Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
19. Hillary Clinton and the Future Failure of Progressive Hope and Change
Sat Nov 29, 2014, 07:25 PM
Nov 2014
...Remember “hope and change?” At the time, few thought to ask what exactly we were hoping for and what exactly we were changing to.

And of course, what we got was a great slogan, better speeches, very little change and even less hope.

Here’s what Obama promised:

Shutting down Gitmo;
Ending warrantless wiretapping;
Ending foreign wars;
An end to trickle down economics;
Greater regulation of Wall Street and the financial sector;
A public option for health care;
Protecting social security, Medicaid and Medicare;
Serious action on climate change;
Greater equality in opportunity and more broadly shared prosperity …

Here’s what we got: An administration that set up Goldman Sachs south in the Treasury, doubled down on domestic spying; expanded a drone policy that creates between 40 to 60 new terrorists for every one it kills; health care reform that is better than the status quo, but which rewards corporate insurers as much or more than it does citizens; international trade agreements that favor corporate interests, while eviscerating domestic wages, scuttling environmental performance, and crippling US industrial infrastructure. It’s so bad, they’re trying to negotiate it in secret …

The list goes on and on, and so do the betrayals.

Apologists for the DLC branch of the Democratic Party will say Obama had no choice – he was constrained by Congress. But he practiced a brand of preemptive capitulation that meant we always ended up carrying corporate water, and satisfying military imperialists while ignoring or discounting citizens’ civil rights and welfare.

So now enter Hillary Clinton and the deluded Democrats who jones for her Presidency. Maybe it’s time to ask what, specifically, we will get; what we can hope for, and whether it will usher in changes Americans overwhelmingly want (more about this, in a bit).

And here’s the answer – If we nominate Hillary Clinton we will get another DLC Democrat who mouths progressive values during the campaign, then shifts to the right when (and if) elected. In short, citizens get no real choice.

The problem with this isn’t simply that it’s morally bankrupt; economically bad for 95% of Americans; bad for the economy in general; bad for the environment; bad for US competitiveness; and devastating for our children’s future climate – it’s ultimately bad politics, too.

Here’s the deal – the dirty little secret that plutocrats and corporatists in both Parties don’t want us to know: The vast majority of Americans favor progressive policies. Consider:

— 90% of the citizens support legislation requiring background checks for gun purchase, but Congress can’t pass one.

— 74% of Americans want to end subsidies to big oil – but there’s no chance of it happening;

— The majority of citizens favored allowing tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 to expire, but the best we could do is compromise on $400,000

— 70% of Americans consider climate change to be a high priority issue, yet Congress has taken no action;

— Some 80% of Americans favor shoring up Social Security even if it means higher taxes and a similar number support retaining Medicare as is, but we’ve twice offered cuts to both programs as part of a “grand bargain”;

— Or take this gem … more than 80% of Americans want to clamp down on Wall Street but the best we could get was weak-sister legislation that is being completely eviscerated as it is translated into regulations.

This list could be extended across a broad range of issues. The fact is, the people’s interests aren’t being represented in Washington and they won’t be if Hillary Clinton is elected. Her record is clear. She’s an ardent proponent of trade agreements; she’s consistently supported the interests of Wall Street over Main Street; she’s been hawkish on foreign policy; weak on civil protections; hawkish on the deficit (until very recently) and mum on many other issues that demand a progressive advocate.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/04/17/hillary-clinton-and-future-failure-progressive-hope-and-change

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I gotten to know David, and we're big supporters of American Bridge brooklynite Nov 2014 #1
oh, the Guardian is lying wyldwolf Nov 2014 #2
No, the Guardian is mis-interpreting... brooklynite Nov 2014 #6
So this is a misinterpretation? wyldwolf Nov 2014 #7
I suppose anything is possible as to this story; what I know is thank god for Media Matters NoJusticeNoPeace Nov 2014 #3
Are those two roles inconsistent? MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #4
Politico was and still is a RWing cesspool, but the Third Way types here love it. Rex Nov 2014 #14
Seems like the only one mentioning it in this thread is you. wyldwolf Nov 2014 #17
It's called a comparison, not that you would ever figure it out. Rex Nov 2014 #20
It's called 'irrelevant.' wyldwolf Nov 2014 #21
Oh look it is adversarial again. Rex Nov 2014 #23
So you make an irrelevant reply, try to spin it away, say only 3rd Wayers quote Politico... wyldwolf Nov 2014 #24
Oh look it is adversarial again. Rex Nov 2014 #26
Oh look it's irrelevant again wyldwolf Nov 2014 #27
Thanks imitation is the highest form of flattery Rex Nov 2014 #28
Another irrelevant reply wyldwolf Nov 2014 #29
Yes you seem to only be able to respond that way. Rex Nov 2014 #30
Yet another Rex irrelevant reply wyldwolf Nov 2014 #31
Neat unattributed non-quotes in that there concern-trolling (and near plagiarized) article: Denzil_DC Nov 2014 #5
So your point is the article 'borrows' from others that have said the same thing? wyldwolf Nov 2014 #8
Eh? Did that really need posting twice in the same thread? I can scroll, you know. Denzil_DC Nov 2014 #10
Actually, yes it did wyldwolf Nov 2014 #12
"STILL don't know what your point is" Denzil_DC Nov 2014 #13
Is David Brock working for several pro-Clinton organizations? wyldwolf Nov 2014 #15
I think, from what I've read, he's even founded organizations that are pro-Clinton! Denzil_DC Nov 2014 #18
Hillary is the next Dem nominee. Gman Nov 2014 #9
lol AtomicKitten Nov 2014 #11
dun Dun DUN!!! Rex Nov 2014 #16
Hillary Clinton and the Future Failure of Progressive Hope and Change RiverLover Nov 2014 #19
Watch out or you will be mercilessly taunted! Rex Nov 2014 #22
LOL...too funny! Stellar Nov 2014 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Once the scourge of Democ...»Reply #19