The Republican coalition is commonly thought of as a three-legged stool. One leg is made up of social conservatives who are animated by matters of human sexuality and reproduction, as well as (obviously) anything touching on religion in public life or education. Another leg is made up of people who are concerned with national defense, either as a budgetary priority or as part of jingoistic national-greatness patriotism. The third leg comes from business interests, both Main Street and Wall Street.
I’d actually add a fourth. The fourth leg is conservative media dominance, particularly the FOX News channel and talk radio, but also their ability to use one voice across all platforms to push narratives favorable to their side.
Now, it’s harder to kick over a four-legged stool than a three-legged one, and that’s why the media component of this is so important. I’ve noted several times that the unity and cohesiveness of the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer has come apart as right-wing media outlets have divided themselves into pro- and anti-Trump organizations. They have not been able to agree on what hymn to sing for a while now, and many of them have lost the credibility they’d need to be persuasively pro-Trump or pro-Cruz in the general election.
Essentially, you can say that this fourth leg of the stool has been sawed off, and they’ll do little better than some kind of duct tape solution for repairing it for the autumn contest.
To see how Trump is doing with the national defense component, look no further than the vociferous opposition of neoconservatives to his campaign. While Trump does his best to whip up the jingoistic national-greatness nationalism of the people, his cluelessness and recklessness on foreign policy is so extreme that he’d lose the vote of a big swath of traditionally reliable Republicans. Cruz would do a better job of holding them in line.
The social conservatives have been driving the full-fledged revolt against the Republican Establishment, mainly because they seem to have finally wised up and realized that the promises they’ve been told for forty years were never meant to be taken seriously. They aren’t going to bolt to the Democrats, but they’ll probably give up on the political process for the rest of the year if Merrick Garland is confirmed and the balance of the Court is lost to them for the foreseeable future.
The Establishment will mobilize them to stop Garland and to vote for the Republicans, and then after the Republicans lose the presidential election, the same Establishment will quickly confirm Garland without much of a fight. Whether they’ll do it in the lame duck or shortly after the new president is sworn in is an interesting question. The important thing, though, is that the Republicans cannot afford to see this leg of the stool collapse prematurely or the resulting depressed turnout will kill them in congressional races.
But, it’s actually the business community that they’re clearly losing. Wall Street has already concluded that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and they can live with that.
More than 70 percent of respondents to a recent Citigroup poll of institutional clients viewed the former secretary of state, first lady and New York senator as the likely 45th president. Just over 10 percent give Donald Trump the nod, while fellow Republican John Kasich is a few points behind. Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Ted Cruz barely register. (The poll was taken before Sanders and Cruz scored big primary wins Tuesday in Wisconsin.)
…Wall Street-related firms are Clinton’s biggest contributor group, giving her just over $21 million of the total $159 million she has raised during her campaign, according to OpenSecrets.
“An awful lot of investors view her as the devil they know as opposed to the devil they don’t know,” said Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments and widely recognized as one of the leading experts on how what happens in Washington affects Wall Street. “It’s a true cliche: The market doesn’t like uncertainty.”
…Investors, though, seem to be spending more time figuring out what impact a Clinton victory will produce [than figuring out who will win the election].
“The markets are going to be looking for signs of (Trump) mellowing. Does he turn down the bombast?” Valliere said. “But Hillary is still the favorite. … I think the markets could live with her. That’s a major reason why we haven’t seen market instability right now.”
The bottom line is that the financial elite are reconciled to a Clinton presidency and they’re planning for it. They’d prefer to vote for Ronald Reagan, but the best candidate on offer is Hillary. So, this leg of the stool is weak, and it’s also the leg with the most money and the leg that owns most of the media.
It looks a little like termites have been at work on the Republican coalition.
The business sector is Ready for Hillary. The neoconservatives and realists of the Republican Party are ready to bolt to her. The social conservatives are in full-revolt, and being held in line by Merrick Garland’s (very temporary) hostage situation. Once the Supreme Court battle is lost (however long that takes) the social conservatives will see that their forty-year battle is lost. They won’t be nearly as engaged without the encouragement of hope.
And the media is an unexpected problem for the Republicans because the right-wing outlets are not able to amplify a single message and the corporate media aren’t going to take their side this time around.
When we look at this four-legged stool, what do we have left?
This is how a major party loses its major party status, and it’s also how a major party loses a landslide election.
I wrote a whole series of articles last year about how then-Speaker John Boehner should make a deal with the Democrats, including giving them some committee chairs, in order to create a more rational governing coalition in the House of Representatives. In order to run the House, he needed mostly Democratic votes to pass appropriations bills and keep the government operating, so it made more sense to make this arrangement formal. It would stabilize his speakership by removing the risk of a coup, and the Democrats would make that deal in exchange for avoiding a more difficult Speaker and getting a real say in how the money they always had to spend was allocated.
The point was to highlight what the real governing coalition in the House was at that time, because the coalition that passes the spending bills is the actual parliamentary majority that matters. And, since the Republicans could not pass spending bills on their own, they had already collapsed as a governing party.
This was a canary in a coal mine for me, and it’s one reason why I was an early and bullish predictor that the Republican Party would come apart at the seams in this presidential election, offering more of a potential for a landslide election than most people then believed possible.
There are a lot of Democrats who look at this and say to themselves, “Well, gee, it’s not all that exciting to see neoconservatives and Wall Street executives and corporate media moguls rallying to our likely nominee.”
I recognize the potential problems for anyone with a progressive agenda, but this is what a realignment looks like. And the truth is, sheer numbers do more to promote a progressive agenda than purity. Rahm Emanuel handed President Obama a big congressional majority filled with very conservative Democrats, and they got more done than any Democratic Congress since Lyndon Johnson was in office. After most of those conservative Democrats were wiped out in 2010, the Democratic Party membership became much more cohesive and much more progressive, but they accomplished absolutely nothing.
I know it’s not simple. We’re talking about a lot of swinging parts, some of which might clock you right upside the head if you don’t keep your head on a swivel. But I’m trying to get you to swivel your head away from things like horserace polls and favorability numbers, because the Republican stool could be little more than sawdust soon.
OT:
good luck with that – nominate someone who could only win his home state
Yet another poll suggests Kasich is Republicans’ best hope in November
A poll released Wednesday shows Bernie Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania by six points, while both Democratic candidates lag behind Ohio Gov. John Kasich in a hypothetical fall match-up in the Keystone State.
The poll, released by Quinnipiac University, also shows Republican frontrunner Donald Trump leading Ted Cruz, 39%-30%. Kasich trails in third at 24%, but is the only Republican candidate who beat Clinton or Sanders in a head-to-head matchup in the key swing state, pollsters noted.
In a statement on the poll, Assistant Director Tim Malloy noted that no candidate has won the presidency since 1960 without winning two out of the three swing states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio.
“Kasich is ahead of Clinton and Sanders in his home state (of Ohio), and now we see how strong he is next door, if he can jump over Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz,” Malloy said.
A March poll by Monmouth University showed Kasich as the only Republican beating Clinton in a hypothetical November matchup. Another Quinnipiac poll the day prior found Kasich edging out Sanders in a head-to-head, too.
A GOPer winning PA in the general election? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Trump and Cruz voters would lose their everloving minds if Kasich were to be foisted on them in a floor fight at the Convention. Even Kasich’s baying-at-the-moon conservatism and hatred of liberals is not nearly good enough for the bloodthirsty base. The Medicaid expansion alone disqualifies him with the broad set of GOP base voters.
Kasich’s campaign would have to contend with that fury and demobilization of his base if he were to be awarded the nomination by GOP elites who forced it at their Convention. This polling does not tell the story of how the general election campaign would turn out, at all. He’d take heavy fire from the left and right; it would provide him too narrow a group of voters to win.
Trump voters will lose their minds no matter what, because Trump is not going to be the nominee. It’s far from clear that Cruz will be either, so his voters will likely lose their minds too. Kasich voters seem to be a relatively peaceful lot. I think they’re going to try to pull out a dark horse candidate agreeable to everyone, which seems impossible, but better than any of the alternatives.
Kasich supporters will not be a problem. It’s the Trump and Cruz supporters who will lash out with any result other than their guy winning the nomination. It appears they currently comprise over 70% of the base.
The Republicans already have a huge structural turnout disadvantage for POTUS elections. Failing to turn out even 10% of the base will be catastrophic to their candidates up and down the ticket.
They have a set of poor alternatives, we agree on that.
I don’t think the PA polls are too reliable right now. A couple of weeks ago, Franklin & Marshall had Sanders at 28% in PA. A few days ago, Harper had him at 33%. And in a virtually simultaneous poll, Quinnipiac gives him 44% . The primary isn’t until April 26th.
Kasich probably IS the GOP’s best hope in November, but he’s also this year’s Romney. Namely, “the base” doesn’t like him, and it’s unlikely he could beat either Democrat, though he would do better than either Trump or Cruz.
I don’t think primary results in PA will say that much about the general. If I’m not mistaken, even the statement “no candidate has won the presidency since 1960 without winning two out of the three swing states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio” refers to the general election, not the primaries.
I’ll be honest – I don’t really trust Quinnipiac outside of CT. I just have this lingering half-memory that their results outside of their home state don’t always square with reality.
“And the truth is, sheer numbers do more to promote a progressive agenda than purity.”
This needs to be said over and over.
Rahm Emanuel handed President Obama a big congressional majority filled with very conservative Democrats, ….
No love for Howard Dean? Does Rahm or DWS get credit for 2012? And by that I mean still being stuck in the extreme minority in the House. Or not paying attention to how important the 2010 mid-terms were.
How many legs does the Democratic stool have at the moment?
That depends on whether Sanders, once he (in all likelihood) loses, will put away his ax or start building the coalition.
Does that mean that it is either one or two legs.
The emphasis on a three-legged stool in this analogy IMO refers to a situation in which there is a stable and dynamic balance of power in which alternating alliances move the party in the direction in which at least two of the factions want to go.
The third faction creates some degree of stability as long as the other two legs are not permanently aligned, creating a two-legged table with one double-sized leg.
The fact that there is not an observable faction to align with progressives in the Democratic party, you have constant division on issues. And the more powerful leg dominates always.
I see many factions, not just two or three, within the democratic coalition which could be thought of as legs to the stool. Labor unions, environmentalists, feminists, the LGBT and civil rights communities, the “occupy wall-streeters”, some blue collar workers (those who haven’t been hypnotized by the wurlitzer), and the non-psychotic parts of the national-security and business establishments (a sizable fraction but maybe not a majority?). There are probably other factions I have missed. With the exception of the last faction I listed, all could be considered to be progressive, more or less, all are pulling in their own directions, and their voices are heard, particularly now that Bernie is pushing issues of importance to some of these factions.
So the power relations look like one fat established business leg and all the interests being ignored by business–employees, communities, government tax and infrastructure interests, fairness in vendor relations interests, consumer protection interests, and environmental protection interests being a number of other counter-balancing skinny legs. Making for a wobbly table but not a Wobbly table.
Maybe the Dems are more like a bean bag.
Heh, nice.
.
I like it!
I don’t worry too much about Sanders. He’s a more practical guy than many of his most ardent supporters. As they will likely find out. He wants to do something, not snipe purity shots from the sidelines like Nader.
I agree.
I agree too, I just hope he really comes out strong for the dems during and after the convention, and doesn’t just fade into the woodwork, so that he can help convince his supporters to come out and continue to work hard.
I would equate the media to the cheap varnish used to keep nature (sunshine and rain) from causing the legs and joints from working loose. But that’s picking at nits.
Question is, after the social conservatives help cause the loss of the Senate, and severe losses in the House, how do the rest of the rabble form a coalition with them to reestablish the party?
I’m not necessarily drinking the “Republican party deathwatch” KoolAide, but it seems there line in the sand hurts them going forward.
Seems to me that the Right-Wing’s best hope is a Sanders Presidency on the hopes he so pisses off the three legs of the stool that a new coat of varnish is all that’s needed.
“sheer numbers do more to promote a progressive agenda than purity”
This times 1000. Give Clinton a decent majority in both the house and the senate and we’ll see real progressive change.
Only if those majorities are progressive majorities, unlike the majorities in 2008-2010.
That is opposite of what Clinton and DWS want. They want to be in the minority so they have an excuse for selling us to the highest bidder.
Thanks, I also needed a chuckle.
So too, how much damage will a numerical majority do?
Actually, we got more in that period than we had for decades.
I needed a good laugh this morning!
You write:
So what you are basically selling here…approvingly…is the idea that where we are really headed is to an essentially one-party government headed by someone who is owned by the .01%, right?
That’s your stance, apparently.
OK. I can see your point. But…I have one question for you.
If the “sheer numbers” of ruling politicians…1 party, 2 parties, however many parties…are all financed (and thus owned) by a system that monetizes every factor of human existence and goes for the profit no matter how many lives are lost or ruined in the process, then what does the word “progressive” mean to you?
Really.
A progressive demeaning of the value of human life as anything other than a tool of the profit system?
I am stuck on that one. Can’t seem to get by it no matter which way I consider the problem.
Straighten me out.
Please.
Later…
AG
The vision is of two parties:
1. A pro-Christian anti-abortion anti-non-white anti-immigrant party owned by the 0.01%
AND
2. A pro-Muslim pro-abortion anti-white pro-immigrant party owned by the 0.01%
A pox on both their houses.
Too late.
Pox is here already.
Pox Populi
Pox Populi
Also known as the mass media.
No vaccine known, although some people are naturally immune.
Bet on it.
AG
“pro-Muslim pro-abortion anti-white pro-immigrant”
WTF?
A few remarks:
I am not using Muslim as a term of abuse. I am using it as a term of religion. Republicans are against Islam. Democrats prefer Islam to Christianity or Judaism.
I, personally, regard all three as ancient nonsense.
It is Democrats who want to increase Muslim immigration. It is Republicans who oppose it.
All you have to do is read the last year or so comments here and at Dailykos to know that white people are evil fanged demons who have caused all the trouble in the world. I especially, as an old white man, remember the comment (with copious recs) “I can’t wait for old white men to die.” That’s when my eyes started to open.
You poor, oppressed white man.
You gonna start tweeting about “white genocide” and join Stormfront now, too?
See what I mean? White men no longer wanted.
All are wanted, regardless of socioeconomic status, but no time for the victim mentality, especially among the dominant group. Too much work to do for pissy little shits.
But, by all means, go feel sorry for yourself.
Also, I love this:
“Someone made a sweeping generalization about old white men on the Internet, so the Democrats must be an anti-white party.”
The Southern Strategy is alive and well, I see.
The reason the three traditional Republicans’ “legs” are collapsing is that a few of them are busily holding up the Democratic stool.
National defense money and jingoism is as good a fit with the Democratic Party. Business interests are a better fit with the Democratic Party. Social conservatives are a better fit for the Republican Party. All the Repubs reliably have are social conservatives and the (temporarily fractured) conservative media.
You’ve done a great job, for years, gaming out the fracture of the Republican Party. But I don’t remember any articles about what this means for the future of the Democratic Party. The two parties are inextricably linked in a relationship; when one changes, it changes the other.
And as a wise man once said, in a two party system, you cannot have two centrist parties. If one party is centrist, the other must become extreme. In many ways (aside from the obvious cultural and racial ones) this is how Obama has driven a stake into the Republican Party. There’s no room for an even quasi-principled conservative opposition to a party which coopts so many quasi-principled conservative principles.
We’ve driven a mad dog even madder. That’s the good news. But what is the future of the left–the real left, not the in-the-UK-we’d-be-Tories left–in a Democratic Party that occupies so much ex-Republican space? Will we come apart at the seams, too?
To your last question, it seems so.
A rich-folks-and-salaried-folks Democratic Party, an angry working class and egocentric billionaires Republican Party, and geographically focused loose movement of progressive intellectuals and bloggers — isn’t that the shape of the future at the moment? And then there are those outside the electoral system altogether, split between the apathetic and the movemental activists waiting for the deluge.
Talk me down from this “realism” about our current politics.
See my comment on this thread at 01:28:05 PM EST
Win or no win, this is why we have to get behind Sanders.
Here’s what I see happening. After this year, the GOP divides in two. The further right, crazy, racist, Evangelicals will wonder off to be their own, mostly southern, party. The more centrist defense and business side joins with the Democrats for now. But within a few years, once it’s obvious that they are no longer shackled to lunatics, they will reconnect with those who became independent or centrist Dems when the GOP went insane. They will reform as the Republicans, but a far more moderate, willing to govern, version. Once they all leave, those left in the Democratic party will be those who were always liberal and progressive, and a growing number of young people who embrace something like Dem Socialism.
Eight to twelve years from now, the re-alignment should be complete. The crazies will be a third party we can ignore. The GOP will feel more like the old school Republicans, and will fight for a small government that stays out of our lives as much as possible. The Dems will be moving left quickly, and making massive social changes.
In short, I think this year is when the pendulum starts moving back our way. Historically, it always does, and the time is about right. Of course, the transition is always difficult, but we’ve survived it many times before, and there’s no reason not to believe that we will this time as well.
From your lips to Goddess’s ears. I’ve been trying to game this out, and failing. I just don’t know enough. That’s why I want Boo to write about it. I can see things going your way, but I can also see the ‘new,’ more conservative Democrats controlling the party, in a terrifyingly powerful alliance of a corporate wing and a pro-military wing, bound together with a ‘pragmatic’ wing that provide just enough old-school Republican progress (Romneycare, cap-and-trade, NCLB) to prove that we’re heading in the right direction together, making incremental progress, far better than those unicorn-fondling purists who keep crying about the cool new Pennsylvania coastline.
Typically, a government is in the hands of the right-wing for awhile before the left-wing can move things leftward. Nothing is more right-wing than a King/Emperor/Dictator. Then you move a little left and get an unelected aristocracy that is able to control taxation of their own serfs, as a way to control the King/Emperor.
The US, as the most powerful world empire in all of history, is going to be relatively conservative compared to its allies. It’s insecurity, inherent in being an Empire, makes it conservative, whereas its allies (cultural, not just military) are free to try out other things.
So, what needs to happen here in the US, is for the Regressive Republican party to be killed as a national party. It will continue to exist and win local and state elections, but the people who want to be national politicians will slowly but surely either create a new Republican party (go read GOPLifer https:/goplifer.com to see what a sane Republican wants to do with the party) or join right-wing Democrats.
It is at this point that the new supermajority (think the FDR-1980s Democratic party) center-center-right party becomes the new “conservative” party, devoid of regressive lunatics, and the liberal, left-wing people can move left and create their own party.
In other words, before the liberal US political party resembles Bernie Sanders, the conservative US political party needs to resemble Hillary Clinton.
You know, this searching for evidence that the Democratic Party is unredeemably horrible leads to positions being taken and things being said which do not reflect what is actually happening. Here:
“Business interests are a better fit with the Democratic Party.”
People have to be willfully blind to claim this. The international business community is viciously opposed to any of the many pro-worker policies which have been forwarded entirely by Democrats. Look at the way the most important business interests have responded to the $15 minimum wage passed in California and New York, passed by Democratic Governors. Look at the way they responded to the ACA, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and Dodd-Frank, all passed by a Democratic Congress and President.
These and many, many, many, many, many other policies have enraged the larger business community and placed them even more foursquare in opposition to the Democratic Party and its candidates. Even as some of them clean the lint out of their pockets to send money the Democrats’ way on occasion, their collective spending on behalf of Republicans is absurdly superior.
Look at the way they have been taking maximalist positions to wipe Labor Unions off the face of the Earth, using only Republican Party leaders as their avenue to pursue these ultra-aggressive policies to even more thoroughly destroy the market leverage of their workers and to defund Labor and the Democratic Party.
Look at the way they have used GOP leaders to eviscerate business taxes and regulations, to the ruin of their State budgets and programs, all while those States’ economies have been undermined and the business community has brazenly joined with Governors Walker, Kasich, Brownback and others to paper over these facts.
This, also, too:
“There’s no room for an even quasi-principled conservative opposition to a party which coopts so many quasi-principled conservative principles.”
This President and these Democratic Congressional Caucuses are by far the most left/progressive/liberal since 1968, and they have managed to keep us out of the disastrous major military engagement that the Johnson Administration dragged us into. The current President and Democratic Congressional Caucuses are free of the explicit, horrible racism that tainted FDR’s policies.
We might concede that Franklin’s Administration was forced to accept explicitly racist policy implementations because of the need to keep the Dixiecrats in his governing coalition, and because of the U.S. culture at the time, but a fair reading also requires us to note that Roosevelt did not attempt to alter his racist culture and Congress.
RE: “Business interests are a better fit with the Democratic Party.”
Centerfield, in denying this, you’re talking the common wisdom. And sure, the Republicans are way worse. But here’s the point: the business interests are a better fit right now in the sense that the GOP, their own Frankenstein’s monster, is currently out of control. The Democratic Party become the lesser of two evils for them. Hillary will make sure that it’s manageable.
She is definitely somebody they can deal with. The fact that she’s not a social conservative is of no concern to Wall Street or the MIC or any interests (domestic or foreign) that gain unprecedented access to US politics through the Clintons’ pay-to-play system.
This whole RWNJ contingent has been developed since the late 1970s, under the management of the GOP, as weaponized stupid for the benefit of the Big $$$. It had a great run, but they ran it into the ground. Now, pissed off at too many unfulfilled promises, it’s taken on a mind of its own. Once a big advantage, it’s now nothing but a major pain in the ass.
Do the Republicans have their own pay-to-play system? Of course they do. But they don’t have a workable political party. And, in the end, all money is green.
If the Democratic Party were the preferable of two evils to business interests, ALEC would have invited Democratic Congressmembers, Legislators and Governors to participate in their “laboratories of democracy” meetings and shock-and-awe attacks on working people. They did not, and are not.
Nor does the business community support your claim by donating chiefly to Democrats. They do not. Republicans receive campaign donations and many other forms of support (cough media cough thinktanks) in massive multiples greater than even the most business-friendly Democrats, save the spare Congressional or Legislative District where a Republican cannot win.
If Hillary were the preferable POTUS candidate for business interests, she and the Democratic Congressional Caucusmembers she will need to implement her agenda would receive the majority of campaign contributions and support from the Mighty Wurlitzer which was created to serve big business interests. You and I know that the prospect of Hillary and her Party gaining these types of support is laughable. She and her Caucuses are going to be campaigned against as Marxists, incredible piles of money being used to level those attacks. Do you see Clinton getting a break on Fox News between now and November? Come, now.
What you and others appear to be doing is taking the intransigence of TEA Party Legislators and making the case that the business community would be smarter to abandon the Republican Party as their vehicle. This is a fantastical supposition which has not been met by the real-life actions of the larger business community.
I agree with your premise, that the Crazee Freedumb Caucus is getting in the way of some of the interests of big business. So, has there been a single member of the Crazy Caucus who Big Business has taken out by supporting a Democratic Party candidate to defeat them in their re-elections? No?
Well, what are we to make of that?
Hedging their bets. After all, it’s only money, something they have plenty of. And the sun will shine again some day.
You’re right, they DO prefer the Republican Party. But hey, it’s tough to be a Republican these days.
The business community has made it extremely easy to be a Republican in two dozen States. They’re way overplaying their hands with their maximalist ALEC agenda and will eventually face a backlash, but Big Business has helped them hold these State lines so far.
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of the national party. Would you agree they are presently in disarray?
Thankfully, yes.
Obviously there is a hard core of insane rightwing business interests. But do you deny that the stock market does far better under Democrats? Do you deny that regulation actually benefits business? Do you deny that Democrats are better for small business? Do you deny that Democrats have largely abandoned unions? Do you deny that many, many, many Democrats are funded by the business community?
You think those donations are because sweetness? Talk about willfully blind. And I’m not talking about rageshows, I’m saying that as a matter of fact, the Democratic Party is better for business interests … as long as they keep us cowed, which they’ve done extremely well. Your post proves that. You believe, as does most of the party, that the ACA is a leftist victory that business hates, modeled on the revolutionary platform of Mitt ‘Vladimir’ Romney.
Of course the ‘business community’ performs rage! They understand, unlike many Democrats, that what you say matters, and that expression opposition matters, and that planting a flag and waving a banner matters. (Granted, it works better for them, because they can express that really clearly in the media they own.) The Democratic Party is worlds better for business interests’ long-term prospects than the Republican Party. There’s no comparison. Sure, some % of them are ragemonkeys and greedheads who only care about the short term. But the ones who aren’t understand perfectly well that the only threat is a truly left-wing Democratic Party. So they shriek about anything that even looks in that direction. What else would they do?
I fight with my wife sometimes. That doesn’t mean that we’re not 100% on the same team.
“This President and these Democratic Congressional Caucuses are by far the most left/progressive/liberal since 1968.”
I completely agree. That’s a terrifying indictment of the Democratic Party, isn’t it? Our leftmost President and caucuses can’t even talk about implementing something as basic as the NHS.
You’re absolutely right about the Democratic Party, but then we’re left wondering why the GOP is known as the party of big business and why big business favors the GOP.
I think the seeming paradox is solved when you realize that “business interests” are not the same thing as “the economy”. Especially in these times, when banking, finance and to a large extent the MIC are parasitic off the general economy; when both capital and jobs fly to foreign shores; where investment in domestic infrastructure continues to dwindle.
Well, we have one of our movement’s biggest problems here, well stated.
The same person who stipulates that we are enjoying the most liberal President and Democratic Congressional Caucuses in a half-century uses that fact to attack the Democratic Party. I, in turn, stipulate that there are millions and millions of Americans who share this view.
I really, really hope someone who is taking sides in this discussion thread can understand the problem with this.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not the Democratic Party.
I agree, again. To you, it’s impossible to accept that maybe the most liberal President and caucuses since 1968–including all of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter!–is not nearly liberal enough. Europe would blow your mind.
Crowing that we’re better than we were decades ago isn’t maybe as convincing as you think. The Pontiac GTO was a great car for 1968, but I’m not hugely proud that my beater Taurus is far superior.
OK, now I’ll assert it: the cause of your complaints is not the Democratic Party, and calling the most liberal Party in our lifetimes a monstrous corporate sellout is openly damaging to our ability to win in the future. It encourages Americans to disengage and not get educated and not vote, because Both Parties Are The Same. The sentiments you forward here are forwarded by millions who should know better but are embittered, embitterments which cause them to get more Americans to believe this debilitating lie, a lie which the monied interests you despise are happy to gain your assistance in Getting Out There.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2016/01/thats-your-job-professional-democrats.html
I know a Republican who believes that the reason blacks and single white women don’t vote Republican is because they’re embittered and misinformed. It’s definitely not that they object to any policies, bless their hearts. Whatever the problem is, it’s not the Republican Party!
But you and I can agree on two things. First, that both parties are not the same, not even close. And, second, that if millions of American believe the debilitating lie that they are the same, it is absolutely not the responsibility of the Democratic Party–with hundreds of millions of dollars, organizations in every states, the oval office, etc.–to correct that misperception. They are the real victims here, and blameless.
Payday lenders.
Let me make it even more personal. I assume you and others here who talk down the Party, Obama, Clinton and others speak with many people. If you are out there trying to lie to those you speak with and claim that the Democratic Party is, to use your example, the party that is working to allow payday lenders to run wild, then you are assisting in perpetrating the lie that Both Parties Are The Same.
Yes, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is doing her horrible advocacy on this issue. Are Hillary, Bernie, the Party or the Congressional Caucuses supporting her? Isn’t DWS’ actions here, in fact, a big damn scandal within the Party and Movement?
An honest reporting of what is actually happening would include that. There are many people within our movement who are dishonest. They, apparently in this case you, are doing the corporate media’s work to catapult the propaganda that Both Parties Are The Same.
The Democrats were solely responsible for passing and signing Dodd-Frank into law. The CPFB was created by that Law, and the CPFB is holding the payday lending industry to higher standards than they had been held to before. That is why their industry is desperately asking DWS to help them out.
Debbie has heavily damaged her credibility and power by agreeing to try to help them, but our ability to hold the Senate Dem caucus together to prevent these changes to the CPFB’s powers remains strong.
So, are you so embittered by the Democratic Party’s challenges, flaws and lack of purity that you want to actively and intentionally hurt the public’s understanding on important issues, or do you want to help?
Oh, and this from Steggles:
“Do you deny that Democrats have largely abandoned unions?”
Oh yes I do. Look at what was just accomplished in California and New York. Two relatively fiscally conservative Democratic Governors, hated by the broader progressive community, parts of said progressive community having excoriated Labor for supporting them in their re-election bids, led the negotiations of State $15 Minimum Wage laws with COLAs and mandated sick/family leave time.
Look at what the NLRB is doing during the Obama Administration. Big things which are heading us toward big improvements in income and working conditions.
Look at what the Democrats in the State Legislatures are doing when ALEC runs its sneak attacks. No abandonments of Labor by the Democratic Caucuses there.
Yes, EFCA, dead because of a half-dozen Democratic Senators who were sacks of shit in ’09-’10, almost all of whom are gone now. Yes, Emanuel and Duncan are unwelcome, and are now gone from the Adminstration and their power is greatly diminished. But the broad record of the Party remains solid.
Is Jerry Brown hated? I thought we liked him.
You seem to think that showing that we’ve done good things proves that we’re doing a super-awesome job. And we have done good things. Yay, us! We’re much, much better than them! We truly are.
But it’s not enough. And how do we make progress when we’re so busy patting ourselves on the back, when we’re so content with our little victories? You want to compare us to the US in 1970? That’s fucking weird. I want to compare us to the UK– under the Conservative Party, even, in 2016. Or Canada, they’re close at hand. How about France or Germany? Sounds like you’ve got a specialized case of Just World Thinking.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-years-of-shrinking-union-membership-in-one
-map
But we’ve done a great job, and couldn’t have done better, we’re blameless and everyone gets what they deserve.
We’re “patting ourselves on the back”? Hell, what I’m getting here from many commenters is that no Democratic Party hands are avaliable for back-patting, given that they’re eternally filled with nothing but filthy lucre.
Here, enjoy the 1956 Republican Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838
“Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.
Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.
We applaud the effective, unhindered, collective bargaining which brought an early end to the 1956 steel strike, in contrast to the six months’ upheaval, Presidential seizure of the steel industry and ultimate Supreme Court intervention under the last Democrat Administration.
The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:
Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;
Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;
Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;
Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;
Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;
Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;
Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;
Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;
Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;
Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations.”
Now, is this reporting of the history self-serving and distorted, particularly Ike’s proposed Taft-Hartley amendments? Sure; it’s their advertisement to get people to like Ike and the GOP. But when you consider which Party has moved on the Labor question, and how much, please consider this and other histories.
Oh, yes, and plenty of the left in California dislike Governor Brown. Labor’s not in love with him, at all. Many people and organizations trying to gain government services and other help for the many poor residents of the State dislike him even more.
But, in the end, Jerry’s a pragmatist, and is willing to deal. Governor Schwarzennegger would have taken the $15 minimum wage fight all the way to the ballot, and we would have smashed him, leaving State government with no control of the policy.
But that was our Ahhnald; he was stupid that way.
Post-crash austerity policies in the UK have been much, much, much more severe than those in the U.S., causing both government services and the economy to suffer severely. Hey, look at this, near-recessionary growth rates in 2015, five times worse that the U.S.:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/28/uk-gdp-growth-rises-05-as-annual-rate-slows-to-three
-year-low
The same is true of almost all the other European nations; many of them have double-digit unemployment rates. You really want us to envy their governmental policies right now?
“Will we come apart at the seams, too?”
First, we need to kill the Republican party as a national party. Do that, and the sane Republicans join with right-wing Democrats.
Then the left can move left and create their own left-wing, opposition party.
The left is typically always the opposition party to a center-right party.
So, let’s hope so, because it means that lunatic Republicans are simply a regional thing, and the whole “two steps forward, 1 step back” shuffle of the past 40 years is about over.
The US won’t look like Norway anytime soon, but at least we can start moving it away from resembling Oklahoma and Texas.
I’m a new commenter, and I think that Martin’s analysis of current events is, by far, the best that I’ve been able to find.
However, I think he’s wrong about the comparative stability of 3-legged stools vs. 4-legged stools.
Geometry and Physics say he’s right. Whether the metaphor is apt is a different question.
Is that true? I thought that a triangular base was more geometrically sturdy than a square one. Granted, I’m going back to 7th grade for my memory …
I think your recollection is correct. A three legged stool is more stable than a four legged stool, so I would think it to be inherently stronger. With four legs you always run the risk of having three of the four on the ground and one off the ground. Ergo, it rocks. With three legs all of them will always stay in contact with the ground and it will not rock. It might be level, but it will be stable.
Aaaargh….”It might NOT be level, but it will be stable”.
Preview is my friend.
Been there myself, Brother…LOL.
Degrees-of-freedom problem.
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53267.html
“A three legged stool is more stable than a four legged stool”
That’s what we both said.
I agree with you about both.
A long time ago we proved the 3 legged stool superior stability over 4 legged stool in engineering school (the proof of which I now forget).
Martin’s analysis has made this my favorite site.
BUWAHAHAHA
You mean the majority that sacrificed homeowners on the altar of the banks and only got a republican healthcare plan passed because of a procedural trick?
If it was a Republican healthcare plan, why did it get literally zero Republican votes? Was it a Republican plan to expand Medicaid eligibility so that tens of millions of Americans could gain health insurance?
Perhaps you are wrong.
Because republicans dont vote for anything.
Its Romneycare and it favors private insurance and the market so maybe a conservative plan? I could call it that. Regardless it is the least effective farthest right version of improving healthcare. It DID improve it, but its improving a system best described as a black hole to hell.
So I’m not wrong.
Repeal the ACA!
…and replace ut with medicare for all, yes please!
Centerfielddj, surely you see the logic of comments such as MNPundit’s. He employs a methodology that people in the sciences refer to sardonically as “answer analysis”. This means one starts with the desired answer and works backwards to find a way to arrive at that answer. For example, in the present case, the desired answer is a denunciation of Obama, and the way to get there is to work backwards to a statement about how the Affordable Care Act was a right wing sellout.
I’ve learned that the ahistorical Haterade Crew will not be persuaded. Just doing my part to prevent lurkers and other Frog Pond denisens from joining their Crew.
Keep it up, you’re a voice of reason around here.
I believe we number about 8-9.
This primary will be over soon, thank goodness. The choices will be clarified then, and all these disagreements will be placed in perspective.
I was denouncing Obamacare before denouncing Obamacare was cool.
“The bottom line is that the financial elite are reconciled to a Clinton presidency and they’re planning for it. They’d prefer to vote for Ronald Reagan, but the best candidate on offer is Hillary. …. The business sector is Ready for Hillary. The neoconservatives and realists of the Republican Party are ready to bolt to her.”
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself — and that is exactly why we all need to get behind Bernie Sanders.
If my neighbor, a 2nd Amendment absolutist, announced that he intends to vote for Sanders in the Oregon primary, would I be then obliged to ditch Sanders? Cuz that sure seems to be the logic of a lot of commenters here.
I hear tell Sanders is a militia-loving mass murderer. So yeah. (LOL)
Yeah, that’s hilarious, but answer my question, please. The logic of many remarks here is this: If someone I dislike wants to be a Democrat, then the Democrats suck, and I have to denounce them. Now, I don’t dislike my neighbor at all, but he is a gun nut. So if he decides to vote for Sanders, it must mean that Sanders sucks.
No, that is wrong, it’s a false inference; it’s what’s called an “association fallacy”, a type of false generalization. If somebody is one thing, they are stereotypically that and can’t be anything else. In reality, no one is just one thing, let alone the stereotype of that thing, everyone is a complex bundle. and not everything has to be set in stone either.
It may be that that one thing is something you dislike so much, that you don’t want to have anything to do with the person. But in this case we are only discussing a vote, you don’t really have to have anything to do with that person. A vote for Sanders is a vote for Sanders.
You might say, well if a guy like that wants to vote for Sanders … but what does “like that” mean exactly? Everyone is a bundle of different traits and qualities.
Let me give an example. Let’s say the guy is a gun nut (whatever exactly that means), and was planning to vote for Cruz. Then he heard Bernie give a talk and he thought he made sense. After all, he hasn’t had a decent job for several years, Bernie has just given him some understanding of (a) why that is and (b) what can be done about it. So he decides he kind of likes Bernie, even though he’s never voted for a Democrat before. It’s a little easier because Bernie, despite the fact that he has a D- “report card” from the NRA, is not totally negative about gun ownership.
So basically what you have here is a new Bernie voter.
If you look at life as a litmus test where you only talk to people who agree with you on a full list of items you need to check off, you are living in a hothouse environment. But the criterion here is not even “talking to” — it’s just voting for the same candidate.
So what it essentially is another kind of association fallacy. If “a guy like that” is voting for Bernie, then there must be something about Bernie that’s attracting him to do it. But the truth is, he is probably voting for Bernie for more or less the reasons Bernie is offering people to vote for him — and you are also one of those people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Here’s a cool page on the association fallacy:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/logic_101_the_fallacy_of_guilt_by_association/
And another:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
At the federal agency I work for, a bureaucratic directive came down a few years ago to get rid of four-legged swivel chairs and replace them with allegedly safer five-legged ones. I resisted because I liked my old four-legged chair, which fit my body. The response of the head administrator at my workplace was to send a gofer to get my chair very early one morning, before I had arrived, and throw it in the dumpster. Really. I am not making this up!
Did you go dig it out and take it home? I would have seriously considered it.
I think what you’re trying to do is build a case for how to save the hide of neo-liberalism. Of course the Republicans are `Ready for Hillary’ once they lost Jeb (!), the Republican establishment that is. Once again you forgot about the people. They hate Hillary more than they hate Obama.
The social conservative haters will always be with us. That is the only part of the stool that remains strong; they will simply never go away. The Empire stool leg will remain strong because they love the idea of kicking some Brown ass, same as in the 1930s when Russian Jews were blamed for Germany’s economic woes. The Big Money stool leg is getting worried because the Republican base went crazy trying to shut down the government along with other things not in their interests. That media fourth stool leg was more like glue than an actual leg, necessary for holding things together. That glue seems to have dried out to weaken the entire stool because they lost the distraction ability of defining is who to blame. How did that happen?
This reminds me of the criminals in Godfather lamenting the virtues of having a government just 90 miles off the coast that knows how to be Business Friendly. Without neo-liberalism, the Big Money path to increased and continued inequality is blocked. The threat to your stool is the direct challenge to neo-liberalism on both sides of the aisle. Those people you forgot about are rising in open rebellion against neo-liberalism because they finally realize that has been the driving force in the destruction of their very lives.
So where does that leave the stool? Haters are still there. The Empire people still want to kick some Brown ass but now maybe not be quite so willing to pay for it when they realize it might be making their own lives worse. The Big Money has traveled to the only remaining moderate Republicans, the Democratic Establishment led by HRC. The media glue is in trouble because they don’t know what to say. Once the issue becomes neo-liberalism all they see is; stupid people making stupid deals. Where have I heard that? Your Republican stool is in real trouble but what about the Democrats?
The Establishment Democratic stool has similar legs. First and foremost is access to power and money, lots of it, the only real basis of Hillary’s support. The second leg is a war hawk mentality that will continue to fuel worldwide arms sales. The third leg is the one taken from the Republicans, Big Money. Big Money will expect and get everything they paid for as AG says; bet on it! On second thought maybe that whole thing is a one legged stool only about Money.
How is that working out for them? Same as the Republicans, all that might have worked out just fine if a real challenge to neo-liberalism had not appeared. They forgot about that same critical thing; the people. They never expected to see such a wide spread reaction of open rebellion.
The first leg of access to money and power has exposed the Clinton Machine’s ugly practice of laundering money and using it to bribe Democrats for support. This is not going down well. If HRC’s war hawk stance was not enough, the exposure of the arms dealers’ relationship to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State is deeply disturbing. The final leg of Big Money is the worst of all because it exposes the reality that the Democratic Establishment has shifted away from being the Party of the People to become the Party of Big Money. It’s like all three legs got sawed off before anyone could take a seat.
The corporate media the Democratic Establishment is counting on is the most interesting of all. Hillary’s new strategy of discrediting Bernie has backfired. Bernie described the latest attack as:
“The Washington Post had a headline that said ‘Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president.’ That was what was thrown at me…I believe the Clinton campaign told CNN that their strategy is; we go into New York and Pennsylvania. Disqualify him, defeat him and unify the party later.”
This was clearly a case where the Hillary shill, the Washington Post, went too far. Bernie answered that attack by questioning her qualifications to be president in a major rally, doing so in a typical Bernie fashion of not attacking her personally but attacking the things she has done. The crowd went wild mostly because Bernie finally demonstrated he could fight back. This could be the sound of glue drying out because if he says she’s not qualified for office now, how can Bernie endorse her if she does manage to get the nomination?
We should all buy stock in sawdust companies.
It is an arguement for the Democratic Party’s future.
Aim for real structural change or take 1/4 loaf when its offered. Idealism vs. pragmatism.
I don’t think its time to make that decision yet.
Even if HRC has coat tails and brings in majorities in one or both houses of Congress, many of those new members will be from regions that abhor the Clintons and could not last the next elections if tied too closely too them. Only by advocating the systematic change everyone in the contry sees is needed could such a Congress be insulated from GOP retaliation.
We were taught years ago that Wall Street existed as a tool to efficently direct capital for US industry’s growth and innovation. Does anyone think they fulfill that role effectively now? Has it done so for decades?
Instead of Wall Street existing for the US, it seems the US exists for Wall Street.
If you agree, even partially, with that proposistion, then who is the most likely President to address (what I feel) is the most critical issue facing the nation in this election? As was noted in Booman’s original post, her campaign financing is largely from financial industry types. You don’t get to become a 100 Mill$ CEO or hedge fund manager by paying for services not rendered. As a small business owner, I sure as hell don’t.
So before we all bow before the inevitable, its worth our time as Citizens and Democrats to ask, “Just what are those people expecting for their money?” Until that is believably answered, then the alternative candidate is worth listening too.
R
The alternative candidate being the Republican candidate, if and when HRC wins the nomination.
Are you going to vote for Trump, Cruz, or Ryan, because clearly HRC is bought and paid for, and will deliver all of America to Wall St. criminals?
Over and over and over I’m told that I have to choose between Sanders or HRC, real progressive change, or Republican-lite pseudo-change.
Yet, Sanders isn’t winning the delegate count. He has a very, very difficult uphill battle just to tie HRC.
How is shitting on HRC every chance I get going to advance progressive causes?
I’ll wait here.
The Democratic nominee is named at the Convention, not in the newspaper or Nate Silver being interviewed on MSNBC. If I think that one candidat addresses important issues better than the other, its my right and responsiblity to listen and consider his views.
Booman said in an aside that the money types would rather vote for Reagan, but would settle for Hillary. Why settle? Except for the End Times, astrology and Alsheimerzs, they are voting for someone whose views are prettly close to Reagan’s in foreign policy and Wall Street Reform. They are insulated from everything else by their money.
R
You can listen as long and as hard as your ears allow you to. If and when Sanders gets the nomination, great.
Until then, here in observable reality, HRC has the lead in pledged delegates and super delegates. Without Sanders somehow winning super-ultra-mega majorities for the rest of the primary season, HRC is going to walk into the Democratic convention a candidate and walk out as the nominee.
Be sure to listen to her Republican opponents.
I mean, why settle, right? If it’s HRC v. Cruz, you might as well vote Cruz and get the real deal, rather than some panderer like HRC.
Gee thanks for letting me listen and consider on my own, its might big of you.
Anyway, what I want to listen to from a Democratic Presidential candidate’s is why her comments, knowledge and expertise gained on the US taxpayer’s dime is worth $1000 a minute to banks and investment houses?
Why does said candidate think that hugely wealthy Wall Street investors consider her to be a superior President than a Republican one, since they all advocate huge tax cuts? Does she think they are in the habit of paying for services that won’t be rendered?
Why did she think Saddam was a threat to her NY consituents and the US at large when 1 yr earlier her predecessor, Sec of State Powell, said Saddam was contained and no threat to anyone?
Good anwers these questions would be welcome by every Democrat, no matter who they support.
R
I agree that Senator Clinton’s vote for the AUMF was a mistake. So does she. But this is very misleading:
“Why did she think Saddam was a threat to her NY consituents and the US at large when 1 yr earlier her predecessor, Sec of State Powell, said Saddam was contained and no threat to anyone?”
When you bring Colin Powell into the argument, you owe us a reporting of that whole damn story. Powell said what he said re. containment of Saddam Hussein before 9/11, and before President Cheney and Co. started with their mischief in Foggy Bottom and elsewhere, and before Powell began assisting the march to war.
What was Colin Powell doing in advance of the AUMF vote, do tell? Lobbying Congress to let them know that Hussein was still contained?
Colin Powell to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003, nearly four months after the AUMF vote:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa
Give us a break, would you.