HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Activism » Socialist Progressives (Group) » History Lessons

Mon Feb 22, 2016, 11:26 AM

History Lessons

Still, the dismal Eisenhower Democrat and former Goldwater Girl Hillary – a moderate and hawkish Republican at leftmost – clings to a stubborn lead over the Franklin Roosevelt-ian Sanders in the polling data. Her victory of Sanders in Nevada two days ago is likely to be the first in a string of victories that will carry her to the nomination with some help from party “super-delegates” (the 20 percent of Democratic Party presidential delegates who are absurdly unelected). How does she do it? Part of the answer is pure and simple deception.

History Lessons: “Ultra-Radical” Reflections on Hillary, Bernie and U.S. Politics

by Paul Street ~ February 22, 2016

No Surprise

In a recent Guardian column arguing that nominal socialist Bernie Sanders’ majority support among Democratic voters below the age of 50 shows that the United States is entering a new progressive politico-ideological phase, the liberal French economist Thomas Piketty notes that “Hillary Clinton… appears today as if she is defending the status quo, just another heiress of the Reagan-Clinton-Obama political regime.”

She appears like that, someone might want to tell Piketty, because she is like that. For Hillary as for her NAFTA-signing husband and Trans Pacific Obama, there’s a useful translation for “a progressive who knows how to get things done”: a corporate neoliberal who manipulates populist and liberal sentiments in dutiful service to the unelected and interrelated dictatorships of money and empire. These “pragmatic” Democrats stand to the right of 1950s U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, who accepted Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal as an inviolable part of the national, corporate-liberal consensus.

Is it any wonder that a Wall Street Democrat with a long corporatist-“New Democrat” (Republican-lite) track record like Hillary Clinton’s [1] is having a harder time than she expected locking down the Democratic presidential nomination? It shouldn’t be. Not in a time when the big money-sponsored rightward shift of both reigning, dollar-drenched political parties helps usher young adults into a New Gilded Age of rampant economic precarity and hyper-inequality – into a society where the top 1% percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90% and gets pretty much whatever it wants from government and politicians regardless of which party holds the White House and/or Congress.

Is it surprising that Sanders is doing better than the Clintons, the Democratic National Committee, and probably Sanders himself expected he would? It shouldn’t be ...

much more here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/22/history-lessons-ultra-radical-reflections-on-hillary-bernie-and-u-s-politics/

2 replies, 1118 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply History Lessons (Original post)
TBF Feb 2016 OP
dimple Feb 2016 #1
TBF Feb 2016 #2

Response to TBF (Original post)

Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:15 PM

1. I thought this was telling during her confrontation with those BLM activists last year


HILLARY CLINTON: Look I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not. But at the end of the day, we could do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them, to live up to their own God-given potential, to live safely without fear of violence in their own communities, to have a decent school, to have a decent house, to have a decent future. So we can do it one of many ways. You can keep the movement going, which you have started, and through it you may actually change some hearts. But if that’s all that happens, we’ll be back here in 10 years having the same conversation. We will not have all of the changes that you deserve to see happen in your lifetime because of your willingness to get out there and talk about this.

What is the implication here? Are there people who don't deserve to live up to their potential, to live safely, have a decent school, etc., etc.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dimple (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:21 PM

2. "for people who deserve to have them" -

This is always the argument from the status quo in this country and for a good reason. For capitalism to work you must accept the idea that some are more deserving than others. I saw it in a right wing article my conservative cousin sent around on Facebook this morning about "free college" being undesirable because then too many people would go to college, thereby rendering it useless. Their capitalism does not work if hierarchy is not revered. So they come up with their ways to decide who is more "deserving" and you will see that in memes every day and twice on Sunday ... everyone judging everyone else on what they are saying, doing, wearing etc. to determine who is the "most worthy". You will see people declare that a lottery winner is "deserving", as in "well at least someone who deserves it won". This is how they keep their whole deck of cards from falling down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread