Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalThe Nation-State: Is it Dead?
Not long ago, someone posted an article by Rana Dasgupta, claiming that the nation-state is dying, if not already dead. I think this is an important read/rebuttal: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=39086
Here are a few simple questions to start with:
If the nation state is dead why does Wall Street spend billions of US dollars trying to influence who wins government and once government is decided on influencing the outcome of specific legislation.
Over the period that Rana Dasgupta claims the nation state has lost relevance, the total spending in the US on lobbying has gone from $US1.45 billion (1998) to $US3.36 billion (2017) and the number of unique, registered lobbyists who have actively lobbied has risen from 10,404 to 11,502 (Source).
Why does “Dark Money” exist? Billions are spent in an effort to influence elections for the ‘nation state’. Why, if the nation state is dead?
Look at the major US donors – National Rifle Association, US Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, and more.
Why?
Why do organisations such as the Dow Chemicals spend $US13.6 million lobbying government in 2016, if the state no longer has the capacity to limit their activities?
Why do “Many of the UK’s largest companies shroud their lobbying efforts in secrecy and do not disclose their political engagements to the public or shareholders” and spend billions of pounds lobby government? (Source)
Why did “six of the big energy companies” spend “tens of millions of dollars for a climate change denial campaign, despite knowing the claims were false”? (Source)
Even though the Greek government surrendered its currency sovereignty upon joining the Eurozone, why did the ECB essentially threaten to bankrupt its financial system in 2016 at the time of the referendum if they didn’t think the government had any legislative capacity to take independent decisions?
Why in small nations such as Australia is there a multi-million dollar lobbying industry? Why do gun lobby gropus spend hundreds of thousands of dollars “helping minor rightwing parties win seats” at elections in Australia? (Source)
Tobacco, gambling, medicines, energy, and the rest – why do they outlay billions to influence government legislation if the state has withered away?
Tax bases have shifted somewhat – governments have run out of money which the rich have take for themselves and so the social-democratic welfare state has to be dismantled and the ‘moral promise’ abandoned because the governments can no long buy stuff or transfer money.
That is as a pure neoliberal myth as you will ever find. It is typical of the fake analysis that the Guardian promotes these days.
In the period that Dasgupta is considering (post 1970s), the monetary system that most nations operate within fundamentally changed.
Governments adopted fiat monetary systems and floated their currencies in international markets. That freed them from financing constraints that were present during the Bretton Woods era of fixed exchange rates.
These constraints existed even though the governments issued their own currencies because the central banks were committed to defending agreed parities between currencies, which meant that they had to withdraw currency from the system when it was facing downward pressure and vice versa in times of currency pressures upward.
In the modern era, no such financial constraints exist and so the fact that tax bases have shifted is largely irrelevant to the capacity of a national government to maintain first-class hospitals, schools and income security (the ‘welfare state’).
The reason that public infrastructure and public services are under threat and being retrenched is nothing at all to do with ‘lost’ fiscal capacity.
It is all to do with the shift in the dominant ideology that has occurred since the 1970s or 1980s depending when you start counting.
The neoliberal era was in full swing.
But, importantly, neoliberalism works through the state not apart from it. The state can set the conditions that private capital has to work within.
That is why capital spend billions lobbying governments.
There was no ‘fiscal crisis of the state’, just a relentless and strengthening campaign from capital to extract more national income for profits and it used the ‘fiscal crisis’ smokescreen as a vehicle to justify all sorts of policies – privatisation, cuts to income support, deregulation that would be in their interests.
Note the causality – capital lobbied governments to change policy positions through legislation and regulation – to advance its interests.
Nothing has been done independent of the state!
Race is a social/political construct, and a rather recent invention at that.
With all of the posts about racism, something I myself have written about extensively, I see comments (e.g., 'no matter what race a person is') that suggest now is a good time to remind folks that race is a social/political construct. It has no biological basis. It wasn't until the late 1700s that a supposed classification of races was first constructed (by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach). Even Blumenbach, as his Wikipedia page points out, concluded that "individual Africans differ as much, or even more, from other Africans as from Europeans."
By no means am I suggesting racism (or how to address it) shouldn't be discussed. In fact, it's paramount. As I've written many times, the fostering and exploitation of racism is single-handedly keeping the Republican Party viable. A dismissal of "identity politics" -- while proclaiming the preeminence of "economic justice" -- is, for that reason, dangerous and misguided.
And, paradoxically, addressing racism requires raising awareness about the true nature of what is known as "race."
Millennials may constitute the largest bloc of voters this year.
I'm guessing, though, most millennials (or most people in general) are not keen on reading through a party platform.
Should Democratic candidates (on social media, in advertisements and in speeches) emphasize certain issues? If so, which ones and how? Gun control and higher education would seem to be obvious ones at this time. But what exactly should the message be and how should it be conveyed? What other issues are millennials, more than other age groups, most concerned about?
In other words, how do we increase youth turnout for Dems?
There's more than 1 great reason to push for free or much more affordable higher education.
Aside from it being beneficial to society, look no further than what exit polls say about those with and without a college degree. I know the gap was wider in 2016 than it's been in past elections, but even if we see a regression toward the mean (which is not a certainty), there will remain a gap. The bottom line is that more people with college degrees is good for Democrats.
On the topic of critical party-reflection.
I'm of the opinion that critical party-reflection, like critical self-reflection, is not only healthy but vital, and that DU should be welcoming of Democratic Party critiques (not to be confused with the bashing of individual candidates). The Republican Party (in spite of being a batshit crazy institution) has the White House, the US Senate, the US House, a clear majority of state legislatures and a clear majority of governorships.
Race-based gerrymandering and race-based voter suppression are two big reasons why. But has the Democratic Party been as vocal as it should be about those issues, or has it fallen victim to the bashing of identity politics (by Republicans and media personalities but also the likes of George Lakoff and Sam Harris)?
The media is also complicit (with its false equivalencies and habit of suggesting there are no facts or falsehoods, only opinions). But has the Democratic Party been vocal enough about that, or has it been continually on the defensive for the last several decades as the Republican Party successfully/strategically bashes the "liberal media?"
Has there been over the years too much emphasis placed on converting Reagan Democrats or Trump supporters, and not enough on inspiring the base (while taking persons of color for granted)?
Now, those are obviously leading questions that indicate where I stand, but I think those questions need to be asked...I would hope party leadership is pondering them.
But maybe such questions are off limits on this "underground" site.
But it has no chance of passing...
The "no chance of passing" argument doesn't work for me. Nothing Democrats propose has a chance of passing right now, but we still need to make a push. The last thing we want to do is feed into the narrative that Democrats don't stand for anything or that Democrats aren't doing anything.
By putting forth legislation (imperfect thought it may be), even with Republicans in control, we send a message to would-be-voters and put forth a blueprint for what we could follow once we (hopefully) take back control.
A knee-jerk reaction to anything with a certain Senator's name attached to it is both transparent and unhealthy.
The notion that there are "2 wings within the Democratic Party", as someone posted, is dangerous.
And it plays into Republican hands. It used to be that people would talk about how the Democratic Party is a big tent. It always went without saying that some platforms or campaign strategies play better in some districts/states than others.
But now I'm seeing more and more people highlight this notion that there are 2 distinct wings within our party. By some of the same people who, rightfully, bash 3rd party voting. They don't seem to realize that the dichotomous rhetoric risks driving people, particularly young people, toward the very thing they abhor. It's that very rhetoric that feeds into an existing narrative that there's "corporate" Dems and "progressive" Dems (never the twain shall meet; no gray area whatsoever).
As frustrated as I am with Bernie Sanders (primarily for his dismissal of the role racism played in Trump's rise, and for contributing to the misunderstanding of the relationship between social justice and economic justice) and (to a greater extent) many of his divisive celebrity supporters, the knee-jerk reaction to all things Sanders or "progressive" is not healthy. Again, it promotes the same kind of divisiveness for which Sanders is criticized.
The Democratic Party should engage in critical self-reflection, but not dichotomous rhetoric. That may be a tricky balancing act, but it's necessary. The Republican Party (in spite of being a batshit crazy institution) has the White House, the US Senate, the US House, a clear majority of state legislatures and a clear majority of governorships.
Race-based gerrymandering and race-based voter suppression are two big reasons why. But has the Democratic Party been as vocal as it should be about those issues, or has it fallen victim to the bashing of identity politics (by Republicans but also the likes of George Lakoff and Sam Harris)?
The media is also complicit (with its false equivalencies and habit of suggesting there are no facts or falsehoods, only opinions). But has the Democratic Party been vocal enough about that, or has it been continually on the defensive for the last several decades as the Republican Party successfully/strategically bashes the "liberal media?"
Has there been over the years too much emphasis placed on converting Reagan Democrats or Trump supporters, and not enough on inspiring the base (while taking persons of color for granted)?
Are such questions off limits on this "underground" site?
Putin and Republicans share a common purpose.
While it's likely that Putin's Russia has dirt on various Republicans, including Trump of course, some of the posts I read about Putin and Republicans seem to be overlooking a key aspect. The Republican goal for the last 5 decades has been to undermine the effectiveness of and trust in the US government. That's also Putin's goal.
Republicans seek super-individualism and super-privatization, an end to any notion of there being a commons, an end to collectivism. The Powell Memo helped get the ball rolling.
Key to that, of course, is denying or ignoring injustices, including any notion that past injustices could possibly continue to impact the present. This ideology has a natural ally in white supremacy, as well as male supremacy.
CA Republicans wising up to top-two primary.
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/15/republicans-start-to-wise-up-will-democrats-follow/So far, Democrats hoping to flip some of California’s Republican seats in Congress don’t seem to have gotten this message. It won’t matter in districts with an incumbent running, as that single Republican will make the November ballot along with whoever tops the Democrats in June.
But in the 39th and 49th districts, where longtime incumbents Ed Royce and Darrell Issa are retiring, Democrats risk not making the ballot despite Hillary Clinton’s carrying both districts in 2016.
So not impressed by the outraged Republicans
To the Republicans outraged by Trump:
You created this monster. 50 years of Southern Strategy/dog whistling, race-based gerrymandering and voter suppression, a racist "Drug War," "liberal media" bullshit, denying science or getting in bed with those who do, off-the-charts hypocrisy and actively undermining trust in government has led to this moment.
There's blood on your hands. Take responsibility.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
