The ONLY enthusiastic transformative election in my lifetime occurred in 1980. We need another one.

[Armstead]

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Yep the election of Ronald Reagan. That was a historical tipping point that totally changed the basis of everything. It was Morning in America. That was the only electoral change that has truly brought about lasting change on a fundamental level. It swung the pendulum to the Right from then 'til now.

Corporate Power became dominant. Liberalism was kicked to the curb -- both on social issues and the economy. Government's role in protecting and advancing the Public Interest was thrown under the bus. The concept of public programs that actually benefited the publioc was made to seem unAmerican.

Although the inevitable bi-partisan stalemates and gridlock eventually returned, the Reagan Revolution had larger staying power. Sure there was the bi-partisan Kabuki Dance. The two parties punched and parried at each other. But the Democrats didn't effectively push back -- or even try very hard. And. worse yet, they too often cooperated in actions and political messages that advanced the Conservative takeover.

Yes there were great hopes when Clinton and Obama were elected. Hope and Change....all that stuff. But those were transitory and not transformative. The enthusiasm was reactive and short lived, and there were no lasting effects. Once the confetti was swept up, Corporate Power and Wall Street still called the shots. The conservative pro-corporate "centrist" ideology still called the shots in the democratic Party. Washington has become another Market available to the highest bidders. With a few exceptions (LGBT rights) the forces of social conservatism held back progress on many issues -- and have even rolled back the clock, as on voting rights and women's reproductive freedom.

This election COULD be a new tipping point. This could be one of those elections that actually swings the pendulum in a different direction.

The failure of "supply side" economics and unrestrained "free market" conservatism and all the other variations of that have become obvious. People are hurting and angry. They're sick of the Kabuki Dance. They want help. They are open to the possibility of l"we're all in this together" populist liberalism and greater economic democracy as a solution.

But that will only happen if the Democratic Party and its leaders actually WANT to change in a positive, proactive way. And stand for liberalism and actually mean it, like Reagan and the GOP committed to conservatism in 1980, and fought to defend it through hell and high water.

But if we merely offer stale tapioca, and more of the same, and attempt to triangulate....we'll have blown another opportunity to swing the pendulum in any meaningful way.

I have deliberately not mentioned the name of any candidates, to avoid the usual "my candidate is cooler than your candidate" snarkfests. But whomever gets the nomination I hope will lead a transformation and not just settle into the business as usual template that has become all too familiar.

[choie]

1. So well said, Armstead!!

Couldn't agree with you more...

Choie

[jeff47]

2. Don't worry, Clinton will propose a tax credit that will fix everything!

[bigwillq]

4. Cut it out

[CrispyQ]

3. While I agree with most of what you said,

Democratic party leadership is not interested in swinging the pendulum the other way. They will continue to throw us a few social justice crumbs in hopes that we continue to show up at the polls. Soon, however, the left is going to say fuck it to the status quo candidate & stay home. It may not be in 2016, but I see it coming.

"We're not as bad as the other guy," is not a winning strategy.

[Armstead]

11. "Not as bad as..." is a holding strategy

It's putting fingers in the dike. For years, that's what the GOP was. Then they got smart and started actively promoting an ideology. (A sucky ideology, but it was consistent to it.)

[jwirr]

20. I totally agree that there is coming a time that the left says

no. But staying home will not fix anything. FDR was elected by those who came out and voted for change. Unfortunately so was raygun. The best thing that could happen right now is that we would be able to elect Bernie and as many Democrats from the left as we can to the Congress. By doing that we send a clear message that we want CHANGE.

We sent that to Obama but we did not give him the congress and we also did not know that he was in favor of such things as the TPP.

[Armstead]

21. Not sayin' not to participate

Just sayin that there should be more at stake than yet another rotation of the draperies rather than an actual change

[WillyT]

5. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

EXACTLY !!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. THIRTY FIVE YEARS of TINKLE-ON Reagan economics

Requires someone like Bernie Sanders to reverse the trend! HRH isn't going to do jack crap to help the middle class and poor. No one like her ever will. Only $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ talks to them.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Chitown Kev]

7. We won't really now for another decade or so...

but Obama's election and, more importantly, his reelection in 2012 could prove to be every bit as transformative as Reagan's.

Remember, the GOP pretty much reached their target of getting 60% of white voters in the 2012 election and still...Obama won the election easily and the election was called early.

[Armstead]

8. Well there's a couple of major differences..

Obama could have been transformative. The times were right for it, the nation was hungry for change. And I think, in his heart he wanted to be. And he did some good things, and made some moves ion the right direction.

Unfortunately he blinked. Instead of pushing forward, he squandered his first few years and political capital. He listened to the same crew that had held things back before. He made miscalculations. (Should have waited for a year or two and seeded the ground for stronger real health care reform starting with a public option, for example). Rather than fighting the GOP he went too far to accommodate them.

So we got more of the same old,. same old.

The GOP is in a bad way. But that's their own doing. They are still driving the agenda. And I fear they may pull their noggies out of the fire and yet again bamboozle the country.

I hope I'm wrong. And if the Democratic Party got its stuff together, if could push that pendulum.

[Chitown Kev]

12. It depends on how you define "transformative"

You are simply discussing "transformative" in terms of policy and based on those terms, I'm in more agreement with you than you probably suspect.

"Transformative" can mean many things...for example...

Virginia is now a powder blue state and getting bluer. North Carolina is a battleground state. Barack Obama was the candidate that presided over the shift of the Cuban-American vote in Florida (and on the island of Cuba itself, Barack Obama remains the most popular politician)...(In a similar fashion, Reagan facilitated the Southern religious bloc into GOP and forever changed the map...FDR did the same thing with the black vote for the Dems)

Whether this Democratic nominee can maintain some of these electoral advantages is also an aspect of being "transformative"...and let's see if policies that did pass are improved on somewhere down the road.

[Armstead]

15. Actually I am also referring to it in a larger context

Social and economic attitudes and behavior, overall priorities the whole shooting match. Politics and policies reflected that.

We turned into a nation of unempathetic bean counters. Everything had to be justified as "good for the bottom line" Social and humanistic values were pushed down the priority list.

The physical landscape also changed. What were once organic communities became corporate prefabricated malls.

(Not everyone totally, obviously. But the prevailing tone and overall balance.)

[Chitown Kev]

16. I agree with you about Reagan...furthermore

the transformation and its components were visible during his presidency..

[Armstead]

18. Yep Very visible....It was a distinct shift that happened very rapidly

[KoKo]

9. I hear ya!

I was even naive enough to have great hope and enthusiasm for the "Peanut Farmer" from Georgia.

Yes there were great hopes when Clinton and Obama were elected. Hope and Change....all that stuff. But those were transitory and not transformative. The enthusiasm was reactive and short lived, and there were no lasting effects. Once the confetti was swept up, Corporate Power and Wall Street still called the shots. The conservative pro-corporate "centrist" ideology still called the shots in the democratic Party. Washington has become another Market available to the highest bidders. With a few exceptions (LGBT rights) the forces of social conservatism held back progress on many issues -- and have even rolled back the clock, as on voting rights and women's reproductive freedom.

[Armstead]

10. Well I got ya beat ..

because I worked for Sen Fred Harris (a forerunner of Bernie) against Carter.

But Carter was okay I guess. He was in a no-win situation because the economy was really stuck, and those Iran hostages.

Carter has since redeemed himself.

[KoKo]

14. Carter has redeemed himself in his strong humanitarian efforts since his Presidency

And, from day one he and Rosalyn were treated like scum by the Washington Establishment at that time. Rosalyn for "making her own clothes," bringing a sewing machine to the White House, and sitting in on some of the President's policy meetings. Their daughter was attacked like Chelsea was by the RW.

I didn't agree with some of his foreign policy. But, then he was close to the Cold War and probably still held attitudes that went along with that crowd in DC and Pentagon who wanted to perpetuate it.

At the time, he offered us the chance for "The Common Man" to take back the Presidency after the corrupt, crony Nixon years of continued war and Watergate Scandal. But, it was not to be.

[MisterP]

13. the think tanks and neocons took over, followed shortly by the DLC

[NCTraveler]

17. Stopping a second Bush term was more important....

Than you give it credit for.

[Armstead]

19. That was merely reactive on a political level -- Not a change in any fundamental sense

GHWB was more of a moderate caretaker of the Reagan Revolution. Things might have been temporarily worse if he'd won a second term, but his loss did not really change the direction or overall momentum of the ongoing move to the right.

[NCTraveler]

22. Strongly disagree.

I'll just leave it at that considering one of your sentences.

[Armstead]

23. I guess you're right....

Bush Sr. would have supported an ultra-right-wing economist as Fed Chair, and brought in Big Bankers to run economic policy. Bush would have deregulated Wall St. allowed huge consolidation of the financial sector, o...Bush would have continued Reagan's drive to deregulate many other industries. He would have gutted welfare and otehr social service programs.........

Bush would have been saying things like "the era of big government is over" and hired creeps liker Dick Morris.

[Vattel]

24. Great post

[brooklynite]

25. Ronald Reagan was electable

He had been Governor of the largest State in the nation, and had contested a national primary four years earlier. He also had political and financial resources that Sanders doesn't.

[Armstead]

26. Three things...

1) I'd say being elected and re-elected mayor for several terms, being promoted to Congress and getting re-elected numerous times by huge margins and then being promoted again to Senator by huge margins might be some indication that someone is at lkeast slightly electable.....And before the inevitable "Vermont isn't America" comes along, I will simply respond as a neighbor of that state Vermont IS America. People there are not martians.

2) If Sanders were to become the Democratic nominee, one would assume -- unless the Democratic Party is completely hypocritical -- that he would have access to the same party resources and support that Clinton would have....after all isn't the mantra "anyone but the GOP"?

3) You're missing the damn point. If you re-read my OP, I deliberately did NOT make this simply about the beauty contest. If Clinton is what she is claiming to be in the primary, she too could be a transformation figure if she chose to. But would she choose to, or simply be another caretaker for the elite status quo?