Some Defend-President-Obama-no-matter-what-folks here will do anything to divert,

[BumRushDaShow]

169. Lemme see what I can do with this

1)When I referred to backsliding, it partly depends on what point in time one is referring to, and what issue. And history is often a matter of two steps forward and one step back (or one step forward and two steps back sometimes.)

This country has been through a bunch of cycles since its founding. This includes social cycles and financial cycles. Before the Crash of '29, there were various "Panics" in the 1800s. But the sad part is that it always goes back to the same thing - "Capitalism", where what we call "corporatist" today was the "industrialist" during the turn of the late 19th & early 20th century, and was the wealthy banker, shipper, or farmer of the 18th and early 19th centuries. We are just going through the latest cycle.... meaning we will be continually back-sliding or moving forward a little in a regular fashion. The key would be to work to try to mitigate the back-slide without causing what could be an even worse backlash. "Jim Crow" was a backlash. "Reganomics" was a backlash.

When I refer to backsliding I am referring to the overall direction of issues related to Power and Money, and all that stems from that. And I am referring to the last 40 years (or so) when many of the gains in economic policy made during the mid 20th Century have been rolled back towards the direction of "Fend for yourself and to hell with your neighbor" of the earlier past. Both parties are equally culpable of stripping away hard-won gains and pushing us back towards the Age of Monopolies (except on a much larger scale).

Not unlike what happened during Reconstruction when a whole group of enslaved individuals were finally given freedom and some rights and then those were taken away, state-by-state, via "Jim Crow" laws. It's really no difference - i.e., there is always a letup and then the tide turns... over and over. It all depends on what era you happen to live in. But as a note - this backlash usually starts at the state levels and that is a focus that the party must never lose sight of. The fact that you have same-sex marriages and marijuana legalizations occurring at the state level is an example of state-focus to make change. But if Democrats sit out these mid-term elections, then backlash processes at the state level, like "Voter ID" or "Right to Work", gain hold.

2) I am aware that the modern position of the D and R parties have been somewhat fluid and changeable in the Big Picture of history.
But the fact remains that in more recent history the Democrats did stand for a time as the necessary representation of liberal/progressive values. And we NEED that counterbalance to the GOP and Corporate Power. The Dems won their support as the party that represented that. And they (we) should not be allowed to abandon it.

I agree but again, because "corporate" (or "capitalist&quot is imbedded into the very interpretations of the founders of this country, then everything will tend to skew back to their intent, by hook or by crook. The very words of the Constitution belie this trend, which has encouraged people to fight it, but outside of sheer brute force, it requires use of the very system that is loathed, in order to beat it. And that requires that those liberals with the resources, have the heart to fight against themselves.

Case in point is FDR, which it seems is almost universally ignored as a member of what we would dub (in the modern sense), the "1%". Similarly, Johnson's wife "Ladybird", and the Kennedys, also descended from the "1%" class.

I sure as hell don't consider myself "pro-corporate" or "ThirdWay" or "DLC". But I do realize that in the society as it stands in this phase of the latest cycle, $$$ is needed to make change and it can be done without sacrificing principle. So for example, I am vehemently against the UNCF taking $25 million blood money from the Kochs (something that has divided the black community), but I wouldn't necessarily throw the Phillips Academy graduate Patrick Kennedy out with the bathwater.

3)Related to that, the Deregulation Mania of the 90's I referred to was not Reaganomics or GOP Conservationism. It was just as much (or more) a product of Clintonomics and the phony "Centrism" of the Democratic Establishment. And they're still doing it, Including President Obama. That's what makes me and many others mad.

Actually the Phil Gramm-initiated 300-page repeal of Glass-Steagall that was attached to an Omnibus government appropriations bill, was the culmination and final crown jewel of Reaganomics and not something that Clinton made up himself. Clinton and the rest of the DLC founders to include the wealthy Al Gore & Sam Nunn (whose daughter is currently running for Senate in GA) among others, had their own agenda that went beyond what many of us feel should occur with respect to implementing a liberal agenda, and that is the complete embracing of "business" as the solution to everything (including things that shouldn't have "business" lingo attached to it at all - like government services, healthcare, and education). In essence, they may push for government funding of liberal social causes and safety-nets, but they want these institutions run like businesses. The (modern) GOP, on the other hand, wants no part in anything dealing with social causes, let alone any funding for them. And thus they have relegated these issues to the religious establishments and charities to handle.

So as an alternate, there are those of us who would like to see our tax money collected fairly and used wisely without the imposition of corporatism onto certain functions. But given that we operate under a system of labor for fiat as compensation (i.e, our economic system relies on capitalism (money) to function), then we cannot summarily dismiss businesses nor can we assume that the tax coffers can or will be willingly shifted to non-business functions (social/government) without a major fight.

4)I totally agree with you that money isn't everything, and that other forms of "well being" have to be considered. However, the above mentioned deterioration of Economic Values makes that much harder to achieve. We have allowed Big Capital to make so many people so desperate just to get by that Survival, rather than well being becomes more of an obsession. It creates a vicious circle and helps to undermine progress on civil rights and the other aspects of well being -- for the vast majority of the population tat is not on the tine Club at the Top.

I hate to quote my Mother (and probably other parents over the centuries) - "And this too shall pass". When this country finds itself so far to one end of the spectrum. then the whiplash back the other way eventually comes. The "Silent Generation" that my mother belongs to (with the severe discipline meted out due to the hard times of growing up during the Depression) gave way to the major swing the other way towards what you see happened in the '60s. The difference nowadays, considering that our economy has become "global", is how the swing will manifest here vs elsewhere. The tactics of the '30s under FDR with the WPA to address the economic hardships caused by the Depression and environmental disaster (dust bowl), was supplanted by the MIC, that actually created the very engine that fueled the economy of the '50s & '60s. The very MIC that Eisenhower eventually railed against on his way out of office. Today, the very same MIC has bankrupted our economy. The difference then versus now being that back then, we had become isolationalist and made our own products to support the war effort... and we built the homes, infrastructure, and consumer goods needed for returning soldiers post-WW II. The war was paid down by a 90% effective tax rate on the top earners of the day. Nowadays, we have contracted all that out to the low-cost (near no-cost) "global" workforce, where we barely make anything anymore and you have "new industrialists" who make money off of micro-trades on the stock market, rather than by creating a product or performing a service.

5)Most of us who are critical are not expecting anyone to be a single Messiah. We certainly aren't expecting that of President Obama. But we don't want the politicians who claim to be representing our interests, and who claim to be committed to meaningful reform, to be doing the same damn things the Republicans do on too many issues. President Obama is a good man and he generally means well. But he is just as susceptible to the temptation to get sucked into the narrow worldview and temptations of the Oligarchy as anyone. And when he does he should be called on it.

Unfortunately on DU, there IS a group who have focused solely on the one and that one is the only one who can change it all. No Congress needed. Their prescription - "1.) Put on WalkingShoes™ 2.) Use the BullyPulpit™ 3.) Tell the other side to F*ckoff™ 4.) Create LegislationviaExecutiveOrder™ 5.) Screw the SupremeCourt™ all while Presidentin'-while-black

As long as election finance reform is repealed (due to Citizen's United) and as long as McLame runs around yelling at clouds rather than trying to put McCain-Feingold back onto the legislative agenda, then sadly, all sides will need to bow to corporate money.

Why? Because liberals own little or no megaphones and the Fairness Doctrine exists no more.

The insistence that the President, who is a student of history and taught Constitutional law, is completely naive, is just silly. In order to halfway get something done, we have to recognize that over half the population of this country doesn't care about politics and they care even less when they encounter the extremes. But there must be persistence and we must get control of some media in order to move the liberal agenda forward, because "repetition is knowledge" and the populace has heard too much of the GOP's loony repetition and very little or none of ours.