In the aftermath on the housing crisis that led to the Great Recession, Bruce Springsteen wrote a song about it called Death to My Hometown. Here are some of the lyrics:
I awoke on a quiet night, I never heard a sound
The marauders raided in the dark
And brought death to my hometown
They brought death to my hometownThey destroyed our families, factories
And they took our homes
They left our bodies on the plains
The vultures picked our bonesSo, listen up my sonny boy, be ready when they come
For they’ll be returning sure as the rising sun
Now get yourself a song to sing
And sing it ’til you’re done
Sing it hard and sing it well
Send the robber barons straight to hell
The greedy thieves who came around
And ate the flesh of everything they found
Whose crimes have gone unpunished now
Who walk the streets as free men nowThey brought death to our hometown, boys
Death to our hometown
It’s a stirring protest song set to Celtic marching music. And it identified the correct culprits. There’s not a word in there about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving mortgages to underserving blacks or homeowners getting unwarranted debt relief from dishonest brokers.
A real populist uprising might have gone after the greedy thieves whose crimes went unpunished instead of elevating a reality-show fraudster with narcissistic personality disorder and dozens of petty scores to settle.
But Trump at least gave the middle finger to an establishment that enabled the housing crisis and looked the other way as families and factories were destroyed over the last several decades.
Even this isn’t good enough to prevent the the return of the robber barons, though. Not when former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin is going to be Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury and Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn is in line to be his director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Let’s go into the Wayback Machine:
In late 2007, as the mortgage crisis gained momentum and many banks were suffering losses, Goldman Sachs executives traded e-mail messages saying that they would make “some serious money” betting against the housing markets.
The messages, released Saturday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, appear to contradict statements by Goldman that left the impression that the firm lost money on mortgage-related investments.
In the messages, Lloyd C. Blankfein, the bank’s chief executive, acknowledged in November 2007 that the firm had lost money initially. But it later recovered by making negative bets, known as short positions, to profit as housing prices plummeted. “Of course we didn’t dodge the mortgage mess,” he wrote. “We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts.”
He added, “It’s not over, so who knows how it will turn out ultimately.”
In another message, dated July 25, 2007, David A. Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, reacted to figures that said the company had made a $51 million profit from bets that housing securities would drop in value. “Tells you what might be happening to people who don’t have the big short,” he wrote to Gary D. Cohn, now Goldman’s president.
Sound like vultures to me.
And what about Mnuchin?
Critics have raised many questions about Mnuchin’s financial dealings, from a lawsuit over pocketing profits in the Bernie Madoff case to his suspiciously quiet exit from the Hollywood production company Relativity Media just before it took huge losses and filed for bankruptcy. Just his association with “vampire squid” Goldman Sachs has motivated some anger. But another part of Mnuchin’s history is more relevant: his chairmanship of OneWest Bank, a major cog in America’s relentless foreclosure machine.
Even among the many bad actors in the national foreclosure crisis, OneWest stood out. It routinely jumped to foreclosure rather than pursue options to keep borrowers in their homes; used fabricated and “robo-signed” documents to secure the evictions; and had a particular talent for dispossessing the homes of senior citizens and people of color.
Sounds like he “ate the flesh of everything he found.”
I’m trying to work my way through what’s happened to our politics and our country, and that will come at its own pace. But I can’t get over how badly our country’s elites misjudged the fury they created, nor how stupid that furious reaction has been.
Electing Trump as the solution for this is dumber than starting a land war in Asia. It’s just deplorable.
Did he misread the “culture”?
Krugman….Obama on Nationalization:
But his two main arguments aren’t actually very good. Yes, we have thousands of banks — but the problems are concentrated in a handful of big players. In fact, the Geithner plan, such as it is, already acknowledges this: the “stress test” is to be applied only to banks with assets over $100 billion, of which there are supposed to be around 14.
And the argument that our culture won’t stand for nationalization — well, our culture isn’t too friendly towards bank bailouts of any kind. Yet those bailouts are necessary; and even in America they may be more palatable if taxpayers at least get to throw the bums out.
Oh, and not a week goes by without the FDIC taking several smaller banks into receivership. Nationalization is actually as American as apple pie.
And now a Party on the left
is now parting on the right…
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss.
Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson
Chair, NY Fed, An Obama appointment
William Dudley
Deputy national security advisor,
Al Froman
Hell, Elaine Kagan had Goldman connections.
And of course Clinton’s son-in-law was a GS guy.
I don’t mean to pick on Goldman Sachs in particular. Or even Finance in particular.
These gentlemen were housing vultures though.
I made my living being a Wall Street lawyer for a long time. When I lived in Florida all my clients were on the Street. Hell, I was part of the deal teams for the first CDO’s issued by Morgan Stanley.
People on the street talk about fucking people. The language is crude and meant to convey the simple truth.
Wall Street fucks people. It’s why it exists.
Make no mistake – it has a function. But these people should never be entrusted with the public trust.
And the idea that picking on them is unfair strikes me as just, well…
Let me put it this way: they are proud they fuck everyone else. They like being picked on the way lawyers LOVE lawyer jokes.
They deserved to be picked on. And more.
Trump is going to “shake things up”
Trump is going to “drain the swamp”
Trump is going to “be disruptive”
Voting for Trump is voting against the elites and the intrenched establishment
Trump will not be “business as usual”
Trump will surround himself “with the best people”
Trump will choose different people to be on his cabinet
Trump won’t consult with or appoint lobbyists
Trump is different
Which one of the above is true?
IS true. Is that what you intended? Cuz my inclination is to respond, “none”.
Jon Swartz: “From July, just four months ago”:
Yair Rosenberg:
What happens after the alt-right heads explode?
Not just housing, but ripping off the communities in general…
“The defendants in the case – Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm – worked for GE Capital, the finance arm of General Electric. Along with virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall Street – not just GE, but J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Wachovia and more – these three Wall Street wiseguys spent the past decade taking part in a breathtakingly broad scheme to skim billions of dollars from the coffers of cities and small towns across America. The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion.
The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia
And Democrat’s response was to move heaven and earth to put forth a mediocore campaigner who was the epitomee of insider.
And yet the amount of change in democraric leadership has been zero.
The one good thing is that we can run on a Trump is more of the same and maybe the farmers will stay home in discouragement.
What shit.
The DNC’s about to get a new Chair; the first Congressmember who endorsed Bernie’s POTUS campaign is a prominent candidate. Maybe Democrats here should busy their asses calling DNC delegates and telling them who they want put up as the Chair.
There’s a new Dem Caucus leader in the Senate. Another guy who should be receiving calls and other organizing efforts to influence his leadership choices and legislative and rhetorical priorities.
There’s also opportunities to install new Party leadership at the County and State level as well. Many State and County Parties are holding leadership elections this winter. Time to run for leadership positions, Frog Ponders. Organize your votes.
Trump’s assembling a wrecking crew. Let’s identify the real enemy. Hint: the House Leader who consistently does a superb job organizing votes in her Caucus is not the problem here, not by a long motherfucking shot.
So sick of the shitty rhetoric and unproductive carping. DO SOMETHING.
LOL!! Pelosi was re-elected as the Democratic leader in the House. Six years of failure and this is what we get? And Schumer is the Minority Leader in the Senate. He’s more of the same too. Don’t forget how much campaign cash Trump has given to Schumer over the years. I’m sure Trumpy won’t forget to mention it. We’ll see who gets elected DNC chair. I hope it’s Ellison but I’m not holding my breath.
You have agency. You have responsibility. Take them on.
Pelosi’s challenger was unworthy. What’s the point of replacing her with somebody worse?
Change. Disruption. Fresh blood.
All good in themselves.
And the challenger was male.
Why should the Trumpsters have all the fun?
Why?
Not Pelosi’s fault. She’s done a good job under very difficult conditions.
Alex Shephard in TNR:
“The last four elections have not been kind to Democrats in the House (and that’s putting it mildly), but it’s hard to blame Pelosi, who is widely beloved in the lower chamber. Ryan, a former Pelosi mentee, praised her throughout his brief campaign.
“Furthermore, the argument against Pelosi was mostly geographic. A San Francisco liberal, she is certainly removed from the Midwestern counties that Clinton lost in historic fashion. Ryan, in contrast, represents Ohio’s 13th District. But she is an opponent of Wall Street who voted against the Iraq War.”
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139087/even-though-failed-tim-ryans-bid-house-democratic-leadership-
applauded
Nevertheless, Shephard goes on to praise Ryan’s bid. I think Pelosi will value his help and advice.
Not Pelosi’s fault.
Except it is her fault. She chooses who runs the DCCC. And that has been a complete disaster, as anyone who knows anything about it can tell you. Boo can tell you about the disaster that is his district and how Democrats screw it, and the rest of the Philly burbs up for starters.
It seems to be a little more nuanced. While there’s widespread agreement that the structure of the DCCC has been too centralized, Pelosi’s not getting major blame for it. It’s more like critics just want to change the system.
For example, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy thinks the whole DCCC should be fired, but also “hopes Pelosi keeps her leadership role.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/29/kevin-mccarthy-is-rooting-for-nancy-pelosi-to-stay-house-minority-
leader/
Ryan and his supporters think the chair of the DCCC should be elected rather than appointed, and Pelosi has already agreed to that. She also supports the creation of five regional chairmen.
Lujan is the present chair — he was appointed, but many say that if there was an election, he would still win.
So the DCCC is definitely being restructured, and Pelosi supports that.
A lot of people think the problem is with the staff being picked by Pelosi — they want that to change, but they still like her as leader.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/dccc-pelosi-decentralized-power
Here’s the story, centerfield.
The Democratic voters who would have voted for anyone who was not a product of the totally crooked, totally fixed DNC machine this time around reached Peak Belief when Obama was elected the first time. Like Peak Oil, after the top of the graph there will be diminishing returns unless something really good happens on a truly large scale…electric cars, solar power, etc. for Peak Oil.
Nothing really good happened for the Peak Believers, but a lot of bad shit happened. Riots in the streets, terrorist attacks, random gun-nut slaughters and so on. Also money got tighter and tighter for most Americans. Even though he hadn’t been successful, the voters remaining after diminishing returns eliminated the smartest of them voted for Obama a second time. Hope springs eternal in some people’s beings, plus he ran against a total stiff.
Four years later?
Things are even worse.
And the rotted out shell of what is left of FDR’s Democratic Party do? It tried to foist a two-faced hustler on its voters. Even some of the dumbest of the Dem dummies began to realize that they had been had. Many of them were dumb enough…and angry enough…to vote for Trump.
DUH!!!
Do you think for even a minute that those voters who stayed home and those that voted for Trump…dumb as they may be…are going to immediately trust the DNC even if it does manage to reform itself?
I don’t.
Not for years!!!
Maybe in 2020, if Trump’s reign is the total farce it is shaping up to be and the DNC runs someone like Elizabeth Warren.
Maybe!!!
Until then?
Trump will have free rein unless he crosses the Deep State controllers so hard that they are forced to take him down. And even then there’s always Pence…
I’ll believe a little bit if Keth Ellison becomes DNC char, but he’ll have to prove he means business…and quickly…before I’ll waste my time trying to reorganize a stratified, stultified party from the bottom. If the top remains even close to as inept, incompetent and unbearably self-entitled as it has proven to be since the Clinton years? Fugeddaboudit!!! May as well just start over again with a new party. At least we won’t have to clean out 30+ years of trash first.
AG
We know, Arthur. You’ve got nothing to offer but words, all the words. No hope, no plan, just your standard disempowerment baloney. You’ve reiterated this over and over again.
Got it.
.
Well, I have a plan. I and a small group of disaffected Democrats are organizing to develop a program at the grass roots level that has the possibility of positive, constructive change. Change that is possible given our limited resources. Some of what we are thinking of has been inspired by what Booman has written, as well as Josh Marshall and several others.
What binds us together is our total disgust with the Democratic Party, and we fear the Democrats are still not going to do anything, even in the face of disaster.
Go read my latest comment on my own article, American Interventionism Finally Comes Home.
It starts with “That second quote of Malcolm’s?”
Read it.
I do have “something to offer.”
You just don’t know how to pick up on it.
You’re too busy defending the busybody centrist bureaucrats who lost an election to a buffoon out of sheer, elitist incompetence.
Centerfield will be the graveyard of America if you have your way.
Bet on it.
AG
Hidden underneath all his bluster and insults in support of his disempowering rhetoric, Arthur offers the policy agenda of the Ron Paul supporter he is. We are forced to confront the well-established fact that he is an avowed enemy of comprehensive progressive policies. He just doesn’t agree with us on a variety of policy issues. It’s damaging to our community conversation to avoid that fact.
If his full-throated support for Ron Paul is not enough to cause us to look at his contributions with a jaundiced eye, his unwillingness to provide anything other than token critique of Trump, the Republicans and the conservative movement while he provides incessant critiques of Democrats and the progressive movement is one of many additional flashing red lights that he is not sincerely seeking the success of our movement. He fundamentally disagrees with our movement and seeks to hurt it.
That’s why he doesn’t offer a persuasive plan to succeed moving forward. He doesn’t even offer his vision for what policy goals we should prioritize. He merely seeks to continue to foment personal animus which divides the movement, because he wants the progressive movement to fail.
You write:
You haven’t a clue, centristfield.
I do not disagree with the strategic aims of the progressive movement…equality across the board for all races, sexes and religions/cultures, may the best candidate for every position win…only the tactical ones. Why? Among other reasons, because they have totally failed to make any real progress over the last 24 or so neoliberal/neocon years.
Every time a subculture is nominated for elevation over the mainstream, we are further separated. It makes no difference whether this kind of tactic is well-meaning or not…it simply has not worked. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.
Ron Paul on race:
I have lived this life, centrist…as a white jazz and latin musician. Successfully, I might add. For 50+ years. Only achievement matters. All the rest is racist/classist/sexist hustle, no matter which races, classes or sexes are..always temporarily…favored.
AG
Thanks.
What are we to make of your support for voter ID laws and your opposition to social welfare programs and civil rights laws?
Make of them what you must.
I am opposed to big government, on the basis that the bigger it has become during my lifetime, the worse the system has worked. There are more ways to skin a sociopolitical cat than your two-dimensional view of the world can handle.
AG
I am opposed to big government, on the basis that the bigger it has become during my lifetime, the worse the system has worked.
This is a conservative movement bromide. Reagan couldn’t have said it better.
Social Security is “big government.”
Medicare and Medicaid are “big government.”
The other Great Society programs are “big government.” Poverty rates in the United States have never returned to the rates that existed previous to 1964.
The dignity and financial rights people have gained from the “big government” civil rights successes are enormous.
The importance of “big government” voting rights and its successes in allowing citizens to participate more fully in our Republic have been crucial. The best proof of this is that the conservative movement has never tired of attempting to take away the ballot box from those they disfavor.
And you join them in doing so. Supporting the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act as you do is morally repellent. This position stands in full-throated opposition to basic progressive values.
Your “basic progressive values” and mine are worlds apart. Your “progressivism” has not worked. It has been coopted by neoliberalists who are dedicated to the position that equality can only come at the expense of prosperity for the many. Maybe they are right…maybe there are simply too many people on the planet; maybe we all have to dumb down to some level of idiocracy and surrender to “progressives” like Hillary Clinton, people who are willing to let the wealthy define what is right and what is wrong. I do not think so, myself.
You attempt to tar anyone who does not lockstep alongside your defeated so-called progressivism with references to Reagan, with accusations of support for anti-minority voting laws. Have you noticed that said “progressivism” just got its ass kicked by the logical extension of its surrender to big business, a lying, cheating, vicious capitalist? Wake the fuck up.
You say:
I say that this entire culture has been eviscerated by big business, and big business owns big government. It owns the Republican Party; it owns the Democratic Party; it owns Congress and it owns the White House no matter which version of the two-headed UniParty temporarily resides there. I say that the medical system to which one is forcibly subjected by Medicare, Medicaid and the whole vast insurance scam is less than worthless, that it is actually harmful and that it supports the ongoing poisoning of the population by bad food and bad drugs. I refuse to be part of that scam.
You think that there are only two choices to be made…classic conservatism or classic progressivism. I say that on plentiful evidence they both suck, and that we need to find other choices. If the Democratic Party cannot shuck its dependence on big money then we should abandon it and start another party.
Your two-dimensional world is a fiction. In fact, it isn’t even two-dimensional. It is one-dimensional.
A flat line.
Death by flatline.
You go walk it.
I refuse.
AG
I’m not accusing Arthur of supporting anti-minority voting laws. He does support anti-minority voting laws.
As Arthur continues his nonstop attacks on Democratic Party leaders, Democrats and progressives into the new year, take note that he will be doing that while failing to offer productive critiques of the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress’ attacks on progressive governance and regulations.
He will be doing that because he does not care to defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, civil rights, voting rights, and the rest of the major progressive movement’s accomplishments. He’s telling you so, right here. The clouds of words he bellows cannot and should not be allowed to obscure that fact.
It’s really very simple, centristfield. I do not support this corporate-owned and operated government no matter which of the two current sham UniParty entities control it, and you do. Your approach will help to bring on the crisis that ends every illness and for that reason…and that reason alone…I have no real quarrel with you.
It would be nice if you could see past your upbringing, but no matter…you’re certainly not alone.
So it goes.
AG
P.S. I do keep trying, so worry not…your AG bashing habit will remain in operation.
After all…everybody needs a hobby.
I gotta say, I really enjoy Armen Donelian’s playing. Guy’s a champ.
An old friend.
AG
Its shit but its not coming from me. Take a step back and absorb that you just used Schumer as someone new. Schumer a guy who couldnt even back the president on a key deal to limit nuclear proliferation.
Yeah, I make no apologies that however she organized her votes the house leader in question has presided over 6 years of failure with the only plan to wait for a demographic victory that is as illusory as the blue wall. That supports a system where being the best person for the job is irrelevant.
As for the local stuff, well I’ve been screaming about the importance of local parties forever and got and am involved locally for just the reasons you say.
I AM DOING SOMETHING BUT I’D LIKE THE NATIONAL DEMS TO STOP KNEECAPPING ME.
I hear you. In the wake of a catastrophic election, frustration grows and you can decide that Party leaders cannot be influenced.
I disagree. It’s our responsibility to influence them in the areas where we find their performance unacceptable, and current circumstance gives us much more leverage to do so.
Congressmember Ryan did not present to me a compelling vision for the Party. I’m not agitated by his loss to Pelosi. I’m glad it was a well-contested election; Nancy needs to be kept uncomfortable. This can help us and other concerned Democrats influence her choice for DCCC Chair and other leadership positions.
What’s your opinion of the DNC Chair election? Who would you like to head the Committee, and what would you like the Chair to do to help you?
How, as someone in MN would you suggest I influence Pelosi for DCCC chair? How much notice does her office take of out-state contacts? I ask honestly.
I favor Ellison but want a vice chair or whatever to go out and do the nuts and bolts liasing with the state parties. To hear them and fight for them and their strategies and opinions in Washington. A sort of field commander to be paired with the chair who is logistical as I see it.
I think splitting of responsibility would reduce the concerns that someone is too busy being an elected official to devote full energy. I would like someone that actually believes in the 50 state strategy and giving support to state parties to use them as laboratories to find what works best in their state. It doesn’t have to be Dean but he has demonstrated results in the past. His replacement by Obama’s pick of Kaine effectively ended the 50 state strategy whether because it wasn’t thought necessary (which I think is wrong) or because Kaine is just simply a bad party builder (which I was told by Virginia democrats).
The problem as I see it in my state and local party is that existing people have been there for a long time and use the rules of procedure to get their way. That’s natural human behavior but it stifles creativity and novelty by the newer members and in fact discourages new member activity since they get ignored or over ruled. Some of this is just age related as older folks tend to be more represented for a variety of reasons. Seniority is a problem everywhere in the democratic party in my experience. I get that this is a long standing liberal principle to not discard people when they get old but I think it is hampering success.
I would like the Chair to do for us is to provide resources to at least pilot project out approaches by younger and newer members in terms of outreach, organization (really would like to move beyond NGPVan and DWS’s nepotism there) and visibility in state parties. Personally I’d like to see a little more advertising of the product and public community events all year round to demonstrate civic concern and associate positive things with the group. Notably I would like outreach and community building in rural areas especially. I know political work goes on all the time but it doesn’t make sense to me to ramp up for a specific goal in an election year and then simply poof out of existence for another. Build a local brand and advertise it.
Particularly if you’re in Party leadership anywhere in the country, you have the right to communicate your views to the official controlling the DSCC appointment, and organize other leaders and rank-and-filers to do so as well. If you’re representing the view of your State and County Party chiefs, your lobbying should have greater impact.
If the State and County Party leaders do not share your views, what is the potential to change your State and local Party leaderships through the ballot box and local elections? In California, a substantial portion of the County Central Committees win their spots through the public ballot box. That can give seats at the table to new blood. There are also appointed seats; elected officials controlling these appointments can be influenced.
With sufficient change in the Central Committee membership, the Chair and other leaders can be overturned. Then, if needed, you’re closer to turning out your State Party leadership if they’re not getting the job done. In California there’s been little thirst for significant changes in Party leaderships this decade, for quite apparent reasons.
But all this takes organizing. It’s not done by merely stating the current leaders are too long in the tooth and must go. I’m certain many Party leaders disagree; you’ll just have to collectively figure out a way to improve their performances or oust them.
Obama did nothing for the homeowner. NOTHING. Not a single thing.
He saved the banks.
But he fucked over homeowner after homeowner.
We were selling our house in 2009, right in the trough (great timing). We had a woman who worked with our realtor who did painting and other tasks to help us prep. She had been dumped by her shit husband, and had to refinance.
But she could not.
Why, they kept losing the paperwork. Time and time again, that darn paperwork, it just vanished like dew in the morning.
I don’t know what happened, but she tried to get help and she never got SHIT.
And that played a whole bunch into the Hillary debacle. Because the FICTION of dems helping the little guy has NEVER been more horribly disgusting than in the housing crisis. Obama had all kinds of wonderful plans, which would help the little guy.
But he never ever ever never actually made them work.
And lots of people lost their houses. Did our friend? I don’t know. But millions of others did.
Obama fucked over the little guy, when he could have helped them. That was a part of Hillary’s loss.
There were thousands of cases of foreclosure fraud, in which banks would do actions which were deliberately designed to put people into inadequate payments, and then they would be forced into foreclosure due to the inadequate payments. ALL of this took place under Obama.
Bush was castigated for failure to enforce, and failure to regulate. Obama did worse. He pretended to help, but actually set up conditions to harm people.
I’ve made that argument. Then Booman will talk about how at the time “reckless homeowners” were the target of the fury rather than the banks.
Sorry. Obama fucked the people over because saving the banks was paramount. The pressure “at the time” was against the bailout too but somehow Obama was able to get the votes needed then. The first vote in September failed.
It’s fallen under the radar. The issue, during 2009-2012 especially, was terrible. It’s a failure of regulation, a failure of oversight, and a failure to respond to the outcry of the wronged homeowner. It is true that some loans were made to those who should not have gotten them (NINJa loans – No Income, no Job). But many were to homeowners who actually responded to administration suggestions to get the rates lowered. They lost their houses.
If it was me, I’d be furiously angry. Losing a house is not like losing a child, but it usually involves a year’s worth of income, and your credit can get hammered. Plus the stress and anxiety for the homeowners is terrible. It sounds like a Kafka novel, really.
this is actually one of Obama’s worst (including most inexplicable) failings.
Inexplicable because as I understand it, this (i.e., HAMP) was one of Obama’s few successes at getting the all-obstruction-all-the-time Congress to actually appropriate funds for something good . . . and then his admin left most of it on the table. Strung homeowners along making more payments (which they were flushing down the toilet without realizing it) long enough for the banksters’ criminal enterprises to stabilize, then they foreclosed on those homeowners anyway.
Cramdown.
Its also the case that some areas really are devasted by chinese trade and a sluggish recovery wasnt enough. And the response that things are better than ever? Or that people should move?
Just a reminder:
1 – The American people voted for Clinton over Trump by a margin that exceeds 2.4 million votes.
2 – Despite the massive disinformation campaign run by the Russian government via Wikileaks.
3 – And despite the intervention by the FBI on the side of the Republican candidate.
Oh, and also:
4 – Despite major voter suppression efforts by GOP in several states.
So what? We don’t actually elect presidents via popular vote. We still have no concrete proof that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks. And who appointed Comey head of the FBI? Also, too, it was no secret that Comey was an idiot Republican yet he was nominated anyway.
Curious factoid…2/3 of all our House reps are from just three states.
Thanks for your question; it’s a good one.
Here’s why I think it matters:
If Democrats/liberals/progressives are a minority of the country and have lost touch with a growing new Republican/conservative/racist/nativist majority, that’s one situation.
If Dems, et al are a majority of the country (and a growing one at that), that’s another situation.
The immediate political reality is the same in both cases: Republicans have near-total control of the federal government, and dominate a majority of state governments.
What goals, strategies and tactics Dems, et al, should adopt, on the other hand are (arguably) different depending on the situation.
Here’s why I think it matters:
If Democrats/liberals/progressives are a minority of the country and have lost touch with a growing new Republican/conservative/racist/nativist majority, that’s one situation.
If Dems, et al are a majority of the country (and a growing one at that), that’s another situation.
The immediate political reality is the same in both cases: Republicans have near-total control of the federal government, and dominate a majority of state governments.
We aren’t the minority of the population, see the popular vote. OTOH, because of gerrymandering and other things(like 2 Senators per state no matter the size) we are at a disadvantage that very few seem to want to address. Whether that is instituting a 50 state strategy(like Howard Dean 10 or so years ago) or something else is up for debate. But something needs to change.
There kinda was a populist revolt….Occupy. Promptly put down with significant prejudice by Democratic mayors, no?
But I think it had its influence…
Well, TEA Party supporters figured out ways to successfully organize and gain more than their share of policy wins. So don’t tell me it can’t be done.
Electoral politics is an irreplaceable part of a successful movement. It was a big damn mistake for portions of the Occupy movement to disdain elections and voting. I pray they learn from their outcomes.
They were raised on a steady diet of ‘Don’t vote, it just encourages them’ and ‘Both sides do it’.
I wouldn’t expect too much. When you reject the ballot, and reject the bullet, you’re basically waiting for a miracle.
I hated OCCUPY for those exact reasons. Thank you for saying it so succinctly.
Tea Partiers did it right.
Please provide any evidence whatsoever that Occupy “disdain[ed] elections and voting” or that we ever adopted “‘Don’t vote, it just encourages them’ and ‘Both sides do it'”.
Absent any such evidence, this is slander, plain and simple.
I say that as one who was active in our local incarnation of Occupy.
I say it as one who’s voted in virtually every election in my adult life (may have missed a school board or bond measure at some point, can’t swear otherwise).
I say it as one vividly aware of the phony “debt crisis” (think Bowles-Simpson) totally preoccupying the Worse-Than-Useless Corporate Media, and hence our national “conversation”, right up to the moment Occupy burst onto the scene with the brilliance of its 1%/99% framing (is there anyone who doesn’t now get what that’s about?), flipping that conversation on its head in remarkably (unprecedented?) short order. Which was exactly the most important thing Occupy set out to do. Feel free to suggest a more resounding success at similar speed by any other movement. I can’t think of one.
I say it as one very aware of the numerous positive outgrowths of Occupy, including (just off the top of my head) Strike Debt and a prodigious effort to ensure the enacting regulations for Dodd-Frank were as robust as possible in holding Wall Street/banksters accountable going forward. Not to mention deep involvement of Occupy veterans in Sanders’ campaign, which was to a very significant degree an adoption and extension of Occupy.
I say it as one thoroughly disgusted by such slander and the lack of recognition of what Occupy accomplished FOR YOU (ingrate!).
And yes, this is obviously also addressed to you DXM, cfdj (though at least you hedged with “portions of”, though evidence of even that much is notable for its absence), curtadams, marduk, and DD, the other upraters of this slander.
Really? OK….
http://occupywallstreet.net/story/occupy-wall-street-electoral-politics
“…Based on the discussion, it is apparent that there is an overt consensus within Occupy that voting alone is not enough. The collective attitude seems to be that the vast sums of money subverting our democracy are so high that even if a political actor is on our side, we must act to ‘make them do it’.
This further comes in the face of even strong disagreements as to whether Occupy should support voting at all, bespeaking an even more ardent resistance to entering politics in a manner where an Occupy voice is expressed in any sort of partisan way…
…From my personal perspective, the sentiments expressed paralleled those during the Netroots Nation panel I had the pleasure of joining in the immediate aftermath of the Wi$con$in recalls. That was a cathartic experience to say the least, as it was an opportunity to speak with a popular uprising largely feeling like it had just been sold out by electoral politics after putting its all into the process.
Yet then and now some of the most exciting models from the movement can be seen in how these occupation-inspired horizontal and leader-full efforts are acting as touchstone points of innovation at the most hyper-local of levels. Technology and our peer networks are enabling incomparably more direct forms of democracy, allowing us to aid and engage our neighbors in game-changing ways…
…But make no mistake about it: although Occupy is above our bought and paid for electoral system, you better believe it impacts it.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/201112113179492201.html
“…You’ve written a lot about the importance of strategy and long-term planning for non-violent struggles to succeed. In this regard, what are your thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street movement?
They don’t have any specific demands or a clear objective. It is not like a bus boycott in Alabama, for example, many years ago – where people would just walk, or hitchhike, or take taxis instead of using the buses. They had a clear objective: to break down the segregation on the buses.
The [Occupy] protesters don’t have a clear objective, something they can actually achieve. If they think they will change the economic system by simply staying in a particular location, then they are likely to be very disappointed. Protest alone accomplishes very little.
What advice would you give to the Occupy movement?
I think they need to study how they can actually change the things they don’t like, because simply sitting or staying in a certain place will not change or improve the economic or political system…”.
There’s one post after another on the Internet providing evidence of the Movement’s significant disinterest in electoral politics. Listen to Bill Moyers struggle unsuccessfully to gain mutual comprehension with Occupy Wall Street leaders in the video at the link to understand how gains can be made if electoral politics are not given a prominent role:
http://billmoyers.com/content/inside-occupy-wall-street/
Most importantly, let’s look at where we are as the moment. Has the Occupy movement in the U.S. succeeded in improving governance in the United States? Are the prospects for the last few years better or worse than when Occupy started? Are they bringing tangible success?
(In fairness, since only a minor portion of my comment was specifically addressed to you, that’s defensible, though also non-responsive to the overall objections I raised.)
Note that I initially credited you for hedging via “portions of”.
Obviously, the false, counter-factual (in its indiscriminant, stereotyping, generalizing, dirty-fucking-hippy-bashing universality, hence slander of Occupy; coupled with the ingratitude of failure to acknowledge or say “thank you” for the immensely important success Occupy accomplished, condemning/bashing/ridiculing us instead) was the focus of my comment. (I won’t repeat points I made that you DIDN’T address, except to say I stand by them.)
I did note the absence of evidence in support of even your “portions of” formulation. You’ve provided it for that much. Good on you.
But I could easily have provided supporting evidence out of my own personal experience that some Occupy participants weren’t interested in participation in electoral politics. The onus to do so wasn’t on me, though, but on the one making the claim.
But, again, that’s a very minor element of my critique. It wasn’t the point. The point was the indiscriminant slander (with the bizarre uprating of that slander a sub-objection).
Part of this stems from the very nature of Occupy (radically democratic, participatory, formally unstructured). Doesn’t seem rocket surgery to me that that entails both strengths and limitations. Seems obvious in fact, like every organizational governance model ever. I see the strengths emanating from that model as essential to Occupy’s unequivocal, unqualified, momentous success, previously noted. You seem to recognize only the limitations (also real), and to be completely blind to the immensity of what Occupy DID in fact (inarguably, imo) accomplish (also already noted). So,
Why yes, since you ask! Yes to all the above! Again as already noted, that answer requires recognition of the historical context within which Occupy rose up, and proceeded to radically alter it. It has to be seen relative to the hypothetical/counter-factual of how things were playing out, and would have continued playing out, without Occupy’s emergence upending the ridiculous, false, Worse-Than-Useless-Corporate-Media-enabled narrative that nevertheless was ruling our discourse at the time.
The local paper published an op-ed I wrote on Occupy’s behalf with input and approval from local participants. Even though I requested it be attributed simply to the local Occupy group, they instead attributed it to me by name (which was ok; I presume they have requirements along those lines, and I stand by everything in it; although they did so without my prior approval).
I also largely wrote and presented to the City Commission (again on Occupy’s behalf and with input and approval from the local group) an inquiry into local law enforcement practices, policies, and initiatives, about which I was subsequently interviewed by the local paper and teevee station.
In all three instances IIRC, I tried to stress that I was not a “member” of Occupy, because that was impossible: Occupy had no membership procedures or criteria. It was not a membership “organization”. You showed up and participated as you chose. I took pains to identify myself only as a “participant”. Those disclaimers landed on the cutting-room floor and, again IIRC, all three called me an Occupy “member” over my expressed disclaimer. That was the nature of Occupy (and of the Worse-Than-Useless Corporate Media’s incomprehension and distorted representation of it/us; I’m convinced that distorting filter (mis-)”informs” some of the disrespect dumped on Occupy that I responded to here. I was never in Zucotti Park, but I was directly involved in my own, small, local way).
Funny, it looks to me like you’ve adopted the “purist” role you’ve sometimes objected to (IIRC) wrt Bernie/Hill/Trump electoral politics: (analogously,) Occupy didn’t yet accomplish everything needing accomplishing (I agree!); therefore no recognition or appreciation for what it emphatically DID accomplish is in order.
Probably so obvious as to not be worth saying, but I disagree.
Yeah, my concluding statement was a reductive dash-by. I agree that the Occupy movement has done something. Much of it has been local, and Occupy might provide a group of people who could grow a bench of elected leaders with great values if they are willing to organize to win elections for themselves and their associates.
The Fight for $15 campaign would probably not have delivered the relatively quick electoral wins it has achieved without Big Labor’s support by members of Occupy. This support has been both rhetorical and physical, and it’s been valuable.
But I and others have experienced the problems and roadblocks which come from attempting to harness collective action from a leaderless movement. Group action builds credibility for a counter-cultural movement, but we have witnessed that leaderless collective action fragments easily and delivers counterproductive results. The public refusal by some Bernie supporters to accept Bernie’s leadership during the November election even when faced with the prospect of Trump is the best-known counterproductive result, but I have experienced counterproductive results at the local level as well.
There is a desire from many Occupy participants to act intersectionally. But one of the intersections they’ll encounter is the need to win elections. The vast majority of policy decisions the Occupy movement wish to alter are decided by electoral politics.
As the TEA Party movement understood that there was no option other than to take over the viable political Party most in line with its ideology and demography, so the Occupy movement must grow to understand that the Democratic Party must be made its vessel. But we’re not going to achieve that together if we insist on campaign rhetoric and funding streams which will not win local and national elections, and we won’t get there if one side insists that the other must fully capitulate before agreeing to work together.
No Davis they were waiting for that most mythical of creatures: “A movement”.
Movements are to anarchist types what dragons are in Game of Thrones: magical beasts capable of destroying all obstacles in their path. If only they can be harnessed….
Those of us raising our voices in increasingly strident tones and with evolving critiques of neo-liberalism since, say, 2009 or so, finally are admitted to have had a point. Got it.
Pity there was never ‘a real populist uprising’ in the Democratic nomination or anything. Nah. No socialist Jew from Brooklyn leading a historically energetic nomination campaign to save the party in its eleventh hour.
Nope, nothing to see here. Just a status quo institution collapsing under its own ponderous weight in a cloud of dust and lame excuses.
Given the way the media/citizen/political/government cultures behaved in this year’s horrible POTUS campaign, I do not believe Bernie would have beaten Trump.
It’s unwise to be confident that a candidate who failed to get enough votes in the primary would have gotten enough votes in the general.
Hillary was preparing to run for decades. She had institutional support and gobs of money. It’s remarkable that Bernie even came close. She was miles ahead of him when he entered the primary campaign. He mounted a national campaign without major donors. His successes showed us her weaknesses. Her winning wasn’t a matter of great strength or the superiority of her candidacy but the difference in their starting positions.
By the same token, it’s unwise to be so confident in your own argument — especially when isn’t even an argument, just a bare assertion. Sanders would be running against a completely different candidate under completely different circumstances. Clinton had a lot of “extra help” in beating Sanders.
If Clinton had beat Sanders in a level playing field, then you’d be right. But that’s the real question — would she have? I don’t know. I’m talking about northeastern states and California in particular.
If he had beat her, then instead of an outsider vs the quintessential insider (Clinton) in an outsider year, it would be outsider vs outsider — but Sanders with vastly higher favorability than Trump, vastly more experience in public office, and this:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/935303
52/
I know not ALL Democrats were crazy about him — but, come on, running against Donald Trump? I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t have brought out ALL the Democrats (not to mention the independents and youth who didn’t come out for Hillary), particularly in WI, MI, and PA.
Provides more confidence than you think.
I’m not confident in my argument. I just think it’s enormously counterproductive to entertain the “what if…” discussion. Shit’s going to start coming at us fast now, and Clintonism in Dem Party politics is good and dead.
Arguing over rhetoric and strategy must and will happen, but neither side of the primary fight should be spending valuable time demanding that the other side capitulates.
If Clintonism really is dead, and I sure hope so, then the past is prologue.
Politico – I Voted for Hillary. And Now I’m Going to Write for Breitbart.
The first trick is always the hardest; the second one is easy if the price is right.
Hey, they’re hiring, and he’s got to make a living … LOL
Small towns and countryside are strongly declining throughout many countries for 20 years already, not just in Russia and other odd countries. Did Pax Romana end similarly?