There are some commenters here who do, but I clearly do not embrace lachesism.
I’m sane that way.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
110 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Well, they’re not wrong about disaster being clarifying. Ever wonder if that dude over there wants your stuff badly enough to kill you for it? Comes the Apocalypse, you’ll find out.
I see it more as the kid fantasizing about running away to punish his parents who will finally appreciate him now that he’s gone.
My philosophy is life has a way of throwing enough near disasters at the average human on it’s own. Thus, I do not look forward to any intentional man made catastrophes Like a Trump Presidency. The world as a whole has enough problems without that huge one being added.
In any real disaster I would die quite fast. I probably would have died in childhood anytime before the invention of antibiotics. Its part of the reason potential disasters like climate change freak me out so much.
I will add that disasters can and do provide clarity but its one most people even survivors wouldnt like.
To add, I wish we did have a bit more clarity, but I’m not willing to pay Trump’s disaster price.
Er, are you inferring that Bernie supporters suffer the same lack of excitement in their lives as Trumpistas?
Otherwise, why the disavowal? …some commenters here who do…
I think there really is some of that in the Bernie camp, not an actual force and above all not Sanders himself, but a few of the elite hangers-out, telling themselves that when President Sanders is prevented from accomplishing one single plank of his platform and thwarted in every direction and the administration essentially collapses into worse inaction than what we have now, then the Youth of America will realize that our system is too corrupt to be fixed by elections, and rise as one in revolutionary rage to Smash the State.
Not sure where you’re getting that. there’s some old left language in this thread and i doubt the youth have any concept of any of that. as far as I can tell the youth care about the environment, their bleak future as far as jobs go, their enormous debt from education, injustice re poc and genderism, religious discrimination
I may be wrong, but somehow contradictions and other Hegelian constructs are not part of it,
Really thinking Susan Sarandon, I guess:
Yes, I understand she’s marginal, that’s what I said.
well, I read a little of a dkos blurb about one Sarandon diary – I gather it’s about not voting for Clinton – but I’m not wasting my time reading about her. actors have a tough life and like to dabble in important matters and get their names in the paper and on the basis of nothing spout off what they think. famous actors are used to having people fawn over them. I would also ignore it if my neighbor said something like that.
Sarandon has a very long history of supporting leftie political positions and humanitarian causes. She’s neither a dummy nor a fool. A college graduate. But the most telling is that Gore Vidal, who couldn’t abide fools, was close to her and Tim Robbins for many years.
Yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
.
“Worse is betterism” is one of the main symptoms identified by VI Lenin in his writing entitled: “Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder”
And anarchists, frequent targets of the jokers over at Lawyers Guns & Money, who always say, “Those contradictions won’t heighten themselves.”
Lenin included the Anarchists in his “Left wing communists” description.
I (sort of) knew that. My Communist friend (passed away years ago now) used to say you should always vote in the interests of the working class regardless of what the hippies think. If you were in Chicago vote for Richard J. Daley because he meant jobs, etc.
I would amend what your friend said as follows:
Always vote with the working class, even if they’re voting against their own interests, but do so with clear and concise criticism of the politician they are supporting.
“I am with you, even though I think the person you’re supporting is wrong”
Interesting notion that describes corporate takeovers at the street level and the public level. Grab enough levers with graft and you can create your own “Shock” to exploit. I believe Rahm is famous for that sentiment.
Like states that defund their cities. Just as many states receive transfer payments from the federal govt to keep the lights on–or did at one time–cities receive(d) transfer funds from the states to balances their losses from being forced to support their suburbs with city services. Cut that back and you create Detroits and Flints that you can package for fire sale to friends for fun and profit.
Lachesism…sounds like Chaos Theory (Jurassic Park). I do not believe anyone can predict how the world will react to an American disaster. But, I am positive it will not bring us any respect.
I don’t think many here are “lachestic” in that sense – wanting a disaster to make life more meaningful. Such posters here are already bought in to ending rightist policies. They’re wishing for disaster for a different reason, that once right-wing policies bring economic disaster to the nation with depression-level unemployment dragging on for a decade, the voters will finally catch on and install a real left-wing government, bringing peace and prosperity.
Like in Greece and Spain, to name two examples.
It worked in ’29, but we dropped the ball in ’08? Will eliminating food stamps bring back bread lines?
Except both those governments turned out to be frauds, like France right now.
They are not sovereign nations. Would be like Nebraska trying to secede. They could leave the EU, and if another country is treated like Greece was, I think that will happen.
I guess I wasn’t obvious enough – I was being sarcastic. Maybe Syriza would have worked out if Greece weren’t under the thumb of the EU bankers but I’m not sure. The real lefties wanted to leave the EMU, and it would have been possible last year, but Syriza choose to eject them and they did poorly in the next election. Spain still doesn’t have a left-wing government, and is not going to get a useful one out of the current parliament.
The point is that after almost a decade of depression neither nation can manage better than a wobbly kind-of-leftish government, and certainly not a government able to really fix things.
Worse is betterism?
It was not possible for Greece to,exit,last year. There was zero preparation for such a move,which would take a substantial time to,plan and execute. It was always an idle threat and that is also why the ECB ignored them.
Do you think a second nation would be so sanguine if EU bankers tried it on again?
There are benefits to the EU and that makes it hard to leave behind. So Greece thought they could threaten them and get some relief and more loans. Didn’t work. I don’t know what it takes, but a real effort is needed and some pain will likely be involved. The best case would be if the EU invited a country to leave and help them do it.
A country does not have to leave the EU to stop using the euro. There is no procedure for leaving the EMU (aka the eurozone), but in practise if you start using a different currency you are out. The Court could then fine the country for being in violation of treaty agreements, but then again a country such as Greece could bring a lot of counterclaims against the ECB. How that would end up is anyones guess.
Not likely to happen, that would seriously undermine the ECBs powergrab. It was floated by Germany but last spring, but no.
Some haven’t given up over there;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/yanis-varoufakis-europe-is-too-important-to-be-left-to-i
ts-cluel/
He’s their Bernie in a way.
Here’s hope this grows on both sides of the ocean, and seeps into Asia soon.
The ECB did not ignore Greece, it put Greece in financial blockade by shutting of their banks from cross-country payments, making normal transactions impossible.
This faced Syriza with a really tough choice of going through a very painful process of enacting a new payment system on the spot in order to gain some economic independence or to delay and bow to the economic (and unconstitutional) will of the ECB. Varoufakis and others argued for the former, but in the end they chose the latter. A friend of mine was visiting and the debates were really heated and boiled down to fast or slow starvation. And there was a fear of coup.
It wasn’t an easy choice, and they have no freedom now to prepare to exit. Indeed their own central bank boss came out in January bragging about how he had planned to stop the government if they tried.
Now the economic situation is growing worse, strikes are directed at the government, Syriza is losing ground in the polls and looming in the distance are the third largest party: the nazis. The best chance for Greece is if Podemos can force Spain to the left so that a Portugal-Spain-Greece bloc can shift things in the (informal but powerful) eurogroup.
Interesting. I had not read of that being discussed.
This sounds like a disease some Bernie supporters are hopeful for.
as far as this Sanders supporter goes, quite the opposite; trying to fend off disaster while still possible
I support Bernie too but I am a long way from some who want to burn it all down until they get their way – by voting for Jill Stein or Trump. You know, fuck it, if I can’t have it NOW then burn it all down.
some of them probably say that because, and this is true for me, the GE is months away. let’s have the primary first, cross that bridge when we come to it. I view this “unity” talk as a way to avoid the primary, to shut the Sanders campaign down – as indeed you suggest.
I understand that. I try to avoid it, since it doesn’t add anything. I want Bernie to get his message out there so it is not lost. I suppose fighting this all the way is one way to do it.
well, glad to hear that.
Yesterday, I foolishly tweeted (@squeakbaxter btw) an innocent remark, as a Bernie supporter, that voting for the nominee in the fall is needed for the Political Revolution. That a GOP set Supreme Court will suppress the vote and crush the unions in a way that will make our job tougher if we want to keep the movement going.
People flipped out on me. I realized, as you say above, that was a big fuck-up. It’s a moot point FOR NOW and I should have ALL my focus on helping Bernie win.
But many on the Bernie Twitter vanguard are pretty holier-than-thou. They say “no more kicking the can down the road.” I think there is a little bit of Lachesism there.
There are quite a few signs saying ‘Bernie, because Fuck this Shit.’
Can’t disagree… but that’s not a disease, or a negative projection.
It’still about being fed up, and a bernin’ desire to change it before it collapses under the weight of its contradictions.
Similar to Trump but with solutions 180 degrees different.
The LA Times poll yesterday had Bernie ahead by 8%. In Cali. He’s winning in Wisconsin too. This seems to be a trend.
So maybe followers of Clinton will have an end of the world experience.
Bob, it doesn’t matter.
Eight years ago, Clinton won the majority of the late contests. She crushed Obama in West Virginia and Kentucky and Puerto Rico. She got upsets in states like South Dakota where he was favored.
But I had told you months earlier that she couldn’t win because she couldn’t win.
It’s 90% a math problem and 10% an establishment problem, but Sanders would need the superdelegates to vote for him, and they were created to not vote for candidates like him. It’s why they exist.
He can win New York, he can win California, it’s not going to get him the nomination.
It will, however, change the party and change the convention and even, probably, change how Clinton seeks to govern.
So, it’s a worthy cause, but please stop promoting the idea that he can win outright. It’s a disservice to his supporters.
He is 12 points behind in NY. When does he decide to wind it down and go for some unity or will he embrace that disease lachesism or whatever it is.
I don’t think he will. I think he drank the cool-aid.
.
The primary is almost three weeks away.
He opened his campaign HQ in my home town only five days ago.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/brooklyn-feels-bern-sanders-new-headquarters-article-1.2578
825
It’s just a marvel that you don’t see the cognitive dissonance in what you’re saying. Even when it’s been pointed out repeatedly.
Imagine a race. The runner in second place has an earpiece through which he can hear the commentator, and a mouthpiece through which he can talk back.
The second-place runner makes a break, unexpectedly he’s moving up, moving up. The crowd is amazed. As he starts to close in on the front runner, he hears a voice in his ear. “You cannot win. All calculations show that. But it’s good you’re trying, because the faster you go, the better race the winner will run.”
Is that going to have the effect you say you want?
The runner just says, “I fucking well can win.”
Back comes the voice. “No, you cannot.”
The reply comes immediately. “Go fuck yourself.”
The only effect the analyst’s message has on the runner is to weaken his morale. The other guy wins. Rightly or wrongly the second place runner is convinced he could have won, or at least finished in a better time, if the “analyst” had not insisted on telling him the “truth” — way before the race was over.
The analyst insists that all he wanted was for the guy to run as fast as possible, to make it a better race. He just didn’t want him to get his hopes up.
It’s just the truth, not psychology.
Neither politics nor political blogging takes place in a psychology-free zone. Psychological factors are crucial to turnout and to how people cast their votes. Political advertising is totally based on psychology. This is all so obvious I’m surprised I even have to say it.
And Nate Silver is a smart guy, but he’s not always right. This has been a very volatile primary, full of surprises, and it’s not all sewed up.
What you are saying is not “the truth”, it’s an inference with a considerable degree of probability, that’s all. But you keep asserting it as if it were a fact.
Here’s another take, which takes more account of the changing dynamics over this past month:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/bernies_miracle_path_to_victory_nate_silver_crunches_the_numbers_on_
a_sanders_win_partner/
You might find this interesting too. It explains why
Sanders supporters are right to be annoyed by the current state of punditry about their candidate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/20-reasons-sanders-voters-are-justifiably-angry_b_954474
4.html
During election season, I always try to remember these quotes:
http://oupacademic.tumblr.com/post/66321507640/misquotation-a-week-is-a-long-time-in
Let me clearer then. Much clearer.
My motivation in telling you that Sanders will not win the nomination is not based on any desire to demoralize Sanders supporters. It’s aimed at giving them a dose of reality so that they understand what they’re doing, what they ought to be trying to accomplish, and so that they aren’t unduly demoralized later on.
But it’s primarily to tell people what is going to happen, regardless of who they support.
Finally, if you want to talk psychology, if people believe that I’m right, then they can feel free to vote for Sanders without worrying whether he’s electable or not. With my audience, that means more people voting for Sanders, not less.
Well, this is what I find strange and a little uncharacteristic of your usual analysis, and that is “so that they [we] aren’t unduly demoralized later on”. your phrasing is patronizing. we are adults, we are making out decisions. your analysis is top notch and certainly I consider my own assessment pretty limited; but your tone is not of analysis but fact. it hasn’t happened yet. true, the liklihood according to your analysis is high, but your phrasing is like telling the kids there is no santa claus. we’re not kids. if Sanders loses we will be disappointed; I, for one, am angry about the DWS stacking the deck and a host of other things. those feelings will kick in. yes, we don’t want the Sanders momentum to turn to bitterness. but the way to do that is point towards the next step and give encouragement when the time comes.
Okay, you’re an adult.
So, here’s the deal.
THERE…IS…NO…FUCKING…SANTA CLAUS!!!
ok, you know there is no Santa Claus. you don’t know how the CA primary will play out – not saying if Sanders wins, he gets the nomination, I’m saying if he wins CA that’s different from he loses CA. what he stands for will have more energy behind it, after the nomination fight if he, say, wins CA. just an example. it’s like priscianus writes, your “realism” isn’t realism at all, it’s a wet blanket on the process.
if you write, “from my analysis Sanders can’t win” I would accept it. that’s different from “Sanders can’t win”
Clinton won California in 2008. She dominated the last round of primaries.
It had no effect because the prospect that the superdelegates would go against the black community and overturn the clear results was always nil.
So, what I’m telling you is that California won’t make the slightest difference in the end result. The reason the superdelegates are sticky this time around is slightly different from why they were sticky last time around, but the truth is that Clinton had a bunch of loyalists who backstabbed her because they didn’t want to be on the wrong side of history. Obama had substantial establishment support and business support. It was almost an even match that way, with Clinton’s advantage being mainly that her husband had appointed a lot of the party officials.
Sanders is disadvantaged with superdelegates in every way that can be measured.
He has really only two hopes for winning any of them. One is that a handful will vote the way their districts voted, although this could hurt him the same way that it helps him. And the second is that, when the time comes, polls will be unequivocal that Clinton can’t win and Sanders can.
And that would only happen in the case of a major scandal.
Of course, a major scandal would change everyone’s predictions, including mine.
But we’re not talking about scandals. We’re talking about if Sanders can win enough delegates to convince the majority of superdelegates to back him.
That’s as close to a zero-chance proposition as you can get.
I wasn’t talking about winning the nomination w. CA, I thought that was clear from how I phrased my comment, I was talking about the platform business you write about below. Sanders more than anyone knows it’s not [just] about winning the nomination, it’s about starting a direction to counter corporate control of the direction of the country. one doesn’t do that by tamping down the Sanders momentum
put another way, it’s pragmatic to support Sanders all out in terms of a progressive direction for the country. for example, he’s eroded the barrier between R and D, in some regions of the country
He and Trump have opened some ears, imo.
I’m going to use some examples to illustrate why some here find your pronouncements on the DEM primary so objectionable.
In 2004 after IA and NH, Kos (and probably much of the MSM) declared that the DEM primary was over. That would have been true if Dean didn’t have the fuel left to mount a comeback from “the scream” and if Edwards didn’t have the horsepower to build on the expected upcoming primary win in SC. What harm was there in letting voters in other states weigh in and seeing how it would play out? Why the hurry? If Dean and Edwards had been competitive through April, it would likely have made the DEM stronger regardless of who won the nomination because Abu Ghraib would have been properly elevated as a campaign issue. Kerry was poorly positioned on his own to do that and it got swept under the rug in favor of the practically ancient SBVT.
Once Kerry was declared that nominee, I doubted that he would win the GE. (Okay, I was confident that he would lose.) However, I’m rational enough to know that during the course of campaigns, equations can change and one of those factors/variables is the efforts of supporters. Thus, I never publicly disclosed my “projection” for the simple reason that in no way did I want to dampen enthusiasm for Kerry. The possibility of ousting GWB far exceeded any ego need I have to go on record and come back after the election and say “told ya.”
In 2008 and in real time, the primary and general election did seem to me to be over after NH. I said that once and didn’t need to repeat it. Limited any further arguments during the primary to why Obama was the better candidate on a variety of measures. All the “she can’t win” and “why doesn’t she drop out” claims and demands by Obama supporters were tedious and only demonstrated lack of confidence in their candidate. Far better to have squandered that time on exposing the racism being employed by the HRC campaign.
All the fretting by DEMs during the general election also exhibited a lack of confidence, although it may have been helpful to increase voter turnout. Or perhaps it only increased turnout on both sides and made no difference to the outcome. (I did have a moment of doubt after the initial appearance of Palin, but that quickly dissipated as she was exposed as dumb and nutso.) My contribution as that point could have been nothing other and “chill out everybody; Obama has it.” Would that have helped? No.
Sanders’ supporters don’t know what his campaign will lead to in either the short or long term. We’re seizing the moment because it holds a promise of something better than what a coronation, a second recent legacy POTUS, and a highly probable additional four years of a Democratic neoliberals controlling the only viable alternative to the GOP. The first opportunity since 1992 to say clearly enough to all the economic forces increasing income/wealth and diminishing economic security for ordinary people, and reject the insanity of the “national security state” with its wars and intrusions into the privacy rights of all of us. We also, unlike the supporters of any of the other candidates, know that “go slow” isn’t a rational response to global climate change. Thus, anyone that says, “get real” to Sanders’ supporters is not only not a progressive but is shutting down the only potential side road that may alter the course of this country and the world.
And yet, those “nattering nabobs of negativity” don’t want to own what they’re supporting and endorsing which is essentially everything the Clintons have done and 90% of which Sanders supporters oppose.
In 2012, when I spent the entire year saying that Obama was going to win and it wouldn’t be close and not to worry, I don’t remember people being offended by it.
In 2008, I got accused of “telling the bitch to quit” for saying the same thing in the primaries.
People should get used to me telling you it’s over when I think it’s over.
Did that help? Wherever did you get the notion that you’re an oracle? Because you called two measly (and very easy) Presidential elections? Not much of a track record and no reason to have acted like a dick then or now.
Do you keep a tally of when you’re wrong?
If lots DEMs/liberals had listened to you in ’12, they needn’t have bothered to donate, work on the campaign, and vote because the “voice of authority” said Obama would win. (Maybe if Mitt had raised/spent $540 million as BHO did instead of a piddling $336 million, he would have been more competitive.) Did you also “predict” that Obama’s ’12 win would be weaker in the popular vote and electoral college than it had been in ’08 (the general rule for a siting POTUS that wins a second term is that their margins improve in their re-election bids)?
I have no idea what your 2002 and 2004 electoral predictions were, but the prevailing view of bloggers weren’t even close to the outcomes. They didn’t get it right in ’06 and ’08 either, but erred in the opposite direction. Did you nail the ’10 and ’14 midterms?
Change one thing in 1968 and one thing in 1980 and the outcome of those two Presidential would have been different. Well unless HHH and Carter threw in the towel three months earlier as “oracles” told them to do. Don’t you recall Boolean functions?
I predicted Kerry would win in 2004 when he was way behind.
I actually had the best record I can find in predicting the seat pickups in 2006 (I missed by one seat). I called 2008 extremely early and for all the right reasons. I called the 2010 midterms. I called 2012 early and correctly. My big miss was the 2014 midterms. I was fooled by the polls, just like most everyone else.
Also, there’s this tremendous predisposition in what you’re saying (and you’re not alone) that what I write should be designed to “help” in some way.
The truth helps.
That truth is the reason I keep coming back to this blog over and over despite the fact that the comments which also used to draw me in are not what they used to be. It’s also why I toss a few bucks your way when I can. I don’t always like your answers, but I trust that when you tell me something I don’t want to hear it’s because you believe it.
Booman, your truthiness is just defeatism.(Even, Mr Silver concedes there is a chance for Bernie.) What has happened to you? Who pooped in your bed this primary?
Since I started reading this blog,I have always felt that you were very fair and informed about all things political, but something is extremely different this election. You keep putting your thumb on the scales for Hillary,but won’t admit that you support her.Even when given facts & statistics indicating the circumstances of the primary have changed in Bernie’s favor, you can not give him a fair chance. What has caused you to be so disingenuous this time? Why are you so dismissive and bordering on hostile to Bernie & his supporters? What do you think you know that we Bernie supporters apparently can’t see?
you do realize that Nate Silver is politely trying to say the exact same thing I am saying, right?
But, okay, Silver allows for the fact that if his incredibly unlikely scenario (by his own estimation) actually takes place, there is a sliver of a hope that a sufficient majority of superdelegates will defect to Sanders.
This last point is where I simply disagree and am going to say flatly that I know better.
Clinton will win any battle involving superdelegates because superdelegates are mostly elected officials and party operatives and the Clintons know them, have worked with them for a quarter century now, have raised money for them, know their kids, share their ideology for the most part, and know how to play the game House of Cards-dirty if they have to.
Sanders won’t even commit to raising money for them in the future, which might at least make up a little for being an independent in the past.
These superdelegates aren’t going to be persuaded by a few polls. Trust me on this.
I’m a progressive who rubs elbows from time to time with party establishment folks in Washington DC, and we are seen as exotic animals that should be barely tolerated, humored when necessary, and kept at an arm’s distance. They are not willingly turning the party over to us.
If that is so cut and dried, then, then, I’d like to know how, as you put it, Sanders’ ultimately unsuccessful run “will … change the party and change the convention and even, probably, change how Clinton seeks to govern.”
It has already done so! Have you listened to Clinton any time over the past three or four months? She is not “tacking left for the primary”, she is boxing herself into serious progressive commitments.
It would be almost cute when progressives try to get serious about winning power if it weren’t so sad.
I’ve argued for years that our movement needs to seek power rather than reflexively suspect and oppose it. But we haven’t done that, and we have no idea how to do it.
This superdelegate fantasy is such a testimony to that.
Like vampires running away from the daylight of the Overton Window.
“OMG here comes universal health care! We’re in imminent danger of winning something! Let’s demand the kind they have in England, so they’d have to destroy the $60-billion, 530,000-job health insurance industry to give us what we want. That’ll save us from having any actual role in policy making!”
Well, if you say so.
It will change the party is small, incremental ways that most people will find frustrating and inadequate, but the effect will be real and grow over time.
Imagine the difference between a party platform committee made up of 100% Clinton supporters and one made up of 45% Sanders supporters.
Imagine how many of Sanders’ delegates will make connections and have experiences at the convention that set them on a course to have a life-long role in the party, as officials, county commissioners, representatives, organizers, and future delegates.
Imagine what the new DNC will look like compared to what it would have looked like.
Sanders has already pinned Clinton on the left. She’s now indebted to the POC-wing of the progressive movement, and it will be responsive to it. She went to Sanders’ left on gun violence. She’s had liabilities exposed that she’ll want to compensate for and that future candidates will want to avoid altogether (like giving six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs).
Sanders also demonstrated the potential and power of people-powered politics, which is something the Clintons could not avail themselves of during their original rise to power.
There are a host of ways that Sanders has already benefitted the left and the party, and that influence will grow at the convention.
“people-powered politics .., something the Clintons could not avail themselves of during their original rise to power.”
Interesting statement. “Could not”? or “didn’t want to”?
They had their chance with NAFTA. We saw what happened there.
Do you even know the context of NAFTA from the perspective of US-Mexican relations at the time?
These kinds of comments are so lacking in substance that they should float away like dandelion seeds.
This context?
“The United States and Mexico have been central to the development of the neoliberal model. We share a 2,000 mile border, the only place in the world where the Global North meets the South. The US-Mexico border is unique, and the relationship between the two nations is equally unique.
In many ways, this geographic marriage represents the most important relationship in the world – a laboratory that is defining the neoliberal model. Three historical markers stand out as central to the development of neoliberalism: the establishment of free trade zones and maquiladoras in 1965, Structural Adjustment Programs initiated by the International Monetary Fund in 1982, and the signing of the North America Free Trade Agreement in 1994.
The US-Mexico relationship has been the proving ground for the practical realities of the Washington consensus: production-for-export replacing production for internal consumption, the use of debt as a lever to force structural adjustment programs, loose investment rules that allow hot money to cross borders in seconds, and a trade agreement (read NAFTA) that is the model for a new legal framework that expands the rights of corporations at the expense of civil society.”
http://www.mexicosolidarity.org/programs/alternativeeconomy/neoliberalism
Also, http://www.people.virginia.edu/~wjk/nafta.html
And an evaluation at 20 yrs…http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/after_20_years_nafta_leaves_mexicos_economy_in_ruins_20140109
Booman, when you were, I estimate, barely out of high school, I was actively working against NAFTA in the months running up to the vote. I talked regularly with aides to David Obey and his allies by telephone. I was in continuous contact with legislative aides and activists in a number of Canadian provinces.
I published articles on the threats of NAFTA to the subsistence economies of indigenous communities in Mexico. I published articles on the threat of environmentally destructive interbasin water transfer projects that NAFTA would make possible.
Obviously there was a rationale for passing NAFTA. If there hadn’t been, it never would have happened. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. And it certainly doesn’t mean I was naive for not agreing with it.
thanks, good analogy from my pov
“Sanders would need the superdelegates to vote for him, and they were created to not vote for candidates like him. It’s why they exist. “
You state this as a certainty. Yet there has been a lot of press and public discussion on this question lately, the consensus being that the super delegates who have through the race so far been claimed as Clinton’s, are not actually committed to her, and were not even supposed to be reported as hers; that such decisions would not be made until all the pledged delegates were counted.
Also, what exactly do you mean by “candidates like him” ? I know you and many others consider Sanders a “flawed candidate”. But he’s not exactly the only flawed candidate in this race. Tell me Hillary Clinton is not a flawed candidate. And anybody the Republicans would put up would be an extremely flawed candidate.
Booman, long time lurker, first time caller.
Help me out here. Chris Hayes had a segment with Eric Boehlert tonight, about the e-mail story COVERAGE, which to me looked like a story designed to calm nervous Clinton voters. Especially those considering a roll of the dice on Bernie, to get off the Clinton-Media-GOP Scandal Merry-Go-Round (part of why W got close enough to be put into office, IMO).
The message was: this is a big nothingburger.
My question is, do you agree with that, and is that how the MSM will eventually cover it, if the authorities do as well?
And if the answer is no, then is there not a plausible scenario where by June 7, Clinton is toxic, and Bernie can get 70% in California. Granted, this relies on bad news from the e-mail scandal, which I cannot decide if i am hoping for or not.
Thanks ahead of time.
speaking as a simple Sanders voter, this is a problem imo for HRC as candidate in nov; fitness for office. also, what you also mention, the apparent dirty tricks and what we know about DWS’s stacking the debate deck.
I’ll just relay a point I’ve come across a number of times: given the widespread lack of trust of Clinton, even if she emerges from this with no penalty — which is what I expect — that will not dispel the general air of suspicion; which means that, to some unknown degree, the e-mail affair will continue to put her at a disadvantage.
Thanks for commenting – I agree with you and Errol, this is a problem even if there is no discipline from the DOJ. I am wondering if you guys think if there is ANYTHING bad by her or her underlings confirmed by June 7, if it could give Cali the chance to save the party from itself.
Well Booman has written a few times that according to his analysis even if Sanders wins CA Clinton will still get the nomination, and wrote a couple weeks back that nothing, even Clinton indictment, will dissuade the Dem party from nominating her. I’d go with his judgment on that aspect of it. otoh, I don’t know how the Dem Party will deal with the crisis her lack of support would/ will create,- and have no idea what would/ will happen to a Clinton admin should she be elected under those conditions, although it’s possible the party will accommodate Sanders positions in a way that would create wider support for a Clinton admin. imo the distrust of her is already a problem, and risks losing the election for her, very much a problem that she’s aligned with the corporations that are causing so many problems and so much distrust. imo it’s kind of McGovern in reverse, she’ll have the party but not the voters and that may not be enough.
One more question, Booman. If I may.
Do you see any pattern of dirty tricks in some of these states? Do you think there is any merit to any of the stories out there?
My answer is I’m not sure.
And do you think Clinton and her surrogates have been cynically distorting a good man’s record, and insulting the intelligence of anybody who has followed politics and Bernie for a long time?
My answer is yes.
I feel that Clinton may be trying so hard to win that she is basically being dirty, at least as far as primaries go. That’s why some Bernie people (not me though) will be unable to pull the lever for Clinton. (Also because there are no more levers…that is also a factor).
Unfortunately, voting FOR Clinton is what is required in the fall if she is the nominee. It takes affirmative effort. It’s hard to ask people who HATE a candidate to make an effort to vote FOR her. The Supreme Court argument is a “two-stepper.” I hate to say it, that might be at least one too many steps for the average voter.
I HATE CLINTON-CLINTON/CASTRO 2016
Such allegations have been made, especially WRT the Carolinas, but they seem to be having a short half-life on the Internet. Any salutary value of the reports are no doubt being absorbed quietly and internally by the Sanders campaign. I think they are being vigilant.
If you are referring to the disgraceful primary in AZ, overall, I think the mess was to Hillary’s advantage, because early voting strongly favored her, whereas exit polls indicate voting on the day strongly favored Sanders. However, it is farfetched to suspect Hillary had anything to do with it, as the AZ primaries are run by the state, which is controlled by the GOP. This looks more like typical Republican voter suppression through “cost cutting”.
Thanks for chiming in.
I’ve been saying for a while that Trump supporters are middle-aged Beavis and Butt-Head, who want to watch a heavy metal presidency on TV, heh-heh. That’s the Lachesism that is really potent right now.
If a president Trump would be allowed to pull the thread of life as we know it, that surely will lead to disaster. I don’t dig the accusation of his “leading” to disaster speeches. On the contrary, he benefits from the “disaster” US Congress and Washington is perceived by the American voter.
For politics in today’s age of social media where everyone has an opinion, a populist will be assured of a large gathering. Uncertain he will reach the threshold of succes and a breakthrough. Europe has been leading in right-wing populism.
Well, think about how many of his supporters have been prepping for Obamageddon since November 2007. They have been stockpiling weapons and ammo, tramp around more brazenly every day with their AR-15’s slung over their shoulder and their Glock 19’s stuffed in their pants, while they peruse the snack aisle at Krogers just to scare the shit out of all the soccer moms who are picking up pop tarts and milk for breakfast. And they have been fed this non-stop apocalyptic mindset through all their information channels. There has to be a significant amount of frustrated testosterone, estrogen and rage pent up in those bodies.
They have basically been promised for years now that some day soon they will get the chance to vent all that disgruntlement and anger toward those who have stolen their country. And along comes The Donald, giving voice and, for the first time, a sense of reality that their Mad Max moment is just around the corner.
Of course this appeals to them. If you think about it, you saw a lot that kind of attitude in the goobers who trashed and shit all over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. They were all hyped up on their own bullshit. And a lot the Trump followers are the same way. Many of them have waited their lifetimes for the chance to grab their bug out bag and head for the hills with their ammo cache and weapons to fight the “enemy”, whoever the fuck they imagine them to be.
Upgraded because your as right as right could be. And I bet Every member of the Bundy gang is a Trumpista.
.
Nope, they’re more likely Cruz supporters.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/cruz-tosses-his-lot-bundy-gang
Heh.
Probably true. But not much difference between the two. More a difference in style than substance.
.
Although the Bundy gang more than likely knows Cruz would burn them at the stake if given a chance. With all the other heretics.
.
People lap up that apocalypse stuff like candy, the same appeal as the Rapture for the religious nuts.
Frustrated, bitter, ignorant whose lives have long slid from anything resembling control or autonomy, backs to the proverbial wall, no exit strategy, no plan B, just more of the daily poisonous gruel to stomach till you die.
So in a cinematic attempt to be a hero in their own minds, they invoke disaster, even crave it, because it would be the kind of massive shake-up that will otherwise never happen, due to the systemic inertia baked into institutionalised architecture, the American Dream turned nightmare for the millions who feel they don’t count -and never will- so bring it on, shaking their fists at the lightning storm, so terminally pissed off nothing matters any more, let it all go to hell. See if they care!
Trump is their Pie-eyed Piper, leading them to their own chosen Hamelin, Trump’s World, where America always wins and all live happily ever after setting fire to whatever’s in the way.
The rage has been simmering too long, they want violent catharsis, too mad-dog toxic to see how change has a lot better chance of lasting if introduced unviolently, eg Bernie’s way.
Trump is so surreal I half expect him one day to say ‘Game over, I was just jiving all along to see if you’d fall for it’.
Borat on ‘roids.
It’s interesting that Glenn Beck, the High Priest of Calamity, endorsed Ted Cruz, rather than Trump.
Beck may be a little jealous of Trump’s attention from people that are supposed to be paying attention to Beck. Cruz doesn’t cut into Beck’s audience.
(Gertrude Stein’s poem came to mind)
The person most famous for what you’re call lachesism was V.I. Lenin, who famously said “The worse things get, the better.” Strictly speaking, he did not want to be struck by disaster, he just wanted everybody else to be struck by disaster, because he felt it would be good for all concerned.
Particularly himself. Because the worse things were, the more chaos there was, the more power up for grabs. Another way of describing ‘shock doctrine’.
Plenty of Sanders supporters on this site are very close to that position (and I know you have read their comments). And plenty have said ‘Sanders is our last chance, if we don’t nominate and then elect him, AMERICA IS DOOMED’.
And if/when he is NOT nominated those very same people (and I know you have read their comments) will be on their knees praying for economic disaster. Just like how republicans get on their knees every night and pray for a massive terrorist attack.
All because they need meaning and purpose in their lives. Like…well…like Lenin.
And I know you’ve read their comments.
.
As far as I know, there are only a couple of people like that who comment here, and I have read their comments.
I don’t see why they would be Sanders supporters, because Sanders supporters think that Sanders would make things better. If Hillary is the nominee, they would be very afraid that things would get worse, but it’s a total non-sequitur to think they would WANT things to get worse. If they wanted things to get worse, they wouldn’t have supported Bernie in the first place, they would have supported Hillary. Or better yet, Ted Cruz.
As for what you think is the typical attitude of Sanders supporters, ‘Sanders is our last chance, if we don’t nominate and then elect him, AMERICA IS DOOMED’– I think you’ve set it up in a slanted way.
Politically, economically, America has some very serious problems which need to be addressed. Any Democratic president will be restricted in the current congressional climate. But it’s a question of which of the candidates inspires more hope and confidence.
On the question of who Sanders supporters will vote for if he is not the nominee, there is a real irony.
Sanders himself has said that if he doesn’t win, he will support Hillary Clinton. And many of the Sanders supporters here (myself included) have said the same.
Again, wanting things to get better, I believe that the Sanders revolution can make more progress under a Clinton presidency than under any Republican, whether or not Hillary has anything to do with it. And I’m sure that’s what Bernie thinks too.
But many of his supporters find it hard to imagine doing that. And I’m not sure Sanders himself would be able to get them to vote for her, unless Hillary makes some serious conciliation to Sanders.
There are people out there for whom Bernie is the first choice, but their second choice is Trump, not Hillary. This may sound absurd, but it begins to make sense when you realize that if it weren’t for Bernie, these people would be supporting Trump right now.
I never said ‘typical’, and I never meant you. The irony is if I meant it was you, I would not bother to reply to your post.
But of course we were talking about the practitioners of lacheism.
.
I did not think you meant me.
I totally reject the idea that Bernie voters would be for Trump in any serious numbers. My guess is the Bernie or Bust people would just not vote because they see the system as corrupt. I think they also see Trump as corrupt, but of a different type. Still morally bankrupt, though.
I don’t think Sanders voters would vote for an R if Clinton is the nominee; but Sanders stands to pick up Trump voters if he is the nominee. I travel around a lot- heard this again recently from potential R voters who are fed up with the level of discourse on the right
Sanders first choice, Trump second:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/bernie-sanders-supporters-consider-donald-trump-no-hi
llary-clinton
Trump first choice, Sanders second (Drudge Report poll):
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2016/01/conservatives-chose-sanders-as-2nd.html
I reckon 25% would go for Donald (lachesistically), 25% for Hillary, and 50% abstain.
yes, re: Trump voters.
if Hillary is the nominee it will require leadership to keep the Sanders contingent moving forward on change we want to see, leadership, necessary. cross that bridge after the primary
Lenin absolutely blasted worse is betterism in no uncertain terms, in “Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder”…
I’m no expert, but the “politique du pire” (the politics of the worse, the better) is widely associated with Lenin and the Bolsheviks in general. More generally it is connected with parliamentary tactics fostering destabilization and maximization of crisis; also with terrorism. Lenin certainly did not originate it. Classically it is attributed to Louis XVI’s counterrevolutionary strategy of late 1789. It was favored by Russian radicals like Herzen as early as 1848-49.
Michael Ignatieff discusses la politique du pire in his book The Lesser Evil (2004).
Whatever its origin, it’s not a new idea.
It is widely associated with Lenin and the Bolsheviks, yes… but that association is incorrect and ahistorical.