I am an older school, New Deal type Democrat

feedback.pdxradio.com forums feedback.pdxradio.com forums Politics and other things I am an older school, New Deal type Democrat

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
  • #19561

    I am not a “Third Way” type Democrat.

    Bill Clinton got us back in the game. I’m happy about that. We got some good out of “Third Way”, “New Democrat” type politics. No question. So this isn’t some “Clinton is evil” type post.

    She’s not. Bill is not.

    They are doing what they know how to do, and they do it well, and if we get Hillary Clinton for President, we can expect more of the same. It’s Obama 2.0

    Not a bad thing peeps. Not at all.

    But, there will be costs.

    TPP is one of those costs. I have made three career jumps in my life to stay ahead of these trade agreements. They decimate labor and family wages. We don’t have to do that. And it’s increasingly important that we don’t.

    TPP is going to have a very significant impact on what remains of the middle class. It could be you. It may be me, and I’m working the startup I am in the hopes of avoiding some of that and to gain some security and autonomy in this economic mess.

    The number of my peers capable of that is small. Very small. All of us, who are capable of that, have deep concerns for those who can’t for whatever reason. Those are still good people, they still have families, futures, needs, wants, etc…

    I won’t sleep well knowing I enabled something like TPP again. And I might have to. 🙁 But, not without a fight, and not without some movement building for the future.

    That’s what Bernie is.

    A win is a very hard road. No bones about it. But, those of us in it, are in it to win, and we will go to the absolute mat over it too. What else makes sense?

    Not much.

    There are plans either way. The winning plan is somewhat obvious. Pack the cabinet with reformers and use the movement to beat up Congress, take seats, and give the Progressive Caucus real teeth. I’m up for that any day of the week.

    The losing plan is similar, minus the cabinet, and executive options. I’m up for that too. It’s good either way.

    So, there is a LOT of press out there about party unity, those scary Republicans, etc…

    Here is the truth: I don’t take Trump all that seriously. When David Koch gives Bernie an endorsement, I know that Trump isn’t going to be President. Not gonna fucking happen. And the GOP is looking very seriously locked in. That’s not a for sure, but it’s looking solid enough to work with for now. Should things change, so can the politics. No worries.

    Originally, I thought there was a material risk of a Dem loss, but now I know worst case, Dems will court moderate Republicans to win, if they need to. The Clinton campaign floated that last week too. Interesting, isn’t it?

    I think so.

    With Trump off the table, or the risk very seriously diminished, it changes things.

    After a very serious amount of thought, I have come to some realizations:

    First, it’s representative government, not direct democracy here. Second, Sanders and the campaign behind him isn’t asking. It’s all funded by people who really aren’t getting what they need from the Democratic Party, and those numbers are growing. The video I linked tells the basic story about why that is.

    And it’s not a blame game. Just facts. Party performance for the middle class has been tepid at best, and the costs of that are too high for a large and growing body of people.

    I am a populist. Always have been, always will be.

    More in a bit.


    There is enough for us to take better care of our own. Get as wealthy as any of us wants, but make sure our own are getting the basics done. That is more or less my basic politics. Unchanged for some time now.

    Unity. That’s the question in the minds of everyone right now. The idea is a strong Sanders run will somehow damage Clinton for the general.

    Not gonna happen. They both have gotten after it a bit, and from what I can tell, that’s tepid at best, compared to the general election where far fewer constraints are in play. This really isn’t a worry to me either. Both Clinton and Sanders have run their distinguished careers and have made their choices. Nothing we do or say will impact that.

    The Clinton policy vision isn’t entirely clear to me. She could do a better job on all of that. I think she will over this next few weeks too. Sanders is more clear, but not by much. More on this is needed. There are significant and meaningful differences in how the two will actually govern. More people need exposure to those differences and how they see it all impacting their lives.

    There are two things Obama did that have me in the Sanders camp firm. One, is he sort of let OFA fade away. That’s not something I’ve ever really understood. And I still don’t, particularly given Obama has actually asked people, “Why didn’t you vote?” more than once. Notable.

    I believe Obama has correctly identified a lack of confidence in that vote being meaningful. The “New Democrat” coalition has not correctly identified why. Clinton is “New Democrat” more than she is “Progressive” on the economic front at least. On social matters, she has evolved into a good place, and that’s fine. Unlike a lot of people, I recognize when people get there, and if they get there, great! That’s a win. Move on.

    For years, I’ve written about the Democratic Party divide, and it’s now coming to a head. Progressives, Populists, against “Third Way”, and “New” type Democrats. One could very roughly frame this as “Socialist” and “Market” type Dems, and not be wrong enough to be a problem too. However you see it, that divide is there, and I have believed for some time now, the root cause of all that is poor party performance for labor and ordinary people.

    We get good, but it costs a lot.

    Sanders represents a basic change in economic policy direction that we really do need. Clinton is willing to step toward that incrementally, but I have no indication she will do anything other than Obama did. Her cabinet will be people like Obama picked, and she really doesn’t have a movement with any kind of focus, or that can even be compared to what Obama had in OFA, and Sanders currently has.

    Whoever wins this nomination, and we know that is extremely likely to be Clinton, has a sell job to do. As the party representative, they are going to have to sell the people on the overall quality of said representation. They do work for us, where “US” is kind of an interesting question?

    We’ve got the usual big money in play, and we’ve got the more populist oriented people money in play too. Both Clinton and Sanders have people money in play, but it’s Clinton with a very dominant share of big money. That speaks well to the nature of their likely populist support and representation.

    Today, and over the last few weeks, the framing has been backward on all of this. We don’t nominate kings and queens. They do work for us, and they are supposed to serve us and all that jazz. The popular framing is, winner take all. And most of the time it works that way too. There are either not enough differences between candidates, as was the case with Obama and Clinton last time, or there just isn’t leverage economically, in that they are largely working from the same body of money, big money, not so much people money.

    Obama, again and notably, did have very significant people money. That was leverage in his favor, but he didn’t need to really use it, because he also got the nomination. Clinton had her own leverage, and they sorted out who was going to do what, prior to, or during the party convention.

    The difference this year is Sanders has run an entirely populist campaign. He’s got a ton of people money, likely to exceed 200 million dollars before the primaries are over. The movement behind him is perhaps 40 percent of Dems, right at this moment, plus 80 percent of independent voters. The latter may be lower too, 60, 70 percent. It’s unclear to me.

    So let’s get back to Trump.

    Do we want to get rid of Trump? Of course we do, and you all know KSKD is voting a full party ticket too. Not gonna bend on that at all, as I have no interest it all in placing a no vote positive for the GOP. The GOP is consistently terrible, but I’m also not going to entertain fear and shame arguments either. This is risk reward, straight up.

    Our winner wants this too. Obviously.

    This means our winner is going to need to make damn sure the party is strong and enthusiastic for the maximum impact in the general election. With Sanders, that’s largely a given, due to the strong populist appeal he will bring, and the influx of new Democrats he will also bring. Many will stay with the party and movement. Some won’t, and that’s fine.

    Indies are 40 percent of us now. A potential capture of a large fraction of those people matters big.

    Because of how Sanders has run his campaign, his support depends greatly on the party platform and various commits and plans that happen in Philly. The key thing to understand here is that nobody dictates to the voters. They can ask, they can advocate, etc… but in the end, real, meaningful support is more than a fear or shame type vote.

    This is why I am all in, all the way through. That dynamic does damn good things for my party no matter how it goes, and from where I stand, those things need to be done too. And if we have a shot at denying TPP? All in on that too. TPP is not something I have any reason to want to lock in at all for any reason. It’s a knife to the middle class.

    Finally, money.

    Sanders has a list. It’s a big list, and it’s very highly coveted, because a lot of the money on that list is new money as far as most interests are concerned. That list and it’s potential growth over the season is capable of electing a President, and or funding quite a few seats in Congress too. The leverage presented is considerable.

    Sanders isn’t going to just sell it. He’s gonna curate it. If you want in on that list, you gotta endorse the movement, and it’s gotta be meaningful, or no go. That list funds the movement win or lose, and Sanders as President can use that list for a lot of great things too. The bully pulpit can have real teeth. It needs to in this era of money in politics.

    Sure, it’s not a huge weapon. Congress has it’s own ways to check power like that, but the important thing isn’t dictating, it’s leverage.

    We didn’t get a public plan in the ACA for lack of leverage. Despite overwhelming support for Progressives and their vision for Medicare for all, lack of leverage meant a vote for that simply was not possible. Came down to a handful of people too. If we were to redo that today? We would be extremely likely to get that much needed public plan, and by extension, much improved and sustainable, difficult to attack, support for Medicare itself too.

    This is an establishment referendum election. And it’s not like we are going to just replace the establishment and go. Not gonna happen.

    But we absolutely can put some real teeth into populist causes, and that’s what the Sanders campaign is about, and that’s why I’m in.

    The GOP will go down either way. Way too many of us are not about having that happen. I don’t believe a word of it. Which means, a small risk here is coupled to a very big reward, and I’m all in on that basis.

    There is a longer form of that video that comes up after the short one. It’s worth a watch.



    Charles Koch told This Week the low tax rate for the rich is not right and ought to be changed. He also said he’ll give no money for Trump and Cruz.


    And he’s on the board of the DLC. Interesting times, aren’t they?


    Quite the contrary, they’re extremely disappointing times. That note is quite illustrative of the complete fiasco regarding the primary system. We’re not choosing candidates for president, we’re involved in the process of keeping the Democrat and Republican parties in charge of selecting our leaders. The entire system is rigged to keep the D’s and R’s in charge of the process, and the people being put up don’t even matter. It’s time to break up the parties.


    Sadly, that won’t happen. Our system just isn’t viable for more than two.

    So we vote one or the other, and or we modify one or the other, or spoil.

    That is it in the US right now, and for the foreseeable future.

    At any given time the priority will be to get stuff done, people want done. Any entity coming to power will be faced with that or a system change that is likely to dilute the very power so acquired.

    They will do the people stuff first, get challenged, and we all carry on.


    Says who? I would prefer to simply see the elimination of parties altogether. We are already seeing the alteration of the party system and the process, thanks to the internet age. We’re already seing the rebellion against the current machine. People want to speak with their own voice, without having to conform to antiquated and out-of-touch organizations. What we are actually seeing is the dying of the dinosaur and the development of a new method for selecting our contenders. The GOP and the Democrats are already on their way to second-status entities, they just don’t realize it yet.


    Btw, the DLC is gone, with New Democrats replacing it. Should have included that above. My bad.


    Discussion of eliminating parties, etc, is far fetched. The system is set up as it is. I don’t see us moving away from 2 parties any time soon.

    So, that leaves us with the result of dealing with the system we have and making the most of it. Our system is not meant for radical change, as much as some of us would like it.


    Radical change is already under way.


    It is.

    The most likely outcome is a formation of a broad progressive coalition centered on Berniecrats platform and funding.

    No matter what happens from here, the biggest generation and older progressives will unify and work together. Challengers are running this election, appear to do fine on people funding so far, and a few of this will win. Then it gets done again and again.

    Out youngest, the future of the party and politics overall are progressive dominant, and the Sanders campaign has galvanized them. Good!

    Until this effort, Progressives had no real leverage in the party. That has already changed and will improve all the way through Philly.

    If our winner wants a strong party, they will need to do the work to demonstrate they can and will do that. The Sanders movement isn’t asking. They paid straight up like anyone else does and expect a seat at the table. Leverage.

    We need this.

    If you are a progressive, things are looking good. We are setting up for progress no mattention what happens in Philly.

    Go Bernie! Activism is near NY levels. We may see good things happen today.


    The more things change, the more they stay the same (see Dux’s two previous posts).


    Damn Barney Rubble fingers.


    Lol. I got my own typos to live with. Mobile is such a pita.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.