot more listening and learning, and I include myself in that. I don't think it's my place to decide how to solve racism because I'm not the one who experiences it.

[F4lconF16]

61. 100% agree with that.

Most of my advocacy for systemic change in racial issues is from what I have heard from BLM leaders and radicals in the local area. They are definitely advocating for massive system change and/or replacement, and are not looking to do so within the US political system.

And of course, it goes without saying that this applies to many other issues as well: I listen to women around me for solutions and understanding of sexism, I listen to my LGBTQ friends who have experienced more discrimination than I have for understanding on those issues (I have been particularly lucky when it comes to that--worst I've had so far is being called a few names for painted fingernails), listening to the Latino population in order to better understand immigration rights, etc.

Of course, my hearing is tinged by my own preconceptions and understanding of the world, but with practice and more listening, hopefully I will be better able to view the world from another's lens.

I do slightly disagree that it's not our place to decide how to solve racism--the decision is not ultimately up to us, but we should absolutely do our best to contribute to the discussion from our limited perspective, provided we are fully aware of those limitations inherent in attempting to understand another's lived experience.

[tkmorris]

58. You think the key is public financing of elections

And you admit the Third Way has never supported this, yet you support the Third Way candidate.

How odd.

[BainsBane]

60. I said I have never seen any politician support it

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't support any candidate. Look at my sig line.

[brooklynite]

18. So, you'd be happier with no health care change if we couldn't get single-payer?

I wonder if the people who finally got health insurance under ACA would agree...

[polichick]

19. The con is that "we couldn't' get single-payer" - the WH never wanted to get it...

Never tried to get it.

[KittyWampus]

37. The delusion is that we could. You can't even outline a way it would have passed.

[zeemike]

48. Well I can.

The president proposes making Medicare available to all...by law or by executive order.
And when the shit ensued turn it over to the people to pressure congress into action...we would have it by now I can assure you.
There would be no need for Romneycare...the system is already in place.

But that would require a president that wanted to do it...you think it cannot be done?. I point out what FDR did with the CCC and it was implemented the first year he was in office and it helped millions of people and as well as our environment...look it up.
Or just watch this...

[polichick]

96. True - but when the WH makes secret deals with big pharma, etc...

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

and parties representing the people are left out of talks (like what's happening with the TPP), it's pretty clear where the prez stands.

[hifiguy]

112. Hammer, meet nail.

He is the moderate Republican he has admitted to being and not one thing more.

He has never worked for us.

[Enthusiast]

152. Never.

[Enthusiast]

151. +1!

[Enthusiast]

150. +1 an entire shit load.

Isn't it amazing that so many of us recognize this while others refuse to even consider it.

[Enthusiast]

149. You are absolutely correct. This man could have achieved anything. ANYTHING! Greatest mandate ever!

The obfuscators scrambled to play down the mandate. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[polichick]

159. Remembering the crowds is important...

Thanks for posting that pic!

[joshcryer]

42. Yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002476222

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002492799

It's a do-nothing attitude. Better Believe It!

[cantbeserious]

21. I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[840high]

22. I'm happy to see your

post. I will never again hold my nose. NEVER.

[Phlem]

43. Ditto.

[billhicks76]

23. "Fellating The One Percent"

Nice one...Im so nauseated by Hillary and Obama's TPP misdirection that Im questioning everything again.

[Enthusiast]

153. Misdirection is a good word.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Nye Bevan]

25. Barack Obama banned health insurers from discriminating against pre-existing conditions,

and slapped a brand new tax on the investment income of the rich to subsidize poor people's health care.

Not a bad achievement, agreed?

[Thespian2]

80. Not really...

He left insurance companies in charge of health care...he should have pushed for Medicare for All, but his corporate masters didn't want to break the insurance company's golden egg...

[Art_from_Ark]

135. And what a golden egg it has been

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-22/health-care-stocks-leading-s-p-500-for-first-time-in-15-years

[Thespian2]

136. Thanks for the link...

Certainly an expected outcome...I didn't realize just how egregious the Affordable Care Act is...

[Enthusiast]

155. The Single Payer Prevention Act.

[rbnyc]

138. +1 nt

[Enthusiast]

154. Perfectly well said!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[yurbud]

26. incremental outcomes are acceptable IF you went balls to the wall for the ideal first

corporate Dems START at incremental improvements and negotiate them down to something 5% better than what Republicans would do.

And sometimes they do worse.

[YoungDemCA]

28. Ideals =/= tangible goals

By definition.

[yurbud]

142. even Obama's compromises on Obamacare would have been acceptable if...

he had gone all out for a public option, and when he didn't get it, said, "Look, there are members of Congress, including in the Democratic Party, who are bought and paid for by the insurance industry. If the insurance lobby told them to throw babies in a wood chipper, they would hear the chipper working before they hung up the phone. I used every means at my disposal to persuade them, short of threatening the lives of their children, and honestly, and don't think that would make much difference to them compared to the hundreds of thousands in campaign donations they get from insurance companies, and the millions they will after they leave office working for those companies as lobbyists, CEO's, and do-nothing board members.

In light of all that, this is the best deal I could possibly get."

[dreamnightwind]

69. Excellent point, agree completely

The part people often seem to miss is that in the process of fighting for the right thing before compromising to the possible, the public gets more receptive to the right thing, and wants it more, thus creating a context where it i more possible to get there. It's not all about the one battle, and when we don't fight for the actual solution then it never has a chance. A push for single payer, done well (could just as easily choose some other example) might persuade more voters to advocate it, and to elect a congress more likely to deliver it.

[Enthusiast]

156. And they can get away with this because it has been prearranged with the media to never mention

such a concept.

[yurbud]

161. yep. Except it is treated as unremarkable when Republicans pull out all the stops including

constitutional niceties to do the bidding of the rich.

Can you imagine what would happen if Obama did anything equivalent to Bush's signing statements that contradicted the plain sense of bills, but Obama had done it for the middle and working class?

Republicans would call it a constitutional crisis and so would the mainstream media.

[pa28]

30. Unfortunately, banks, corporations and wealthy individuals aren't "pragmatic incrementalists".

No, they want to take everything and they want to take it now.

Incrementalists will point to modest provisions like Dodd-Frank (which has already been partially reversed by a Democratic congress and signed by president Obama) as an example of pragmatic incrementalism making positive change of a long historical arc. They'll tell you we're moving in the right direction.

Too bad those modest but hard won gains can be stripped away with a trade agreement like the TPP. If they don't think that can happen they should study how banks used the WTO agreement as an instrument to globally strip capital controls of the type contained in glass-steagall from signatories around the world including the US. That represented years of hard won regulation and majorities in congress wiped out with the stroke of a pen.

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo/

So, I guess I'm in agreement with you on the concept of "incrementalism". It might still work with social issues but the next time a sensible third wayer scolds you with their bony little finger about the need to be "incremental" on an issue of tax, trade, or regulation I'd take it with a massive grain of salt.

We're facing an onslaught and baby steps only serve to slow the rate of loss. Not advance the public interest.

[JayNev]

35. Reality Check

I wonder how many of all those now defending Obama saying that they believe he knows best and will do what is good for American workers actually are even remotely aware of the following statistic from opensecrets.org

Donations to Presidential candidates in 2008 by Goldman Sachs:

Obama ~ $800,000

McCain ~200,000

How much did you donate? Who do you think Obama cares more for, you or the one who donated $800,000?

Goldman Sachs didn't get rich by investing money where there would not be a return.

What exactly is the truth about TPP, and why is Obama pushing so hard, when it obviously is going to damage US workers who are supposed to be the Democratic base? The reason is that Obama knows that Bill Clintons made tens of millions after his presidency from corporations. A similar payoff waits for Obama.

It is mind blowing that Obama who campaigned on creating the “most transparent Presidency” is now keeping the details of TPP secret due to the fear that it will energize its opponents. It is hard to oppose something without knowing what it is.

The TPP is going to push the US worker down even further. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and MNF for China are the reason why workers wages are stagnant while corporations make record profits.

Back in 2008 voters had a lot of illusions about Obama, but I felt he could not be trusted. His dealings with Exelon had shown he would do corporations’ bidding.

McCain would have led the US into new foolish wars, but he is too honest to try to pass secret trade agreements. The damage to US workers from free trade agreements is practically permanent. The rotten economy has led to a spike in suicides, especially among middle aged white males. Expect this sorry situation to continue.

Obama likely cares about the US workers, but just not enough to forsake the post presidency millions that wait for him.

Those who fantasize that Warren is the savior should go back and read the things Obama said before the 2008 elections, it sounds a lot like what Warren is saying now.

[Phlem]

38. K&R! K&R! K&R! K&R!

Thank You.

[KittyWampus]

40. You are totally wrong about incremental change. Change is like sex.

Some like it to be all about the release.

Some like it to be all about the long slow build up.

I could add gender into the mix and cultural preferences towards one particular dynamic.

But needless to say, change is both incremental and bombastic.

And to reiterate my molasses analogy from a post upthread:

Change is like molasses falling from a spoon.

Before you see the molasses actually off the spoon there is the long and agonizing ooze towards the edge.

For those with short attention spans and who need constant stimulation, molasses falling off a spoon is only the very last part of the dynamics while the majority of the action which was almost imperceptible is considered either non-existant or valueless.

[F4lconF16]

46. Yes, but that beginning dynamic is generally created

Because of people who refuse to work within the system and who refuse incremental change. The explosive power of the civil rights movement in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was entirely due to radical activists who would no settle for anything less than full equality, though they did not get it. It is an incorrect assertion to imply that change came from slow action over the course of years. Tensions built over long periods of time, yes--but the actions taken to correct it did not. Just as most social movements have happened throughout history.

[KittyWampus]

49. "the explosive power". LOL

I am not even a Freudian.

[F4lconF16]

50. ...

[joshcryer]

45. Administrative agencies are incrementalist by their very nature.

And the United States is an administratively run government with a legislative body that is slow to change by design.

[steve2470]

56. yep you nailed it nt

[dreamnightwind]

70. Unless you are a corporation who has lobbyists and a large donation to make or withhold

They have their lawyers draw up the legislation, the lobbyists tell the politicians what they are supposed to pass, and they work to get it done.

[joshcryer]

72. That's legislative, administrations not so much.

Administrations do not shift, it's always the legislature. Legislatively you might be able to get a corporation to change the rules (see the EPA's water standard rules for fracking, the legislators tied the hands of the EPA with regards to fracking fluid disclosure).

You can force shifts through the legislature, and it almost always ties the hands of the administrations, but administrations are almost always incremental in how they deal with new things. There are of course exceptions, such as the FCC's net neutrality rules, but even those were merely a return to best practices (before Bush deregulated the internet the FCC enforced net neutrality; there was nothing inherently controversial about that move, it was back to the way things were before).

Obama's new immigration policies, that'd be another example, but we've seen such efforts made even under Regan. So administrative action is not really upsetting the status quo or anything.

Of course, we are in agreement with one thing, lobbyists should not be able to draft legislation that the legislature doesn't even bother to read. There should be a third party between the lobby and the politicians that sits down and babysits them because of how corrupt the process has become.

In the end incrementialism is literally how administrations work. From one policy maker to the next, from one administrative head to the next, there is no significant uproar.

[dreamnightwind]

73. There may be enough "exceptions" to disprove your point

Obama literally went to Nigeria to promote a large effort to create computer programmers there. There are countless examples. His base, for the most part, is corporate donors not citizens seeking incremental change. Our entire foreign policy is driven by monied interests, and it changes rapidly to respond to the needs of the donors to both the congress and the administration. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, or maybe I think you are making a distinction without a difference.

Lobbyists would be fine if their lobbying was limited to presenting their client's wishes, with no perks in return. Industry should have a voice in government, I certainly can't tell a politician what the telcom industry needs to have done. But their interests should have to stand on their merits with no benefit to the person or party they are lobbying.

Sorry I don't get you broader point, can't tell if I don't get it or if I disagree. It seems to me administrations are very agile when sufficiently motivated.

Administrations control the military (ok not entirely) and the State Department, also Treasury. They are supposedly independent of the Justice Department but in practice not so much. I think they don''t upset the status quo because we get a very narrow range of candidates for POTUS to choose from, pre-approved by TPTB.

[joshcryer]

75. Administrative hands are tied.

Warren knows this much with the CPFB.

[dreamnightwind]

76. Sorry not going to be bullied into agreement

If you care enough to make points about it I will listen, doesn't seem like it's worth a big fight to me though.

[joshcryer]

83. No fight necessary.

If you think administrations can enact revolutionary change, good for you.

You are wrong, demonstrably.

[treestar]

82. +1 Reality

[PowerToThePeople]

47. true.

Eom

[Michigan-Arizona]

63. K&R!!!! n/t

[BrotherIvan]

64. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy.."

but because they are hard."

Here is how a president makes change happen: setting goals and pushing to achieve them. Not everyone was behind Kennedy. Many argued it was folly and a waste to even try. But the goal was reached within the timeframe he set even though he was assassinated. It was one of the great accomplishments of humankind.

The decision involved much consideration before making it public, as well as enormous human efforts and expenditures to make what became Project Apollo a reality by 1969. Only the construction of the Panama Canal in modern peacetime and the Manhattan Project in war were comparable in scope. NASA's overall human spaceflight efforts were guided by Kennedy's speech; Projects Mercury (at least in its latter stages), Gemini, and Apollo were designed to execute Kennedy's goal. His goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module's ladder and onto the Moon's surface.

Why can't we do great things anymore? Why do we sell ourselves so short that we think that problems have no solutions? Why do we let them lie to us? Why do we believe it?

I keep hearing that Obama couldn't have gotten a public option--which he campaigned on and won the election. The people gave him a Democratic Senate and House to enact his agenda. That's a mandate. And we're supposed to believe that three Senators stood in the way? Where was the speech where he took the case to the American people? He was getting enormous press in his first year. Where was the push where he called out members of his own party and called them liars and just doing it for the campaign cash? Where was it? He had the power and the popularity to do great things.

[woo me with science]

77. ^^^^^^This is the truth.^^^^^^

What utter bullshit we are fed about the powerlessness of corporate politicians, when their actions every single day make it clear what they do and don't fight for.

Change does not always happen incrementally. Far from it. It comes when a choice is made. Look at the dramatic changes to this nation from the Patriot Act alone.

The propaganda is designed to create hopelessness and fear, to lower the bar of what we believe we have a right to expect from our government. Look at the post below this one. The players are as predictable as their ugly tactics.

That is why the corrupt corporate machine is so focused on marginalizing and cutting off a Bernie Sanders candidacy at the root. He is speaking the truth: that our political machines are deeply corrupt, and that predatory corporate policies are and have always been A CHOICE.

[BrotherIvan]

107. Amen: Look at the dramatic changes to this nation from the Patriot Act alone.

And all the while, the changes happened while Democrats had power. We hear wails of helplessness yet the minority party was able to run circles around them all. It shows that the "what could we do?" trope is a complete lie.

I am shocked by two things that are coming into clear focus: the first that people are very afraid and the second that Democrats can be just as low information as Republicans. Perhaps those are both by design, but we laugh about people voting against their self interest all the time; yet here we have an entire group crowing about it.

That's how a politician can have the rank hypocrisy to say she is for finance reform and Citizen's United, while she and her husband are actively campaigning for her PAC. As a candidate she is ready to raise the highest war chest in the history of the world and we're supposed to think she's going to turn her back on her donors and help the 99%? When presented with a choice, he is "not a serious candidate" and a "fairytale". And yet, he is pushing all the policies which if separated out from identity politics, most Democrats (with a few corporate-loving exceptions) would choose. It is so odd, I just don't understand it. I think the years of turning oneself into knots to justify Obama acting like a liberal then doing the opposite has primed the pump for more. Hillary is going to try to go with it, but she doesn't have the lack of record and charm to get away with it that Obama had. Fool me once, can't get fooled again.

[woo me with science]

147. Fantastic post.

The con game just doesn't fly anymore.

[BrotherIvan]

148. You said it

There will always be sycophants, always people hoping for the crumbs. But if we stop giving their psychological issues the same weight as facts, then we may get somewhere.

[DCBob]

74. At this point I am more concerned about just keeping what we got.

[stonecutter357]

78. .

[woo me with science]

79. Reminders of what this corporate administration has fought for:

Attributing this corporate administration's assaults on ordinary Americans to political helplessness and obstructionism is a transparent Third Way lie.

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda,
(This list does not show a president trying to enact a liberal agenda and being obstructed. No, it shows him aggressively and proactively implementing policies for the banks and corporations at the expense of the 99 percent.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395

CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever.
Whoa! More proactive corporatism!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025006297

Just a Republican thing, huh? Assaulting the Constitution itself
("Good god. I can't stop!&quot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5554112

Study: Obama's "Trade" Deal (TPP) Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
("A Republican is making me do it?!&quot
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

Obama’s Latest Betrayal of America and Americans in Favor of the Big Banks: TISA
("Oh, shit. Here I go again!&quot
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/26/1309671/--Obama-s-Latest-Betrayal-of-America-and-Americans-in-Favor-of-the-Big-Banks-TISA-by-Bill-Black

Bombing Syria: The next step in the PNAC playbook, remember?
("They're Democratic peace bombs: TOTALLY different!&quot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025520459

The "Justice" Department under Obama
("Please, Mr. Holder! Stop! Stop!&quot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025587151
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025586874

Look at the OFFERS.
("God I hate when this happens!&quot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060108

[treestar]

81. It's history

and our system does not allow for sudden change. Not unless everyone was in agreement in a way people usually never are.

What you want would take a Congress and President to do and there is no way around that.

[TBF]

85. Amen, friend. K&R nt

[riqster]

86. Never mind that Sanders, Warren, FDR and Kennedy all worked to effect change. Often incrementally.

[MineralMan]

87. I'm flattered. Really.

[CTyankee]

88. Add the "no labels" imposters as well.

These two groups are republicans but know that people who are on to the republican game figure they don't want to be identified with R. So they make up these two groups to pull the wool over our eyes. Their ruse is "we're different from the two major political parties." They are wolves in sheep's clothing and should be called out.

Mark McKinnon is one. That disgusting POS tries to pull a fast one on us when he goes on the political shows. But his true colors are always revealed. He's a slick talking shyster, but I for one am on to him and his game.

[PatrickforO]

90. Yeah, we've had 'incremental change' since 1980.

What it means is that we've watched our wages drop, our pensions be flattened, or worse, stolen, home ownership go down, student debt go up, trillions spent on wars and domestic spying, the Bill of Rights basically go down the toilet, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost at the altar of 'free' trade, massive amounts of wealth and income flowing to fewer and fewer people, the infrastructure deteriorating, unions systematically busted, massive privatization, including of prisons, racism growing again, corporate money buying our elected officials, corporations no longer bothering to pay taxes, and carbon emissions hastening disastrous climate change. The American middle class is nearly dead, and we who were once the world's light on the hill have now become feared as the world's biggest threat to peace.

If that's incremental change, then the Third Way is the WRONG way!

[Hiraeth]

91. How does that saying go ... something like ...

For decades nothing happens and then decades happen in a moment.

Something like that, yeah.

[mother earth]

93. K & R! TY, woo me!

[Romulox]

94. It's a lie told by "centrists" who are comfortable with the status quo to begin with. nt

[raouldukelives]

95. K&R 400 ppm. Some resist, some assist. TY for resisting wmws. nt

[OnyxCollie]

97. Regarding the JFK quote,

it really applies well to Obama's actions with respect to torture.

But the President ACKNOWLEDGED the torture!!!

[leftstreet]

98. DURec

[GoneFishin]

102. Kick.

[ibewlu606]

104. Kicked!

If anyone wants more of the same, by all means vote for HRC.

[Gregorian]

106. This is about the most powerful statement I've ever heard.

It is "a flat-out lie: that corporate politicians have the same goals we do but are merely moving toward them more slowly and pragmatically. "

[d_legendary1]

111. Incremental change is what created Walmart, AT&T, and the Oil Giants

Change a few laws over the years and you'll see a rise in the people who benefit from those policy changes.

[hifiguy]

113. Kickety rec

As usual, woo, you rock.

[whatchamacallit]

115. The incremental change is always rightward n/t

[polichick]

131. k&r

[rbnyc]

137. word

[randome]

160. Your 'rose-colored glasses' may be pointing backward.

You need to acknowledge the Present, not simply yearn for the Past, IMO. Look around you. Since the 1980s, this country has been in the grip of a Grand Conservative Experiment. To say that we can shuck all that off if only we insist on more and more is likely naive.

To say we should only accept 'incrementalism' and be happy about it is also wrong. But everyone who tries to change things in the face of this enormous, suffocating Conservative blanket is not our enemy.

Today didn't arrive out of nothing. It's an endpoint to a long, steady march, as are all Todays. I think acknowledging where we are and how we arrived is just as important as wishing things were different.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]