Neoliberalism, My Ass

[KMOD]

Continuing my rant…

In this section, let’s talk about ideology for a bit.

Imagine, if you will, that you come back from your Caribbean vacation to find that your house is flooded. You have $20,000 available to fix whatever needs fixing, but instead of fixing the gaping hole in the roof, you decide to replace all of the floors and the carpet instead. That makes no rational sense, of course, which is what makes the liberal elites (who, quite ironically, call pragmatic progressives “liberal elites”) so frustrating. Much of what you read in the professional left is complete bullshit and has no basis in reality, but it is the rest of us who are crazy and “lack vision.” One thing I learned when I earned by political science degree is that political theory is just that, and bears little to no relationship to reality. Sorry if that’s hard to take, but it’s true.

Just this morning, I awoke to a new comment on my list of Obama accomplishments, taking me to task because I opened the list with a statement that we elected the most progressive president in history in 2008. The commenter said I was being inaccurate when I called Obama progressive, which is absurd on its own, but then he proceeded to prove that he didn’t understand what I said by citing President Obama’s support for the TPP as proof that he isn’t progressive.

Think about that a second. Not only did he not understand what I said, but he was commenting on a list of 358 improvements he has made to benefit society. In other words, in the minds of people like this, someone who says all the right things IS progressive, while those who make actual “progress” don’t qualify. You can feed tens of millions of poor people and disarm the police in black neighborhoods and you can cure cancer, but if you don’t think the TPP is evil and you don’t believe that income inequality is the key issue for most people, you can’t be progressive in any way. That is completely irrational and it explains why progressives are often the least progressive demographic anywhere. The loudest, most obnoxious group of white liberal elitists (note the lack of quotation marks) have decided that they alone have the authority to decide who is and isn’t “progressive” based on the other person’s position on a pet issue. Ideologically speaking, such irrationality makes the left look stupid and causes voters who don’t have the time to watch 10 hours of cable “news” every day to want to stay home on Election Day. Hence, the anti-progress GOP has far too much power.

Yes, I am pragmatic, but anyone with a brain will take pragmatic any day over profoundly stupid.

The view of ideology many of these people have is rooted in pure fantasy. PUBs and professional lefties have convinced themselves that the Democratic Party has become anti-ideological in recent years. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard that and it’s ridiculous. They claim that we Democrats have chosen to reject liberalism and progressive politics in favor of pragmatism, which they will happily say or write with sarcasm dripping from their fangs. You know, because to BE a progressive requires that we always say “progressive things.” Doing is always secondary to saying all the right things to them. Why can’t they see how moronic this sounds? I can be for all of the ideals of the progressive movement AND be pragmatic about achieving progress, because that’s how it’s done. That’s just how democracy works, folks.

read it all, it's great! http://pleasecutthecrap.com/neoliberalism-my-ass/

Love, Love, Love this blog post!!!

[ismnotwasm]

1. K&R

[bjobotts]

98. Could you be any more generalized? Sounds like one comment made you mad and produced this rant

First of all Being and Doing are 2 states of consciousness If you know who you are you will know what to do is a good starting point as being always comes before doing. Progressives have the right intentions and depending on if your are more ideological or pragmatic will determine how you approach what you think can be done. Like saying why not instead of why. I don't believe you need to be so divisive and critical of those who disagree with you 5% of the time as it sounds like those you criticize want the same things you do...for the most part and demanding a discussion or having a disagreement is not point of purity. Disagreeing with Obama does not mean you don't support him or think he is progressive. But he may not be progressive on all things all the time in his actions but remains progressive in his being with progressive intentions. Sounds like you're being resentful based on a few comments you disagree with. The TPP sucks and the reason it was kept hidden and secret is for that very reason...it sucks.

[Dustlawyer]

128. +1!!!

[Eko]

2. Going to need a Cheech and Chong size popcorn for this one.

Good article though.

[forjusticethunders]

3. Fake leftists.

For them, leftism is a super secret club just like in high school, not a means of helping people. A lot of old white males are making bank off selling this shit too.

[runaway hero]

115. If someone is a neoliberal hack

They are a neoliberal hack. Don't claim they're fake when others push compromise and pragmatism over result

[MohRokTah]

4. K&R FOR TRUTH! eom

[sheshe2]

5. Ouch.

Boom!

[kcjohn1]

6. Depends on your definition of progressive

I don't doubt Obama is progressive on lots of issues. He is probably the most progressive president in recent times (speaks to how right wing countries politics have shifted).

But fundamental he is neoliberal along with the rest of political establishment. They believe in these trade deals that have devastated middle class. They think privation and the market can solve many of our problems better than the state sector.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Republican governance has devastated the middle class, not trade deals.

Republicans don't invest in education, infrastructure, social support, innovation, diversity or minimum wage.

Republicans want to increase income and wealth inequality, not decrease it.


(That all said, ... TPP has severe secrecy and sovereignty issues that must be addressed or it must be scrapped.)

[Yavin4]

48. ^^^THIS^^^^

People constantly conflate the loss of low skilled factory jobs overseas with the disappearance of the middle class which is utter nonsense. Capitalism alone DOES NOT CREATE A MIDDLE CLASS!!!!! Government spending and regulations do.

When the people vote for governors like Rick Scott, Bobby Jindal, Brownback, Rick Snyder, and LePage, they are doing far more to destroy the middle class than any trade deal.

[Hortensis]

49. THIS & THIS. :)

[AgingAmerican]

71. Government spending and regulation does not create a middle class

Unions created the middle class. Every nation on earth with a large middle class has strong unions, no exceptions. As go unions, so goes the middle class.

[Yavin4]

109. Without government support, unions would have been crushed.

Read the history of the labor movement. Before government stepped in, they were literally being killed by corporations in the streets.

[AgingAmerican]

117. Every nation with large middle class has strong labor unions

No exceptions. As go unions, so goes the middle class.

[Yavin4]

118. And unless the govt forces corporations to negotiate with unions

Unions cannot exist. See the Southern U.S.

[AgingAmerican]

119. The government doesn't force companies to negotiate with Unions

Unions have what are called "strikes" to force their issues.

There is no country on earth with a large middle class that doesn't have strong labor unions, no exceptions.

[Yavin4]

122. And companies then hire strike breakers

See the NFL replacement players in 1987.

[AgingAmerican]

131. Yes, sometimes they hire 'Scabs'

Before labor unions, there was little to no middle class, as we see in the third world.

[roomtomove]

132. "Read the history of the labor movement"???????

Give a me a break....you are living in the past. Since Reagan the "government" has been breaking the unions. How many states now have "right to work" laws, eliminating the prevailing wages that provided a living wage. I am so incensed by outright ignorance.

[leveymg]

55. Trade deals have eliminated jobs, while austerity (both parties) has cut away safety nets

that used to make unemployment, underemployment and retirement bearable. It's not either or. Both factors, and all the major parties that have embraced neoliberalism and austerity, led to Brexit and the growing middle-class rebellion in the western countries.

[pampango]

57. I wonder if we go after trade deals because the republican base agrees with us but

their base will not go along with us when we talk about investing in education, infrastructure, social support, innovation, diversity or the minimum wage.

It ends up seeming that republican government policies are less attacked than trade deals enacted by Democrats, in some sense letting republicans off the hook for the problems they have caused and blaming Democrats instead.

[kristopher]

90. These "trade deals" are creating a global regime of legal governance

The Republican goals in the economic sphere are (and always have been) known as "liberal" economics.

Neoliberal economics is the current term for those same free market, corporate oriented policies when they are embraced by Democrats.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027969981 for definitions

[bjobotts]

102. America used to be the #1 exporter of finished goods and now we are the #1 importer of fin. goods

Our #1 export now is gasoline and weapons. Tariffs and tax incentives used to protect America's goods and services but after Reagan we got rid of those protections and outsourced to slave labor and no regulations off shore. Trade deals only favor the greedy wealthy few and never the middle class and working poor in America.

[bjobotts]

103. Neoliberalism is Reganism, trickle down economics and voodo economics where corps do

whatever they can get away with

[Svafa]

86. +1

[Scootaloo]

7. Ah yes, pragmatism

Of course, pragmatism necessitates compromise, right? Cutting where you have to to get what you need? 'Course, in the context of this discussion, the people we're going ot be cutting compromises with happen to be the Republicans. Looking at the rest of this blog, it seems the writer has some pretty strong opinions of the Republican party.

So. Who are you willing to cut out? 'Cause it's definitely a "who." In order to receive all these compromises, these sensible cuts, this lovely pragmatism with the Republicans, people are going to suffer.

So, mister pragmatist. Who's it going to be? Who gets sold down the river? The Republicans hate a lot of people, and your cause celebre seems to be offering those people out on a silver platter in the hopes of looking "bipartisan" and "rational" and achieving some baby step of progress through their unwilling sacrifice?

Give me a list of the people you feel are expendable, and what you expect to achieve by letting Republicans have their way with them. Be sure to not aim too high - you wouldn't want to look irrational, after all.

[laundry_queen]

8. +1 nt

[Eko]

10. I think its more like

we all agree fracking is bad, but to ban fracking would not only get rid of at least 30% of Americas fuel for electricity but to also put 9.8 million people out of work. It would be more sensible to at least have a plan for all of this before we just pull the plug and to make fracking safer until we can transition to renewables. That is just one example.

[That Guy 888]

23. When the Saudi's "opened up the spiggot" they shut down a lot of the fracking in TX.

There are start-up and shut-down costs involved in fracking. When Saudi Arabia saw us cutting into there profits, they increased production until the US frack field operating costs exceeded the potential profits.

It would be more sensible to at least have a plan for all of this before we just pull the plug and to make fracking safer until we can transition to renewables.

I think it would be more sensible to figure out how fracking could be done without causing earthquakes or contaminating the drinking water of the communities around the frack fields. You can live with higher oil prices(like we did during *'s pResidency), you can't live without water.

And who says the US will get the oil from fracking anyways?

The U.S. is poised to lift a 40-year ban on exporting oil.

Lawmakers are close to authorizing oil exports as part of a broader $1.1 trillion spending and tax bill working its way through Congress. Sources told CNN the compromise measure, which is needed to avert a government shutdown, includes a provision that would roll back the export restriction. <snip>

... U.S. refiners want to keep it in place because they've benefited from being able to buy oil at the cheaper domestic price and then sell it at the higher global price.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has analyzed the outcome and expects that refiners would cut jobs and suffer a loss of $22 billion in annual profits by 2025 if the ban is lifted. <snip>

...Environmental groups also want to keep the ban in place.

"Our climate and communities cannot afford the hazardous oil production that would come with lifting the crude oil export ban," a conservation group that includes the Sierra Club wrote in a recent letter to Congress.

[roomtomove]

130. Bogus statistics do not make an argument...

and "making fracking safer" is totally delusional. You sound like a Republican troll.

[Eko]

141. Part of my numbers could indeed be wrong.

I did a quick google search for employment for natural gas and fracking and used a source that is nat gas friendly, so that indeed could be wrong. The 30% of Americas fuel is correct though, see attached link. I don't think making anything safer is delusional short of trying to kill someone, how is it even possible that you cant make something safer? Do you have an example of this? Then addressing you saying I sound like a repub troll, I alerted on that and somehow it made it through the jury. I could say how you sound, and it would sound something like a trucking basshole, but I wouldn't do that. I actually like the new rules imperfect as they are.


http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/14/natural-gas-tops-coal-as-top-source-of-electric-power-generation-in-us.html

[AntiBank]

31. well put, as usual

[Aerows]

42. Some days, around here,

I feel like I've lost my mind. I'm a Democrat. I'm not a "better Republican".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Nothing like single-issue zealots to ignore a list of 358 accomplishments. . . nt

[seabeckind]

29. I've seen that. Quite the Gish Gallop.

[roomtomove]

134. "Single issue zealots"....??????

Who are you referring to, or are you just using a familiar catch phrase, a la our republican friends;. ie throwing out dog meat. Provide a substantive argument statement or defer from making comments.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

138. It's obvious. Read the OP.

The OP quotes an extended excerpt.

In the excerpt a writer made a list of 358 progressive accomplishments of Obama.

The excerpt says a commenter focused on the single issue of TPP and ignored the 358.

So, now, roomtomove, who do you think my post was referring to? Is it A) the Original Poster, B) the writer the OP excerpted, or C) the commenter?

This is not difficult.

Give it a try.

Oh, and welcome to DU. Congratulations on reaching 100 posts. Until further notice I will not defer from making comments.

Since you are looking for substantive "arguments", read my DU Journal.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. Heaven forfend we should look at someone's positon on the issues.

The loudest, most obnoxious group of white liberal elitists (note the lack of quotation marks) have decided that they alone have the authority to decide who is and isn’t “progressive” based on the other person’s position on a pet issue.

How else do you decide who is or isn't progressive, if not their stance on issues? The color of their skin?

The word "elitist" gets bandied around by people looking to stoke anger at others who might be wealthier, more accomplished or better at this or that; but it stokes the anger against the idea that they think they're better than you! Watch for manipulations like these.


Ideologically speaking, such irrationality makes the left look stupid

So do appeals to emotion without facts.


and causes voters who don’t have the time to watch 10 hours of cable “news” every day to want to stay home on Election Day.

This is just celebrating ignorance.

The author comes off as someone still bitter over words exchanged during the primaries. This would be better said to a therapist.

[whatthehey]

34. Except you stress the wrong point, as the OP explains

Really it should be

The loudest, most obnoxious group of white liberal elitists (note the lack of quotation marks) have decided that they alone have the authority to decide who is and isn’t “progressive” based on the other person’s position on a pet issue.

As the article wisely says, purists refuse to give Obama credit for actual progress when he, in agreement with both economics and history, sees free trade as a better means to economic progress than protectionism. Clinton can never be a progressive either because she voted for a resolution that another politico abused despite her passionate on the record insistence on exhausting all other options before war. Kaine can never be progressive because he has a personal religious objection to abortion despite being fine with its legality. The list goes on and on. It doesn't matter what these people did to achieve real progress, only that they fail a specific blanket litmus test imposed by people who have never had to govern in a divided democracy where opponentrs have their own silly purist wing as well.

[kristopher]

92. "Free trade" versus "protectionism"?

Unless you mean the following by "protectionism" that is right wing framing.

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

[Cha]

13. Love Milt Shook.. thank you, K!

[betsuni]

14. Great article!

It's funny, during the Bush administration if you had any little criticism of the U.S. government you were asked why you hate America and called unpatriotic, liberal. If you pointed out that of course the housing market was a bubble, you were laughed at. Then the fashion changed with the next administration and especially over the last year if you didn't repeat all the right buzzwords about how terrible every single thing is, you don't hate America enough and called names like neoliberal.

As far as the TPP is concerned, I haven't seen one concrete thing from critics of why it's so bad. It seems like the same old argument as everything else: if it isn't perfect so it's bad. From what I've seen from previous research it improves things from what they are now.

[fleabiscuit]

19. TPP is a WALL

[betsuni]

21. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

A wall?

[Hortensis]

63. International business IS engaged in a

conspiracy to use trade agreements to neutralize local laws and thwart the will and needs of the local people. That is beyond question.

What those wringing their hands over the TPP don't consider is that, even as giant corporations
win some brief victories, the end of this tactic is already in sight and that they have already had many losses. Just last year the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was boasting everywhere that the TPP was going to make its nations liable for tobacco industry losses due to any anti-smoking laws and practices of those nations. They lost that one. That's hardly the only one business is losing in that one treaty.

Over the past 40 years or so especially of great technological advances, international business was able to operate extremely aggressively in a relatively lawless international environment. The necessary legal controls had not been developed between nations, and business was able to take great advantage of vacuums and lack of cooperation, becoming extremely powerful and buying whatever influence they needed in the process.

However, that power is already diminishing because the world's nations need it to and are beginning to write laws aimed at bringing it under control. A very imperfect process, as the current form of the TPP shows, but it is happening.

[KMOD]

69. Strive for progess, not perfection.

[Betty Karlson]

15. Wow, tin ear AND insults. I am guessing the expiration date for elitist policy is nearing. eom

[Scuba]

26. Hippie punching, nothing more.

[tk2kewl]

39. income and wealth inequality are unimportant when you're on the fat side of the equation

[JEB]

43. Lots of white noise, always. Its how they roll.

[pampango]

45. Bernie, Corbyn and British unions all wanted the UK to stay in the EU. Yeah, they're elitists not

Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.

[Betty Karlson]

60. That quite a big leap you are taking there.

Some might even call it false equivalence.

[pampango]

89. "the expiration date for elitist policy is nearing". Not for conservative elitist policy it's not.

Bernie, Jeremy and the unions knew that conservative elitist policy would follow a Brexit victory. The labor and environmental policies of the EU may have been 'elitist' (although I'm am not sure many liberals viewed them that way). Now that the conservative super-elites are free from those 'cumbersome' regulations, hyper-elitism is about to strike.

I do have to give the British far-right some credit. They understood that people are mad and angry at elites. When a conservative prime minister set up the Brexit referendum to pander to the far-right wing of his party they ran with it.

Their clever thinking was, "The people are mad at the elites. If we portray the EU as an out-of-touch, distant liberal elite that is causing all of the people's problems, we may win this referendum and get the UK out of the EU which is something we have been trying to do for decades. AND there is no danger of voters turning on conservative elites because we won't be on the ballot. We're safe and we get rid of those damn liberals in Brussels.

Thank you, Mr. Cameron. (And Mr. Trump is trying to figure out how to duplicate the British far-right's strategy and portray a vote for him as a vote against the elites. If he can pull that off, we will have a President Trump just like there will be a Brexit in the UK.

[Betty Karlson]

139. All elitist policy has an element of conservatism.

And again: Bernie was not involved in either side of the Brexit debate, so your whole effort to tie him into your argument seems rather convoluted.

[pampango]

140. Bernie was not directly involved, of course, but he made his opinion known. n/t

[nikto]

16. "Getting things done" for Centrist Dmocrats has mean't, in many cases ...

Giving-in to Republicans.

The Story of The Clinton 90s.

[CrispyQ]

82. +1

If the dems had been a true opposition party for the last 35 years, instead of veering to the right, we wouldn't have a tea party & Donald Trump.

[appalachiablue]

133. +5

[cosmicone]

17. Hope the "paleoliberals" get it

But I am not hopeful

Great post!

[Roy Rolling]

18. Pet Issues

Good point. There's sometimes a "Pet Issue Litmus Test". And then a public display of self-righteousness. It is important for progressives to not be narrow-minded and arrogant in public, that is the trademark of the other team.

[fleabiscuit]

20. KICK

[LuvLoogie]

22. Neo-liberalism was the buzzword of the week.

It popped up in Glen Greenwald columns and Thom Hartmann segments. Did Taibbi lob a few as well? It sounded like Brit Hume announcing "boots on the ground."

[Fla Dem]

112. Coordinated 3 pronged stealth attack.

[Surya Gayatri]

24. Great resource link! Thanks KMOD!

[BlueMTexpat]

25. K&R, KMOD!

This is a great post - many thanks for providing it here!

[Jamaal510]

27. K&R

[seabeckind]

28. Looks like somebody shook (no pun intended) the crazy tree

This is a purely reaganomics rant. Reaganomics is not a political ideology, it is an economic ideology.

Neoliberalism is a bait and switch tactic. That's all it is. It is taking away worker rights on one hand while saying that increased profits help that worker's pensions. The switch part come by ignoring the fact that that worker's pension is taking a royal hit because of his reduced earnings. Some other guy is the one whose portfolio is fattened.

TPP is exactly the same argument. Free trade controlled by the corporations doing the trading is good for American workers because it will make the things they buy cheaper.

Think about that for a while. What American workers? What are they working on if not products other workers need?

It's reaganomics.

(Oh, forgot) The crazy reference came when I googled the author. He's an internet shock jock. I couldn't copy some of the stuff he has said but quite a few called him a "world class moron" for some of his other comments.

[nikto]

136. Bam!!! You said it.

[AntiBank]

30. apologist claptrap

They point to Bill Clinton’s signing of the bill that basically repealed Glass-Steagall, but they fail to mention several things. First, they forget that the bill he signed was Gramm-Leach-Bliley and it was a Republican concoction.

bullshit

Gary Gensler (ex Goldman Sachs and now Hillary's CHIEF financial advisor) and Larry Summers, both Democrats were profoundly influential in both writing and getting that ratfuck of a bill passed 90-8 in the Senate.




STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON AT THE SIGNING OF THE FINANCIAL MODERNIZATION BILL (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/ls241.aspx

SEC. SUMMERS: Let me welcome you all here today for the signing of this historic legislation. With this bill, the American financial system takes a major step forward towards the 21st century, one that will benefit American consumers, business, and the national economy for many years to come. This is the culmination of years of effort by many, many people, reflects the work of presidents, Treasury officials, members of Congress, those in the private sector, from both parties, and dedicated professionals, both inside and outside the government. With their help, I believe we have all found the right framework for America's future financial system.

I want especially to thank the members of Congress who played so crucial a role in passing this legislation, thank the key regulators and the agencies they represent -- Chairman Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, Chairman Levitt and the SEC, Comptroller Hawke and the OCC, Ms. Seidman (sp) and the OTS -- for all that they have contributed to bringing us to this point. And I want to thank especially my predecessor, Bob Rubin, who cared deeply that we get this bill right, and finally, my many

Treasury colleagues -- Deputy Secretary Eizenstat, Gary Gansler (sp), Greg Bear (sp), Rick Carnell, Linda Robertson (sp), Marty Levine (sp), and Michael Bar (sp) for everything that they have done; Gene Sperling and Sarah Rosen and their colleagues at the National Economic Council for everything that they have done in bringing us to this point. Today we will hear first from the four members of Congress whose leadership was so central to the passage of this bill, in this speaking order: Chairman Gramm, Chairman Leach, Ranking Member LaFalce, and Ranking Member Sarbanes. Let me pass the podium first to Senator Gramm. (Applause.)

snip


PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, and good afternoon. I thank you all for coming to the formal ratification of a truly historic event. Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes have actually agreed on an important issue. (Laughter.) I -- MR. PODESTA (?): But I'm sitting in between them. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Stay right there, John! (Laughs.) I asked Phil on the way out how bad it was going to hurt him in Texas to be walking out the door with me. (Laughter.) We decided it was all right today. Like all those before me, I want to express my gratitude to those principally responsible for the success of this legislation. I thank Secretary Summers and the entire team at Treasury, but especially Undersecretary Gensler for their work, and Assistant Secretary Linda Robertson. And I thank you, Chairman Greenspan, for your constant advocacy of the modernization of our financial system. I thank you, Chairman Levitt, for your continuing concern for investor protections and I thank the other regulators who are here. I thank Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes, Chairman Leach and Congressman LaFalce and all the members of Congress who are here. Senator Dodd told me the Sisyphus story, too, over and over again, but I've rolled so many rocks up so many hills, I had a hard time fully appreciating the sgnificance of it. (Laughter.)


snip

But I do want to thank all the members here and all those who aren't here and I'd like to thank two New Yorkers who aren't here who have been mentioned -- former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, who worked very hard on this, and former chairman, Senator Al D'Amato, who talked to me about this often. So this is a day we can celebrate as an American day. To try to give some meaning to the comments that the previous speakers have made about how we are making a fundamental and historic change in the way we operate our financial institutions............................



snip

Finally I especially love how it shamefully uses race and gender as a left wing reverse dog whistle, as if PoC and women are a bulwark for neoliberalism and doing god's work by pushing forth further corporatist, anti-worker, anti-democratic laws treaties, and policies (which in reality, of course, they are not). Talk about misappropriation!!!!

[yurbud]

52. yep. Bill and now Obama were free to veto GOP bills and let them try to over-ride

[disillusioned73]

106. ... dang, facts...

[nikto]

137. Your highly-Truthful post is hurtful to ONLY the NON-righteous hypocrites

You layed it out eloquently.






IMO, the knee-jerk neoliberal followers are just the Low-IQ end of the Dem Party.
It's the only answer I can think of.

[rug]

32. Three things in the first two sentences that undermine the rest:

1) You own a house.

2) You took a Caribbean vacation.

3) You have $20,000 laying around.

Until a party wraps its head around about the reality of workers' lives, pragmatism versus ideology rants are an academic exercise best done over a microbrew.

[CrispyQ]

44. Thread win.

[KMOD]

47. I don't have any of those things either,

except we are a few more years away from owning our house, and it still resonated strongly with me.

[Squinch]

66. You get that that was an illustrative story, right?

[Rex]

73. IKR!? Why anyone would buy the crap the article is selling.

Well not everyone can look at the aggregate. Some people, like the author, are too myopic to see beyond their fence line.

[R B Garr]

91. And Bernie makes about $200,000 a year...

[Craig234]

96. And the weight of an unladen African swallow is...

So what?

[R B Garr]

104. lol, so by the logic of the post I responded to, making a high salary would

preclude anyone from talking about income inequality, yet it doesn't stop Sanders from talking about income inequality.

It's just one more thing that exposes the hypocrisy of the ideologies being discussed in the OP. Sorry, I should have expanded on that in my post.

[Craig234]

105. No problem

Your post left open the possible interpretation that you were saying Bernie can't because of his salary, which would be wrong, or that you were saying the other person was wrong disqualified using Bernie as an argument, which is a valid argument.

Now it's clarified, you meant the latter.

These things are tricky. Remember all of George H. W. Bush's money and activities weren't so much an issue, but when he didn't know the price of a gallon of milk it was a huge story attacking him for being out of touch.

It was a valid attack, but it's sill that it takes something like the milk to gain traction.

And some other rich guy who has no idea what milk costs might be a great fighter against poverty, and a lot of poor people are some of the worst voters supporting policies bad for the poor. You're right there's more to it than just being well off.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Posted to for later.

[UtahLib]

35. K&R. nt

[Spazito]

36. Excellent read!

Thanks for posting this.

[mcar]

37. K&R

[pampango]

38. Sometimes it is what you want it to be; not what it actually is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I wonder if those pushing back on this OP recognize ...

that they are exhibiting, exactly, the behavior the OP is talking about? I suspect, not.

[KMOD]

70. In looking through some comments,

it doesn't look like they do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Which, kind'a was a point the OP was making.

[ismnotwasm]

84. Nope--precisely as expected.

It's ok though.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

75. Caribbean vacation - You have $20,000 available

lol

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. I would venture to guess, despite protestations otherwise ...

many of the loudest voices shouting "neoliberalism" do. They've just been able to convince you (in the generic sense) that their fight is your fight.

[Rex]

78. IKR!?

Pathetic.

[betsuni]

41. Kick

[pampango]

46. If Brexit really were a response to neoliberalism, then conservatives are sure smarter than liberals

when it comes to understanding and rejecting neoliberalism. Most conservatives voted for Brexit while most liberals voted to remain in the EU.

I don't think conservatives are smarter than liberals.

If, OTOH, Leave voters were motivated by immigration concerns and opposition to multiculturalism and social liberalism, then the conservative support for Leave makes much more sense.

I think that is the case.

[malthaussen]

50. Wait a minute, is it still raining?

'Cause if it isn't raining, I don't need to fix the roof. And if it is raining, why, it's too wet to fix the roof.

-- Mal

[Rex]

53. Funny watching the elite project so much.

Pathetic and funny. Every situation only has one problem, ever. I don't know what simpletons believe this, but I feel sorry for their limited comprehension abilities.

[malthaussen]

56. I find more bathos than pathos.

But I'm a cold bastard.

Any group that feels the need to ascribe the word "elite" to themselves has already made a powerful statement about themselves.

-- Mal

[Rex]

58. Good point.

I doubt that was even noticed.

[KMOD]

59. well I suppose you could just place a few buckets around.

Me? I'm going to fix the roof, because I'm quite certain it will rain again.

[FairWinds]

54. I've got a degree in political science too, but . .

I don't wave it around.

Post is essentially insults and name calling, and does
not engage actual policy or ideas.

And Shook wants me to read his list of 358 accomplishments?

I'll pass.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. I'm still trying to imagine the Island Vacation, a lack of home insurance and 20K cash to

spend on what the insurance should be covering all in the first bit. Do people really not carry insurance? Is that how they afford the trips?
Also, this flood is unusual in that it put a hole in the roof while leaving the lower floors untouched. How does that happen, considering the nature of water rising and falling?

[Rex]

62. The person that wrote the article has a 5th grade education at best.

The article is meant to insult as many people as possible. Most of us just find it an insult to our intelligence.

[AntiBank]

64. it's Milt Shook, a true hack who never meet a 3rd-way economic inflection point or so called left

-pushed but still neocon-loved military/security state empowering position (NDAA for example) he would not shill out for.

He loves to target and smear real left wingers and progressives via ad hominem and inane logic. He plays semantic word games to try and say that resistance to projects of, by and for the technocratic and transnational class is racist and only being pushed by a so-called "professional left" who he libels as rich, white fanboys.

He is a carbuncle of 3rd-way posturing.

[Rex]

65. Oh I know, we make fun of him year after year here on DU.

His rants are great fodder.

[Shebear]

67. Pragmatism?

$4T and counting for wars that didn't need to be fought... but Medicare for all and free public college is too expensive? These are value judgements, and the values aren't right...

[Rex]

68. The person that wrote the article doesn't understand what pragmatism means.

Just like a lot of other terms. The author shows their ignorance of what they write about.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

74. Caribbean vacation - You have $20,000 available

lol

[FairWinds]

76. Mr. Shook appears to not understand . .

the importance of the TPP, and that supporting it does indeed
call one's progressive credentials into question.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/30/backers-sanders-mobilize-overthrow-dnc-platforms-pro-tpp-stance

And where did Shook get his degree in Poly Sci? What degree was it? What were his grades?

(Since he wants to play that game)

[TomCADem]

79. Another Pretentious Label...

...that obscures rather than illustrates. Neo is "new". So, are we really saying new liberals?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

80. Keep in mind these are people who measure success by their own profits.

[Thinkingabout]

81. I am a union person, worked hard for my union, did a lot of organizing and did a lot of representing

union members. Whether I like the fact or not, lots of jobs has been overtaken by technology advances, we have to recognize this fact and move on.

[ismnotwasm]

83. The OP actually presented a list of ~371~of President Obama's accomplishments

He got pissed when a certain segment of people decided said accomplishments weren't "progressive" enough and gave him a bunch of crap. Thus this rant.

I don't blame him

THE LIST OF 371 OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS SO FAR, WITH CITATIONS
In 2008, we elected the most progressive president in history. And regardless of the negativity, when you actually look at the record, there has been a lot of progress since January 20, 2009.

Here is a list of many of President Obama’s accomplishments as President. Every one of them has a citation, so no one can dismiss them out of hand, although many have tried since I started to compile this list Even with the obstacles we gave him, especially the Republican Congress, this President will leave a hell of a legacy. If we want to win elections – and in a democracy, that has to be our main goal – we have to make people want to vote for us. That means accentuating the positive, and talking about how great we are, especially compared to the alternative.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

[Craig234]

94. I think the way to get people to vote for us

Is by deserving their vote, not offering them a half-good thing and hiding the other half.

Be honest. Say the good side - that's a big deal - and say the rest as well, trying to improve.

[ismnotwasm]

107. What?

Are you suggesting we discuss issues with intelligence and nuance? That while we weigh out, as we must, flawed real time interventions using practicality and pragmatism, but at the same time striving for better and better progressive solutions to improve lives everywhere?


I could go for that.

[TheFarseer]

85. So we are all for TPP now?

Because globalization is enivitible, or they need jobs in third world countries too, or it would be xenophobic not to, or f#@& dirty overpaid American workers or why? I'm just trying to understand what the thinking is.

[Craig234]

95. see post

I hear tpp criticized without specifics 100 times for every bit of specifics. I think we need to do a lot better at saying the reasons WHY it's bad, not just that it is. Start with how 'trade agreement' is a cover for a lot of garbage in it.

[AntiBank]

100. I always spell out specifics. Asymmetrical Investment Protection for one.

U.N.’s Legal Expert Calls Proposed Trade Deals Illegal (TPP, TTIP, TISA, and CETA)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027957446

[LWolf]

87. Thank you, Milt Shook, aka Chuckles,

for that passionate defense of your cause. Ideology, indeed. Pat yourselves on the back for supporting social justice while repeatedly murdering economic justice, because those two things simply can't be connected in any way.

Now I'm going to employ my favorite response to sensible woodchucks.

[Nitram]

88. K&R

[Craig234]

93. My reaction

I view this post as someone who has the issues wrong, and is trying to double down and use bullying language and name calling and bluster to make their case instead of good arguments.

It's filled with his sneering and snideness towards a group, and not much else.

One clue for him: progressives would love to 'do' more of their policies, if they can get the votes.

His attacking people for having correct policies is not helpful.

[Hekate]

97. Kick to return later

[DonCoquixote]

99. I agree, with one caveat

I understand that some horse trading and pissing off of your friends may indeed need to be done, but, when the "pragmatic" types come to the table, they need to acknowledge that the rich have in effect damaged the "horse trading" mechanism they used to rely on. It used to be that even a die hard conservative realized that he or she was accountable to people that were watching them and expecting RESULTS, which meant they realized they had to give a little something, a few slices of bread. Come election time, they could tell the voters "Would you rather I lost the whole loaf?" Even the ideological realize a half loaf beats starving. What used to define America is that, however ideologically heated we were, we realized there were bills to be paid, and that we did not want to emulate the political crusades of Europe where we got high off the conflict, but ended up hungry.

However, especially after Citizens United, you have a breed of congressperson who knows they really do not have to achieve anything as long as their backers keep shoveling out the money, buying the commercials, and making sure the right pundits and megachurch clergy keep banging the drums. Look at Ted Cruz. In a saner age, someone who even THOUGHT of having America default would have been ruined. Here, he came very close to winning the nomination, outlasting the aristocrats like Jeb Bush, only to be beaten out by someone who does not even PRETEND to DISLIKE the idea of defaulting, who advocates it as something that is a secret of his success. It is not that Trump is merely and example of all this is wrong with the GOP, it is that those who want to emulate him know that there are a bunch of robber barons willing to pay them to imitate Trump. It says a lot that in just four years, Mitt Romney has gone from being Obama's main opponent to someone that, in his own right, could get a respectable amount of hate on Fox News.

All I am saying is this, yes I know our Democrats need to make sausage, and to quote Bismarck, making those sausages is not pretty. However, in light of the fact that some of those GOP "co workers" at the sausage factory are begin hired to sabotage the process, I would expect them to start from a higher position towards the left, so that by the time the process is done, we end up somewhere like a 4 to 6 out of ten, ten being leftism as defined by FDR. As is, we start the negotiation already saying "I know we wont get anything more than a three, and by the time the GOP applies its saboteurs, we end up at -1.

[DonCoquixote]

101. PS, about Europe

I said :
" Even the ideological realize a half loaf beats starving. What used to define America is that, however ideologically heated we were, we realized there were bills to be paid, and that we did not want to emulate the political crusades of Europe where we got high off the conflict, but ended up hungry."

Now some Euros who read this might feel offended. I offer two syllables "BREXIT." The fact that people like Marine Le Pen are considering imitating this tune shows that there is still something of the Crusader in Europe.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/25/brexit-spurs-right-wing-calls-other-nations-exit-eu/86359772/

[KMOD]

108. Your position is completely reasonable,

and I agree. Thank you for taking the time to post.

[jtuck004]

110. Gompers, Wilson, Chamberlain, and the Industrialists are dead but their foul ideology lives. n/t

[tallahasseedem]

111. Thank you KMOD!

This article sums up my thoughts completely!

[beastie boy]

113. Damn, this is so spot on, there is nothing to add!

The liberal "revolutionaries" who demand ideological purity should refer to this article every time they get a compulsion to mention "neoliberal" or "third way" or some other nonsense they heard from Thom Hartman in reference to Obama.

At the very least, they should learn the meaning of all those terms they so casually throw around.

[runaway hero]

114. Full of excuses

An article full of excuses to justify the third way crap we see.

[KMOD]

120. I find the author of your link,

to be arrogant, judgmental and closed-minded.

It's that belief system that is turning people away from the term, and the people who claim to be "progressive".

[stupidicus]

123. the only evidence of any "turning away"

is derived from HC barely eeking out a win against BS and the stacked deck that almost failed.

[KMOD]

125. barely? eeking?

It was fairly definitive in historical context.

[DemonGoddess]

121. K&R!

Thank you KMOD!

I really hope that people start thinking about the necessity of trade. Does TPP need work? Yes, I do think so, like many of us do. Having said that, to kill all our trade treaties and start over is foolish.

[joshcryer]

124. I don't consider the purists progressive.

Nor do I take their opinion seriously.

[PowerToThePeople]

126. What complete horse crap.

[Tarheel_Dem]

127. The saddest part is that the extremes get to classify everyone else. n/t

[Gothmog]

129. K&R

[AgadorSparticus]

142. Excellent, excellent post!!! Thank you for sharing this!

Going to bookmark this little gem.