2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo we all recognize that the major parties in this country have shifted DRASTICALLY to the right
especially over the past few decades?
And that being the case, do we all recognize that the terms 'centrist' and 'moderate' as labels are, at best, misleading?
And due to these facts, anyone calling themselves a centrist or a moderate today is actually a republican?
And therefore, referring to Hillary or those who champion her policies (which includes a LOT of "real democrats" in congress) as not just 'republican lite' but actually 'republican' is factually (though not technically) correct?
Thoughts?
This sick twisted two-party system is using semantics to shift us ever rightward and it is sad to see people treating politics like a football game because it only aids in their agenda.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Not just here. Its a rolling back of the gains in the 20th century.
And a locking down of the future by means of trade agreements that short circuit democracy.
vintx
(1,748 posts)And people here are just blindly "rah rah rah"ing in support of it.
Hearing that shit from the RWers I live and work around is not surprising at all.
Seeing it here, more than disappointing. I must have a different definition of 'underground'
onecaliberal
(32,852 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)the movement of natural persons part...
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/C13.pdf
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)Neocon when it comes to policies of finance and war.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)many thanks
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)The rest of the loaf for TPTB.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Conservative when the bottom line is at stake.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)going to unleash hell on the world. This is the 1% preparing for it.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)it looks like it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that the rw (Chicago University and the Chicago Boys and one world policy - poppy bush) have used to allow them to accumulate a mass of money and break down national borders/rule until there is no other powers left in the world beyond the 1% and their corporations.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)and possibly since FDR. Hillary is running on a progressive platform.
My thoughts? Instead of spending so much time bashing Democrats, we should be joining forces to defeat Trump.
vintx
(1,748 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)He also prevented a depression and saved the auto industry. Passed the strongest financial regulations since WW2. Got OBL. Completely restored our reputation in the world (thanks in part to Hillary). Major foreign policy progress in Iran and Cuba. And made significant progress on the environment, even without help from congress, through executive actions.
And if he had the same kind of congresses as LBJ or FDR, it would have been much more.
vintx
(1,748 posts)but do you think he's representative of how most Dems in Congress govern? I would think most are to the right of him.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Mary Landrieus, but then again, you're not going to elect an Elizabeth Warren in Louisiana. That's the reality.
But, as this relates to Hillary, she's pretty similar ideologically to Obama, which is fine with me. I'm more liberal than she is, but she's nowhere near the right-winger that people here make her out to be.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Or the drone warfare without congressional authorization, and killing innocent civilians by the 1000s?
Or the massive, invasive NSA spying on every American?
Or lobbying for the Citibank cromnibus passage?
Or maybe it was approving radioactive fracking waste to be barged up the Ohio River?
Oooh, I know, it when he offered to sign off on chained CPI while cutting BILLIONS in government programs (I guess this is only republican if one calls oneself republican?)
Chained CPI is shorthand for "Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers." In short, it's a way to index spending and taxes -- including Social Security benefits -- to the rate of inflation, or the rise in prices over time. But it's not the only way.
What's important in the context of the debate over Obama's budget is that chained CPI would mean Social Security benefits would increase at a slower rate than they do using the current index.
What difference does it make?
As our friends over at Wonkblog pointed out last year, Social Security benefits are currently calculated using CPI-W, or the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. (Yes, that's a mouthful.) Over time, benefit levels tick up based on CPI-W, to keep up with the fact that a dollar twenty years ago is not worth what it is today.
Here's the bottom line: Using chained CPI instead of CPI-W means the rate at which those benefits tick up would be slower, because the former reflects substitutions consumers would make in response to rising prices of certain items.Therein lies the "chained" part of the name. The metric utilizes a basket of goods and services that are measured changes from month to month; much like a daisy chain. If the cost of a certain form of transportation goes up, for example, people might switch to another kind. This kind of "substitution" is part of what is factored into chained CPI.
Overall, the change would save the federal government about $130 billion over the next decade.
(The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a good FAQ here, if you're looking for even more detail about the different mechanisms for taking inflation into account.)
Who likes chained CPI?
Republicans do.
....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/10/the-ins-and-outs-of-chained-cpi-explained/
Democrats need to be DEMOCRATS.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A lot of people don't seem to realize that. Governing with the GOP in control of both chambers is very different than having 60% or 70% majorities in both, like FDR did. When the other party controls congress, there have to be compromises.
As far as the drones, you do realize that Roosevelt was the one who not only presided over WW2, but also that it was under his direction that the US developed nuclear weapons. And it was another widely praised Democrat who authorized the only nuclear strikes in the history of mankind.
I'm not sure what the "Citibank cromnibus package" is, or some of the other things that you refer to, but you get the idea. You're comparing an FDR that effectively controlled the entire Federal Government versus an Obama who was blocked at every turn by the GOP. The fact that he still got so much done is a phenomenal achievement.
intheflow
(28,464 posts)But amplified significantly after Ronnie Raygun.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... yes, all of these labels are nebulous at best.
That having been acknowledged, can we concentrate on defeating the fascists and theocrats.
Some things are as simple as black and white.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Many years ago I wrote in this site that Dems would take the place of the Rs. And we would need a new LW party. This happens in US politics every so often. This is the 6th time to be exact. So this is not shocking to me.
So this fight for "the soul" of the party was lost by the old coalition in 1992. I am fine...I became an independent voter in 2011 and intend to remain such for the rest of my life. This realignment, according to a few political scientists, because of social media, might weaken the role of parties in the US. I doubt it. But it will radically change how they work.
Oh and conservadems will deny they are, or this is happening, until they truly do not need the despised left to win elections. I give it two more cycles. What will disrupt this is climate change though. Magical thinking of the market will not change that process.
vintx
(1,748 posts)We don't have two decades for people to figure out what is going on.
As mentioned upthread, these trade agreements are designed to circumvent any government policies. This is IMO the end game move for corporate fascists.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In fact, they are way ahead of us. Those who prevent peaceful revolutions will wake up to real revolutions in my lifetime.
vintx
(1,748 posts)THIS
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And then the powers-that-be will sanctimoniously call the revolutionaries "terrorists."
Briefly...
jwirr
(39,215 posts)help to wake people up to the take changes that are needed. And IMO those changes can only come from the left because we are not afraid to make changes.
Broward
(1,976 posts)of what constitutes left and right. Hillary is a right winger.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Excellent OP, vintx.
Thirties Child
(543 posts)The Republicans are where the John Birchers were in the 60s, the Democrats where the Republicans were. When the Democrats shifted right, they left a vacuum on the left. Progressives can fill it.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I have heard your meme iterated before and decided it's time to get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
I would like to know in what tangible way has real life policy implemented by Dems been moved to the right by Dems?
vintx
(1,748 posts)That term is thrown around so often it's comical.
This is not a meme. This is history.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I've been around the block a whole lot, and the far left (purists) have been complaining about the lurch to the right, about income inequality and the wealthy directing the course of politics for 70+ years.
I'm not saying some of the concerns don't exist. I am saying this meme has been around for several decades. I don't actually see any changes in the "chatter" from the far left now than what was said 50+ years ago. Are we really less progressive today than 50 years ago? So why is it I'm supposed to "see" this more recent move to the Right?
Broward
(1,976 posts)Wall St. deregulation is another one. Yes, Dodd Frank was an effort to restore some order but did not go far enough.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Poor agreements, poor laws, have unintended consequences. I honestly don't believe this is proof of lurching Right as much as unintended consequences. There is still no evidence that your example have bearing on the social issues that brands the Left, as having moved to the right in any way.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Bill Clinton's Crime Bill, Joe Biden's bankruptcy reform, massive military spending increases . . . and let us never forget Joe Biden going behind Harry Reid's back to negotiate a budget settlement.
Obama on TPP and a trillion dollar nuclear modification.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)When the USA began to go downhill. But its' "globalization" can't be stopped. Drilled over & over & over into our collective consciousness. It could actually happen while not transferring jobs to those who work as virtual slaves to enrich the already wealthy.
Free trade has become socially accepted slavery. Spread through out the globe, and leaving a vast number of Americans with service sector jobs that don't pay a living wage.
It didn't have to be this way.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)see post 32 and 41 below.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)from the broadcast news that continues a pretend left v right framework.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)the earth sliding to the right under me! I went from being a moderate Dem to a lefty Dem to a Progressive as the country was dragged further and further right.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)......enormous snip.....didn't want to....
......More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005. She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually waned. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability. And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council shuttered its doors.
When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power. Amazingly, O'Malley provided a favorable blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016 primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently told the Guardian.
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an interview with Politico.
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's board of trustees is almost entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House.
The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff. And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election.
...........snip.......
PLEASE read in full. We as a Party need to WAKE UP~
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right
....& FYI, anonymous corporate donors give the Third Way think tank $9 billion A YEAR to work their republican magic on the Democratic Party.
Please see~
The Democratic think tank Third Way relies on money from corporate interests, lobbyists and Republican donors.
http://www.thenation.com/article/gop-donors-and-k-street-fuel-third-ways-advice-democratic-party/
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Liberal Republicans are almost extinct, and conservative Democrats are a heavily endangered species - the fact that many DUers idea of a conservative Democrat nowadays is Hillary Clinton speaks volumes about how much that goalpost has moved.
Things like gay marriage and Obamacare would never have happened 20 years ago.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)continues the fight for abortion rights, equal pay for women, there are a myriad of social issues on which we as Dems are far more liberal today than just a few short years ago.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Republicans
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Please stop acting like it's anything that is considered "left".
vintx
(1,748 posts)The left has a goal, the 'centrists' propose something thars a gift to the 1%, the Republicans do their off the deep end routine, and voilà, gift to corporations is now rebranded as an accomplishment for the left.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I also recognize that the Clintons, both of them, were a significant part of making that shit/shift happen.
Personally, I think that Democrats who have been helping, are helping, that process by voting in neo-liberals, if they don't fucking STOP and change voting course, ARE the problem.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
Neither of the two big parties represent me or my family. We have NOT changed our views since the mid eighties when I began to vote. The party has become more and more conservative. I'm through with them unless they make a shift back to where MOST working class and poor people are at.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
pat_k
(9,313 posts)In many respects Nixon was the last liberal president.
-Noam Chomsky
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
