New Analysis Shows Clinton Took Bulk Of Economically Productive Counties - Trumpies Shouldn't Count On Jobs

"In brief, the white working class rather consistently puts a gun to its (as well as our) head. As an ethnic class, it's economically irrational. "Trump Turning to Ultrawealthy to Steer Economic Policy," screams an above-the-fold NYT headline this morning — an act as predictable any other Trumpian con. Trickle-down conservative elitism has been hustled as a poor man's populism for decades, with predictably ruinous effect. And the suckers took the bait again."- P.M. Carpenter, on smirkingchimp. com

 

Newly released findings assembled by the Brookings Institution show that Hillary Clinton captured 500 U.S. counties that delivered 64 percent of the GDP over the past year. By contrast, Trump took  2,600 counties but all these in concert delivered barely 36 percent of similar economic activity. The takeaway is that Clinton won every large size economic county in the nation. This is unprecedented in the era of modern economic statistics for a losing candidate.

According to a Denver Post account of the anomaly (Nov. 26, p. 15A) "it has not been the case that the counties Clinton won have grown richer at the expense of the rest of the country. Rather they represent the same share of the economy they did in 2000."

But compared with Gore then, Hillary Clinton "was much more successful in winning over the most successful counties in a geographically unbalanced economy."

The Brooking analysis reported in the Post found that "counties with higher GDP per capita were more likely to vote for Clinton over Trump, as were counties with higher population densities."

Meanwhile, counties with higher shares of manufacturing employment were more likely to vote for Trump - as we saw in the case of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. According to Mark Muro, the policy director for the Brookings Metro program:

"This is a picture of a very polarized and increasingly concentrated economy with the Democratic base aligning more to the more concentrated modern economy, but a lot of votes and anger in the rest of the country."

The seething anger and sense of grievance was perhaps underestimated by those of us in the "blue states" but The Economist put it in perspective a year ago (Dec. 5, 2015, p. 30)::

"The anxiety Trump supporters betray by looking for scapegoats says most, of course, about themselves. Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare.

Remonstrating in hard times, they are the "radical centre" in academic jargon, who turned out before for George Wallace, a populist southern Democrat who ran for President four times in the 1960s and 70s."

The article then identifies the iconic Trump supporter of this "radical center" with a character  from a John Updike novel named Rabbit Angstrom "from whose flabby mouth dripped endless expressions of impotence, anger and glum humor...having retired to Florida to nurse his disappointment".

Interestingly, this fits perfectly the mold of alienated blue collar worker described by Thomas Frank in his 'What's The Matter With Kansas?' , also pointing out how and why the Democrats began looking past the working class and its interests to focus on the shrinking middle class alone.  If any one major error of the Dems could be named, this was it.

Not everyone agrees, such as Christian Rightist NY Times scribe Russ Douthat, who I've pilloried before. He proposed in a recent column ('Can The Democrats Move To The Right?) that  the Dems lost the election because they were too far left on too many issues. His solution?  The party needs to move back toward the Right as it did in the good ol' days of the DLC and Clinton administration.

Thomas Frank's point as well as others (Michael Tomasky, American Prospect 'Dem's Fightin' Words') is this never works because working class folk will always veer to the real Right party - if they do put moralistic and other issues over their own economic self interest, as they so often do.

Douthat's prescription of moralistic distraction plays right into this template, warning the Dems spent overly much time defending Transgender restrooms and not enough on moral standards the working class seeks. He further writes:

"Without backing away from their support for same-sex marriage and legal abortion, leading Democratic politicians could talk more favorably about moral and religious pluralism, and offer reassurances to people who feel themselves to be dissenters from a very novel cultural regime.

Democrats could also talk anew about the virtues of earned benefits, about programs that help people who help themselves, about moving people from welfare back to work. "

The trouble is that none of this will work for the Dems, just as Trump's "make America great again" won't. As the Brookings study observes, "manufacturers have grown substantially more productive in recent years, meaning they won't be adding millions of workers- even if Trump pursues major changes in trade policy".

In other words, the unemployed factory workers who voted for Trump basically voted for a pig in the poke.  The cows have already escaped the barn and there's no way to get them back in no matter how much bluster and bombast Trump displays in his tweets. Productivity dependent manufacturers who are now content with more automated processes, robots etc. are simply not going to hire back workers for whom they have to cough up benefits.  As for the Carrier (United Technologies) deal, that was a farce purchased with $700m worth of state subsidized corporate welfare. Is The Donald really going to try to replicate that thousands of times over? I don't think so.

Besides, it entices any corporation to use economic blackmail to try to exert leverage: "Hey, Donald, we're planning to move 6,000 jobs to Mexico. Whatcha got for us?"

Since the Trump voters did, evidently, vote their pocketbooks this cycle - despite the fact that 'train' already left the productivity station - there is no moralistic tune the Dems can sing that will bring them back into the Dem fold. What the Dems need to do is what they always do - or should - belabor the point of how many Democratic programs Trumpies need and depend upon, including Obamacare, Medicaid, and Medicare.

And drum that into their heads until it's clear!

What CAN Trump do in order to respond to his voters who are experiencing economic pain? The Brookings gurus suggest "Trump could promote policies to help those areas adapt more rapidly to the changing economy."  In other words, get those forlorn folks new training opportunities, say to learn coding or maybe even indoor plumbing. Skills, in other words, that can always be put to use.

He can also get a leash on his mad dogs, like Tom Price (R, GA),  to hold off on being so ready to kill Obamacare, and Medicaid for over 14 million folks, of which it is estimated 60 percent are Trump voters.  As Paul Krugman observed, these people will now learn how "short, nasty and brutish" life can be under the Trump Dominion.

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/07/democrats-must-own-their-values-tea-party-style-not-shift-even-more-toward-the-mushy-middle/
 

Am I A ' Leftist Radical'? Nope, Just A JFK- Era Liberal Who Never Changed Over 54 Years!

JFK - denounced as a "statist" as well as a "commie"  - so I figure I'm in good company!

Back in in the mid-90s I was taken aback at the accusations of "commie"  hurled at me by unhinged lone nut defenders (e.g. of the 'lone nut',  Warren Commission codswallop) on the JFK usenet groups. It was particularly evident on alt.jfk.conspiracy (moderated) run by erstwhile Marquette political science prof John McAdams. The reason for their ire? My robust defense of JFK's decision to issue National Security Action Memorandum 263 to pull all U.S. personnel out of Viet Nam by calendar year 1965.

Of course, the original retort of Warrenite pawns was to insist JFK never intended any such thing. Then, I had to inform them that what has often been cited as the NSAM, i.e.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/w6LJoSnW4UehkaH9Ip5IAA.aspx


Is in fact only the cover letter by McGeorge Bundy. It has only passing relevance to the actual content of the NSAM, but it does clearly state “the President approved sections IB(1-3) of the report". Which report? To find these, the researcher must turn to Document 142 in The Pentagon Papers: ‘Report of McNamara Taylor Mission to South Vietnam'. Then the serious researcher will read:

IB(2) A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by the Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. military personnel by that time.

IB(3): In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

When that clarification became impossible to refute, they jumped on the "commie" epithet bandwagon. This then brings us to: What happens in this country if one comes to a certain political position then retains that position while the entire political spectrum shifts around him?  This is a question I've frequently asked myself as I've beheld dozens of people around me shift their politics to suit the mood of the moment or the media's tune. It has included family, friends as well as others.

For reference, let me make it clear I am not only knowledgeable of JFK's many anti-war policies (including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of Aug., 1963) but also embracing them. That's because I am an old line Kennedy-style liberal who has never altered his position an iota since the early 1960s.  (Even years before I could vote). I  make no apologies for that, though the party I once belonged to has now moved center -right and corporate. In the words of a recent salon.com piece: "The majority of Democrats have shifted to the right so far that the two-party system is almost unrecognizable, according to Noam Chomsky".

 The same piece quotes MIT Prof Noam Chomsky:

“There used to be a quip that the United States was a one-party state with a business party that had two factions: the Democrats and Republicans—and that used to be pretty accurate, but it’s not anymore. The U.S. is still a two-party state, but there’s only one faction, and it’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans. Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right,”

This was originally related to an interview by RT America’s Anissa Naouai.

Chomsky's insights are spot on, and as I've posted before, the only reason some perceive me as a Marxist Socialist or "communist" (as opposed to FDR-JFK style liberal) today is because: 1) Their own positions have shifted radically right and 2) they're unaware how the political spectrum shift has been warped by propaganda, revisionist history. (Such as the Rightist trope that JFK was "really a cold warrior" and 'fiscal conservative' when all the evidence indicates this is balderdash, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/thats-right-now-blame-60s-jfk-for.html

For example, invoking moderate deficit spending of the type used during WWII, as noted by Prof. Donald Gibson "(Battling Wall Street: The JFK Presidency') :

"What Kennedy attempted to effect .....in the three years he was in office, was a moderate peacetime version of the federal policy during World War Two."

What was the result? Professor Gibson once more:

"During the years affected immediately by Kennedy's policies , 1962 to 1964-65, the U.S. economy returned to and even exceeded the rapid growth displayed during the pre-stagnation period" (of WWII).

But the philosophic conflation of liberals with commies  (as JFK himself was identified after signing the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) occurred long before JFK reached office. Commie hysteria - the "Red Panic"- probably began in the late 1940s soon after the Russians got the A-bomb.

The 1950s then became a decade of runaway paranoia which most of those who didn't live then can't even begin to imagine. One marker is shown below,  in one of the "Crusade Against Communists" trading cards produced by TOPPS, e.g.

 The aim was to inculcate ‘Communist Recognition’ in children 7 to 10 years old, and get them to hate this system even before they knew what it was about. The garish depictions, such as that shown of Mao Tse-Tung with ghoulish green face  - helped to reinforce the propaganda.   Hysteria grew as an admixture when millions of grade schoolers - like I was in 1952- had to duck under our desks in regular drills to "escape the fallout from Communist atomic bombs". Air raid sirens screamed as whole cities underwent "emergency drills" and CONELRAD broadcast its ominous messages and beeps. 

The TV at the time didn't help either, with propaganda shlock like "I Led Three Lives" fucking up viewers' brains to a far-thee-well.

Then there were the House Un-American Activities  Committee (HUAC) sessions convened by rabid, anti-commie ideologue, Sen. Joseph McCarthy - who makes Ted Cruz look like a wienie or wimp. McCarthy's insane crusade ended up tarring thousands of innocent Americans with the "commie" brush, because too many lame brains were caught up in his nonsense and never approached his hearings analytically until the very end.

By the 1960s, I'd had it with the American propaganda and began sending for 'Soviet Life' magazine from the Russian Embassy in D.C. Sure it was propaganda - I knew that - but I wanted to see what the other side had to say. After receiving about seven issues, however, I grew bored reading of all the "agrarian reforms". 

By the end of Reagan's 2nd term, commie myths and hatreds were well entrenched and Ronnie the pop-eyed fool (who once asked a Naval commander if cruise missiles could be "recalled")  could get away with calling the USSR the "Evil Empire". Never mind this "evil empire" saved the West's living ass as it turned back Hitler's troops in World War II, at the cost of losing 20 million of their own people. Think about that! How do you think America would have handled a vicious aggressor actually invading the nation and laying waste to major cities as the Hitlerites did to Russia? And losing 20 million?  (For some insight, google: "Battle of Stalingrad")


What about Trump who seems neither left nor right? One commenter's take on smirkingchimp.com encapsulates him:

"Trump is a giant sized real estate salesboy, nothing more. he is used car sales trash grown fat. Trump is a reflection of a society turned away from productive activity, belittling honest labor and skills as nerd stuff, glorifying sales trash and marketeer "sell the sizzle" non values. It is a reflection of a world that promotes "selling the brand" over the product. It is a reflection where the ONLY purpose of a business is to make money with no ethics, no expectation to produce anything, no obligation to the employees, no obligation to the community. It is a broken society. trump is not a healthy human being."

 

What  'Blood Red Sun' is writing here I pretty well agree with. Trump is more a carny barker or "sales pitch man" than actual politician - of the Left or the Right. Those party demarcations mean nothing to him so he can easily flip flop - whether on abortion rights, Social Security, military expenditure, taxes or whatever he wants.

Back to the Democrats. Their mutation toward corporate elitism began when they embraced Neoliberalism via the Democratic Leadership Council  (DLC) in the Reagan era, and 'Fix the Debt' by 2010.  The Party effectively became Republican lite – though they've always tried to make us believe they’re the 2^nd coming of true Dem liberal populists.

Bah!  If you want to behold true Democratic populists look at the Bernie Sanders' campaign. Then look how shabbily it's been treated by the Dem establishment, aka Neoliberals.

Some perspective on this is provided by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, The Problem of the Media, Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:

"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society.

It was a return to the 1920s - if not the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Few industries seized the neoliberal high ground as firmly as the media and communications industries.

A new generation of economists trumpeted the value of applying market principles to all communication policy matters, as one of them put it, 'the ancien regime was often dominated by ad hoc prescriptions premised on shaky economics applied to dubious histories'.

--snip--

Behind the mighty rhetoric, the stakes were clear. These corporations knew if they were granted First Amendment protection, their existence and operations "would be placed beyond the reach of majorities"

McChesney goes on to note (p. 51) that this is pretty well what DLC'er Clinton accomplished with his 1996 Telecommunications Act.  Which as we may recall, also set the stage for Bernie Ebbers' WorldCom scandal, as well as the Adelphia travesty.

Again, McChesney (p. 51):

"The corruption in media policy making culminated in the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, arguably one of the most important pieces of U.S. legislation. The law rewrote the regulatory regime for radio, television, cable television, and satellite communication - indeed, all of electronic communication including the internet.

The operating premise of the law was that the new communications technologies - combined with increased appreciation for the genius of the market- rendered the traditional regulatory market moot.

The solution therefore was to lift regulations and ownership restrictions from commercial media and communication companies, and allow competition in the marketplace to develop, and reduce the government's role to that of protecting private property.

There was virtually no dissent whatsoever to this legislation from either party, the law sailed through both houses of congress, and was signed by a jubilant President Clinton in February, 1996. Corporate CEOs regarded it as their "Magna Carta".

It was around this time I ceased membership in the Democratic Party and became an Independent instead. This meant I had the total freedom not to be bound by a party -  or its platforms -  that no longer embodied my old line JFK-FDR principles. Was I wrong? No!

The Democrats had indeed forgotten the foremost words of JFK himself:

For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future.

Personally, I predict a schism in the D-party as it  drifts ever more rightward. On one side you will have the wine and brie eating elite Dems who man the investment banks, are CEOs of corporations and make up most of the "super delegates" that ensured Bernie's loss. On the other side will be the 10 million plus who voted Sanders in the primaries and are dedicated to  defending and speaking for its traditional constituencies - as well as the millions of new immigrants entering the country.

The choice of the current  Dems is this: do you continue your DLC ways - which have now cost three consecutive congressional elections (including the Dem loss of the Senate in '14) or do you change your ways?

Do you continue to whore for corporate America in the perverse belief that "business is the rightful ruler of the society" or do you return to the defense of the interests of the ordinary Joe and Jane?

The answers to these questions will ultimately determine the quality of life for the citizens of this country.

Yes, Hillary Will Have To Meet Conditions To Get Bernie's Supporters On Board

"WAAAH! I shouldn't have to accept conditions to get Bernie's supporters!"


In a victory lap speech last night, after taking four eastern primary states (DE, PA, CT. MD) Hillary made a pitch to Bernie Sanders's' supporters that "there is more that unites us than divides us" - betraying a real desperation to be able to actually turn Right, and go after Donald Trump. She also showed again that talk is cheap. But what Bernie's people really want to see is engraved in stone promises to back up the unity blather (having already been burned by "hope and change" nonsense eight years earlier.). You know the old saw: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."

Well, Bernie's supporters don't plan to get fooled again, especially when most of them already sense a yen to get off the leftward tilt and turn to the "center" and the Right. (In fact the current center, so called, is really center-Right.)

Bernie himself, in response to an idiot reporter's inane question ('When do you plan to drop out?') answered correctly that the campaign isn't just about winning the nomination but changing the political direction of the party and the country - implying that it must be away from its Neoliberal tilt of the past 34 years. (Since the formation of the DLC, 'Democratic Leadership Council', and its "Third way", Republican lite version of the Dems.)

That means building planks into the Democratic Party platform that reflect Bernie's positions, such as dealing with the banks in a real way as opposed to "optically". At the very least that means bringing back a version of Glass-Steagall to keep investment and commercial banks separate. As in Canada, banks should not be using depositors' hard earned savings to make risky bets with derivatives and then have to be bailed out with taxpayer money when they fail. That also means at least verbally acknowledging the validity of Bernie's bill which allows the Treasury Secretary to name banks too big to fail.

It also means making a clear promise to lower the burden of student loan debt.  As one expert on military  growth interviewed recently by Laura Flanders put it, nations are spending an average of $1.75 trillion per year on military armaments. Just a fraction of that ($200b) could be used to enable lower tuition at U.S. public universities for example.

We also want to see Hillary accept a non-interventionist foreign policy given we simply can't continue to spend precious resources on occupations and wars when there are so many pressing domestic needs, like repairing crumbling infrastructure.

In a nutshell then, these are some of the conditions we expect to be met when Bernie rolls into Philadelphia with well over 1, 500 delegates and 10 million votes that Hillary will need to beat Trump:

-  Acceptance of a viable plan to separate commercial and investment banks

- Acceptance of a plausible plan to reduce student college loan debt (at the very least lowering interest rates to 3% or less.)

- Promise not to advocate for any cuts for Social Security (as Obama tried with his "Debt Commission" in 2010)

- No to any cuts to Medicare, including "privatization" plans

- No to any liaisons with Israel to either attack Iran or Syria, or send troops (or cruise missiles) in.

- No to any new adventures in the Ukraine, or trying to set up a "no fly zone" over Syria.

The last two are particularly apropos given Hillary's robust background as a hawk, illuminated in a recent NY Times magazine piece, e.g.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

The piece noted that Clinton’s extreme belligerence “will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election,” noting “neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.” In the 2016 presidential campaign, the report concludes, “Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.”

HRC's gender backers - who may have sons that she enlists to fight a war of choice, say in Syria or Iraq-   ought to take note.

I would also add that before we embrace "Hill"' she come clean and release those transcripts of her Wall Street speeches (mainly to reps of Goldman- Sachs).  We deserve to know exactly what she said, and whether any statements made included promises to "cut entitlements", privatize Social Security or punch any more holes into Dodd-Frank.

Hillary whined last week that she never issued any conditions (to get her supporters on board) when she ultimately backed Obama in 2008. But she omitted saying the differences between them were tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, both Neoliberals at heart.

This time around is not the same, given we have a democratic socialist exposing the flaws of a diehard Neolib and warhawk. Thus, millions of Bernie supporters won't be satisfied with anything less than her not only mouthing words of unity - but building Berne's main proposals into the party platform.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/why_bernie_sanders_will_should_and_must_stay_in_the_race/

How Hillary Blew It By Misrepresenting Sanders' Health Positions

Bernie clarifies his single payer proposal after Clinton lies.

Hillary and the DLC Clinton machine blew it big time by getting daughter Chelsea to act as a surrogate to grossly misrepresent Bernie Sanders' single payer proposals - asserting he'd take down Obamacare as well as ruin Medicare. This shameful act didn't work at all, in fact her boffo, premier performance on the stump backfired, producing a flood of political donations to Sanders.

The lesson to take away? As Bill Moyers put it, "if you're going to send a surrogate to do your dirty work for you,  be sure whereof she speaks, and also make sure she had better stick to talking about her candidate, not the opponent". Unfortunately, Chelsea Clinton misrepresented Senator Sanders’ position, and in the process undermined her mother's campaign - not enhance it.

Sanders' making his health plans understandable (as in tonight's Dem debate) could not have come at a better time given the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service in their drug price information report (for Medicare Part D) have now identified 80 drugs that ranked highest by Medicare spending according to a WSJ report from 2 weeks ago ('Drug Price Rises Drive Medicare'). All of this is because the ACA (Obamacare) which Hillary seeks to nix any changes for, will not permit Medicare to bargain for lower drug prices like the VA does.

To put a perspective on the rising costs, as the WSJ notes,  those 80 drugs account "for 33 % of all Medicare Part D spending and 71 % of all spending pm prescriptions by Medicare Part B - which covers drugs administered by doctors' offices?

Frankly this is unsustainable. Worse, according to CMS "540 drugs covered by Medicare  Part D had increases in cost per unit of at least 25 percent during 2014."

Meanwhile, Medicaid is feeling the strain in many states (cf. 'Medicaid at 50: Growth Strains System', AARP Bulletin, p. 36). As for the ACA exchanges, they are dumping people who signed up in good faith  because of cost cutting.. Here in Colorado alone more than 80,000 have lost coverage because the private insurers initially subsidizing the exchanges have pulled out - given the medical costs of the insured have exceeded what they expected and their profit margins have shrunk. If this doesn't show the need for a single payer system I don't know what does.

One of  the canards being circulated, apart from Chelsea's lies,  is:

"Sanders'  single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”

But as former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Robert Reich has noted in a recent blog article:

"This is a duplicitous argument. Studies show that a single-payer system would be far cheaper than our current system, which relies on private for-profit health insurers, because a single-payer system wouldn’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing. So even if the Sanders single-payer plan did require some higher taxes, Americans would come out way ahead because they’d save far more than that on health insurance."

This is a simple argument Bernie Sanders has made which has been distorted by the Repukian dog whistlers, by Demo Repub Lite centrists and the media.  That is, irrespective of the increase in middle class taxes that will be needed (you can't get anything for free!) the costs will still be significantly less than they'd pay in ever higher private insurance premiums. Thus, Sanders has referred to the higher needed taxes as a "public insurance premium" which it is.

Besides, wouldn't you rather pay such a "premium" yearly than suddenly have your private insurance costs skyrocket or be dumped from a healthcare exchange like those here in Colorado?

It would seem to be a clear 'no brainer'.

As usual also, Americans have the memory of gnats and many forget Hillary was foursquare for universal health coverage - not just federal "Romneycare" as long ago as 1993. But the hysterical Repuke reaction and disgraceful ads from the medical lobby forced a pullback. The point is, it is rather hypocritical for the Clintons to now try to smear Bernie when they were backing exactly the same thing he wanted back then. As Bill Moyer put it in a recent smirkingchimp.com piece:

"Here’s an ironic note: During that 1993 quest for a health care plan, Secretary Clinton sent Sanders an autographed picture of the two of them, wishing him the best and thanking the senator “for your commitment to real health care access for all Americans.”

But now, all of a sudden, she wants to go "pragmatic" because it suits her campaign and convenience, i.e. to have a point of departure from Sanders' own proposals which he has remained faithful too. While Hillary understands her Wall Street benefactors would never be happy with any health care system not run on profits.

Tonight's showdown between Sanders and Clinton ought to be interesting, to say the least.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/65576/six-responses-to-bernie-skeptics

 

Bernie Sanders Needs To Run - To At Least Give Voice to Populist Issues

Bernie seen on Rachel Maddow last night.

Make no mistake that Sen. Bernie Sanders - committed Democratic Socialist like yours truly - has no more chance of winning a presidential contest than well......extraterrestrials landing and kicking the mutts in D.C. out and setting up a new ET government.  Sen. Sanders is tarred from the get go with the hated word "socialist" which too many bumpkins in this country don't even understand and hence, fear like an Ebola epidemic. It's a tragedy when brains get fried by a hyper-capitalist media that prefers lies and re-cycled bunkum  to substance.

Given this, it might boggle a few minds that anyone would even ask Sanders to run, but I am, if for no other reason to keep Hillary and her entourage having to defend her left flank.  Most of us, while we would vote for Hillary as the "lesser of two evils"  (the  thought of President Ted Cruz- or another Bush - ought to send anyone to the brink of despair) are not enthused by the Clinton history which was way too inundated with DLC,  Repub Lite thinking and hideous "triangulation".  And let's not forget NAFTA being enacted, welfare “reformed,” and Glass-Steagall repealed, leading directly to a prime cause for the 2008 financial crisis when banks got crazy playing with our money as "investments" when we never intended that. We instead wanted a safe place to park what we had.

Bill Clinton did do one major thing right, and that was acting to release millions of files after the passage of the JFK Records Act. The new files released in its wake, if one had the patience to dig through them, made lots of Warren Commission defenders look outright stupid - if not outright liars - including that tool Gerald Posner. His book, 'Case Closed' (1993) emerged as the laughing stock of the Clinton years given how much was proven false by the tidal wave of additional files. (Including of Gerald Ford altering the wording to the original autopsy report to conform to the magic bullet bollocks - changing the bullet wound to the base of the neck as opposed to the upper back, level with the third thoracic vertebra.)

But back to Hillary: We on the populist left don't buy her "middle class"  champion shtick because what populism she does express appears half--hearted at best, and let's face it, anyone who can amass a $1b war chest can't be a genuine populist, especially if Wall Street money is infused into the mix.

So the Dem left has tried to shame Elizabeth Warren into running, but Sen. Warren has made it clear she has no interest in doing so.  (The last time was last Friday with an interview on Bill Maher's Real Time).  So given Warren isn't in it, we need someone like Bernie Sanders.

Make no mistake, Bernie Sanders is chomping at the bit to have a national stage to sell his form of democratic socialism, and wrestle the party, and the country, to the left. Sanders returned to “The Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday night to reiterate what he’s been saying for some time: He’ll run for president if you want him to. One gets the feeling that a meaningful fraction of the effort put into drafting Elizabeth Warren would be enough to rouse Sanders to become a full-time thorn in the side of Clinton.
 

A recent salon.com piece argued:

"Sanders is probably not the best spokesperson for democratic socialism: Someone young (Sanders is 73), someone not so Yankee, someone whose clothes aren’t “rumpled”–there’s probably someone, somewhere who’d be a better pitch man for a political ideology that just seven years ago was used as an effective epithet against the newly elected Obama. "

But I disagree! Sanders' age, wisdom and experience make him the perfect defender of socialism - much better than any youngster would be. Even salon.com had to admit:

"what Sanders lacks in polish, and acquaintance with a comb for that matter, he more than makes up for in conviction. He’s experienced in articulating populism, and he’s more than happy to be a true antagonist to Hillary on a debate stage. He’s like the Ron Paul of the left, unafraid–even eager–to ruffle feathers in the furtherance of his political beliefs."

Also, as salon noted, unlike Warren — who is a reformer, not a revolutionary – "Sanders would deliver a full-throated call for an end to the “ruling class” on the campaign trail, which Clinton would, in turn, be forced to defend. While Warren might have forced Clinton to make uncomfortable declarations on Wall Street reform, she'd not have made Hillary question the entire system of which she’s a vital part and advocate." After all, her fingerprints are all over the much-maligned Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal–what Sanders calls “NAFTA on steroids”–which as Secretary of State she helped shepherd to agreement among governments and corporations and said “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.”

Don't buy it for a second. And this is why we have our reservations because no matter how much Hillary tries to be the "middle class champion" her Neoliberal DNA is too much a part of her. We need Bernie to keep her honest, at least for a time!

 
See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/61834/hillary-clinton-runs-first-thinks-last

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bob-burnett/61829/ready-for-hillary

Progressives Have A “Wimp Problem”? NO – Only the Neoliberal Faction!

Salon.com columnist Michael Lind recently put out a provocative column entitled, Progressives Have A “Wimp" Problem. According to Lind:

"You can say one thing for conservatives—they know what they want and they fight to get it. Unfortunately, you can’t say the same thing for American progressives. They are wimps. When they are not reacting to conservative initiatives, they are hardly acting at all. If it were any more anemic, today’s “progressive movement” would cease to deserve the name, for lack of movement.

I use the term “progressive” in today’s sense, to refer to the mainstream center-left in American politics, which overlaps almost completely with the Democratic party. Within this mainstream, there is a spectrum from centrists like Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, many of whose views would have put them on the Rockefeller Republican center-right a generation ago, to more liberal Democrats (if that is not an oxymoron) like Elizabeth Warren. But just as nearly all Republicans now insist that they are conservatives, so nearly all Democrats today insist they are progressive. Thus we can rephrase the question—why are Democrats so wimpy, while Republicans are so combative?"

Lind goes on to suggest that the reason has to do with the "class composition" of the parties, with Dems mainly pulling in the poor and lower middle class, underclass while the Reepos grab the richest voters, who also are the party of the white middle and upper classes and can exert the most influence on their politicos to do what they demand. The Dems can't, because first, their politicos basically ignore the poor working class - they don't even call them by name any more, all you hear is "Middle class, middle class". And second, the Democrat professional rich class often sides with the Reepos in pursuing similar economic goals. As Lind observes:

"wealthy Democrats would take a major financial hit, if capital gains taxes were taxed at the same rate as wage income, instead of the present privileged lower rate. That is why many Democratic politicians who look to Wall Street for campaign donations and in some cases perhaps future private employment have opposed this reform."

In other words, we see the Neoliberal imperative at work, weakening the party - destroying the bond between the lower class activist base and the upper echelon Wall St. schmoozers. As Lind also points out, which shouldn't be news to anyone: Unlike most Americans, rich and gentry-class progressives would benefit little from all but a radical expansion of Social Security. This is why they'd side with something like Obama's lame Chained CPI proposal. It's the perfect Neoliberal bromide for the 'wine and brie' Dems - and it's also one more reason I left the Democratic party over 15 years ago (and joined the Democratic Socialists), after Clinton and the weasly Dems passed the 'Welfare to Work' Reform' legislation. (I do vote with the Dems when it's the choice between 'cholera' and 'dysentery').

But the point Lind misses is that the class bifurcation is only part of the progressive wimp dynamic. It is also because the Dems contaminated their whole brand back in the Reagan-dominated 80s when they adopted the "Third Way"- DLC - Repub Lite shtick. This undermined their forceful protection and fight for the true Liberal values of Roosevelt and the New Deal and mutated them into aliens - with more in common with moderate Reeps. It also paved the way for their frenzied embrace of the "market" as arbiter of economic reality and eschewing FDR's legacy. In other words, it inspired them to betray that legacy to serve the "free" market idiom.

A more valid take on the emergence of progressive wimps is provided by Michael Tomasky in his (Aug., 2002) article 'Dems Fightin' Words' in The American Prospect. Tomasky observes, accurately I believe - from what I have witnessed - that the Dems (on account of adopting 'Third Way'- triangulation pussyfooting) eschewed political point-making and "hard nosed", no-holds barred political partisanship and replaced it with discussions of fact-based policy points, which appeal to "reason" and "temperance" but do little or nothing for core partisans. These are the very people Dems need to get out to the polls each mid-term election. This is why, again, few will turn out for next year's mid -terms. Why should they? The Dems as a party haven't offered any reasons to go to the polls other than scare-mongering of the bad things that'll happen if their followers don't rise to the occasion.

This gets old after a time. People need to see more, say like fighting like feral dogs to protect Social Security and Medicare from cuts in the next debt deal bargaining. Also, fighting to reinstate those food stamps - the SNAP program - and cease protecting military spending so much just to appear "tough" to repel the Repups continual refrain "not strong on national Defense". Please.

Tomasky attributes this substitution of "rational" policy talk (for good, old-style politicking) to a loss of identity that particularly accelerated with the onset of the Reagan plague years. The problem was that, in making this conscious switch of emphasis, the Dems lost the ability to really fight - verbally. No wonder they are constantly one-upped by Repub PR and spin machines. Worse, they don't even have the balls or the will to formulate a coherent narrative - say to energetically defend higher taxes to pay for what we need, or to aggressively defend expanding Social Security instead of cutting it with some cheesy backdoor dealing. And they sure as shit lack the balls to talk of cutting back seriously on defense and national security spending!

The end product is wimphood. Factored into this is the diminution and loss of an overarching and motivating Dem vision which keeps all the Rs energized and going to the polls- though they may differ on various platform matters and how to implement them (like 'faith-based' charities). As Tomasky notes, the Rs are "unified around a central idea which can be expressed in both positive and negative language: that they are the conservators of liberty and morality, and that liberals are sending the country to hell in overdrive. Whatever Republicans do or don't believe they believe in those two hypotheses. This unity gives them their passion."

Technically, the role of the rich Reepos is simply this: to feed campaign donations into any 'engine' that reinforces and amplifies the memes of their "central idea" - to keep their minions pouring to the polls in droves to teach them godless libs a lesson. There is no way, none at all - the Reeps would win any election with only their one percenters voting. No, the mass of their lower class voters have to be blinded enough to their own economic interests to cooperate.

In effect, the Repubs KNOW what they are fighting for, the Democrats do not. (Else they wouldn't so often splinter in their voting - as with extending the Bush tax cuts,initiating payroll tax cuts and more recently reining in the NAS.) Tomasky argues that the Dems have paid a huge price in lost voters for their turning to "reason and balanced" talk, rather than appealing to emotions (at least some of the time) like the Rs do. In addition, their lack of aggression at critical points during the past 20 years - when they had the opportunity to define themselves- has left many others yawning and not too impressed- hence the conscious choice to be independents - like me.

Tomasky concludes by saying that no, it isn't necessary to "ape the Repubs" or be partisan ALL the time. But it is some of the time, especially when particularly egregious legislation is on offer - and ONE party ought to stand up and be the moral backbone, as opposed to being enablers. A perfect example was a few years back when weak-willed Dems joined the Reeps in legalizing ex post facto the illegal Bush wiretaps. Hence, now proclaiming the invasive NSA surveillance is not a problem because "the new Fisa laws allow it". Yes, after you legalized what was once criminal! This is the sort of thing that drives true partisans (and true liberals) bats, and to seek other political affiliations.

At root, we are screwed by having two parties that endorse the same Neoliberal market paradigm. The only difference is one is a bit crazier than the other, and has more frenzied zealot followers. As Robert McChesney quotes Bill Moyers, in the former's book 'The Problem of the Media':

"Because they coveted the same corporate money, Democrats practically walked away from the politics of struggle"

Sadly, when you're not engaged in the politics of struggle, including vociferously defending the interests of the working poor as much as the middle class, you cannot be anything other than a wimp. Progressives, take note!

A Coming Schism in The Democratic Party? About time!

Those of us who are old school Kennedy (as in JFK) liberals, have watched for decades as the party of FDR and JFK has degenerated into corporatist pussies before our very eyes. We pretty well knew the writing was on the wall after Jimmy Carter became a one termer, and a new mutant breed of Dem emerged that sucked on the corporate teats and longed to be more like the new "king on the block",  Ronnie Raygun. Never mind Reagan single- handedly converted this nation into a massive debtor with his reckless armaments spending even as his ruthless social brutality increased the number of homeless by five-fold merely by tossing all the mentally ill out of their hospital beds.

How ANY Dem, president or other, could in any way hold up Reagan as an exemplar is beyond me and shows how far this country's political duopoly has gone into the crapper. But for a lot of that we can thank two corporate arms of the Democratic Party that shill for the Corporatocracy: the DLC or "Democratic Leadership Council" and "The Third Way". These mutants can call themselves whatever the hell they want but what they really are is Neoliberal puppets. And if Neoliberal at all, they are degenerates of mind and outlook.

Because of their entrenched position and now even directing all future vision, I predict that within ten years - maybe sooner- we will see a political schism within the Democratic Party into a corporate breed of DINO Dems, and a new breed of truly Progressive Democrats. At that point, I may well rejoin the Dems via the latter.

My ire now is directed at some of these D-corporate ass-suckers who are trying to make the REAL liberals-progressives look like "hair on fire" freaks in a frenzy because we have called out Barack on going back on his campaign promises. We've also called out the corporate poseur "Dems" for trying to ply us with utter bullshit that the Chained CPI is "not a real cut". I refer to tools such as a character calling himself "Deaniac 83" who scribbled this blog post entitled Dear Liberals, Chained CPI is NOT a “Cut” to Social Security. Get Over It

No fucking way will I "get over it", buddy boy! Not now or ever. And no amount of soft-soaping PR from a shill (maybe on hire by the Third Way or DLC) will cause me to! You little bastards are responsible for wrecking the party, either driving people out of it like you did me, or simply causing others to cease voting entirely - understanding that corporate hegemony trumps votes every time.

It's those like Deaniac 83, DINOS for sure, that give all Dems a bad name. One heholds this smug, self-described  “progressive” sneering that the chained-CPI benefit cut has “set off more alarm bells on the Left’s media than Pearl Harbor.”  Well, maybe because this could well be the Democrats' "Pearl Harbor". Because if Obama goes through with the Chained CPI, while he has the Reepos' backs against the wall, he will damage the Dem brand forever. 

As blogger Richard Eskow describes the effluent from this fool.......errrrrrr.....TOOL:

"The piece’s blend of arrogance and misinformation typifies the new style of the corporate-Democratic loyalist, with rhetorical ploys straight out of the Pete Peterson playbook: Benefit-cut opponents are “zealous liberals” and “ideologues” who speak with “hair-on-fire” hysteria. And this is not a cut in benefits."

But as I noted in a previous blog the chained CPI would lower benefits for the typical Social Security recipient (who retires at age 65)  by $653 a year at age 75 and by $1,139 a year at age 85    If this isn't a CUT what the hell is? The bottom line is that the affected senior has less and less to live on each year, even as costs will likely shoot through the roof (especially when the roof collapses on oil, and Peak Oil rears its full brunt).  As Eskow notes:

"The “chained CPI" .... lowers the rate at which benefits are increased by factoring in the reduced consumption of certain items – reductions that would be driven by cuts in benefits!"

In other words, those like my 90-year old mom, whose income will fall to $915 per month if she reaches 95, will barely be able to afford kibbles and low grade cat food.  But see, these Chained CPI Scrooges insist that there's never any cutting because the sensible senior just ratchets down his diet and expectations as the costs go up! So s/he ain't really losing! So, if beef soars, you go to pork chops. If pork soars you go down to chicken. If chicken soars you then ratchet down to tuna. If tuna soars you go down to sardines. If sardines soar, you go to the giant bag of kibbles. If kibbles soar.....well, I guess the senior has to eat shit.

Or as Richard Eskow puts it:

"This would quickly become a death spiral to the financial security of the elderly and disabled financial: They can’t afford beef so they buy chicken. They can’t afford chicken so they buy cereal. Then they go from cereal to Fancy Feast. From Fancy Feast to Purina. And so on and so on, ad infinitum, Ad nauseum."

Meanwhile, economists Kathy Ruffing and Paul Van de Water (not Pareto-based economists), who compared the U.S. Social Security benefits with those of similar programs in other countries noted that:


"Social Security benefits in the United States are low compared with other advanced countries.  Future retirees already face lower benefits (relative to their past earnings) than current retirees as a result of a rising Social Security retirement age and escalating Medicare premiums."

Ruffing and Van de Water found that Social Security benefits in this country provide 41.3 percent a retiring worker’s income on average, while those in other developed countries provide 60.8 percent. That’s roughly one-third less than other nations’ program — and yet this “liberal” argument claims that our cost-of-living calculations are so lavish that they must be slowed down.


DO these smug, self-satisfied turds like "Deaniac83" care? Hell no! All they care about is pumping out their loopy, obfuscating, pro-corporate, pro -plutocrat rhetoric and expecting the rest of us to swallow it. "Now be a good little do -be, and understand that Barack had no choice what with all those crazy people on the Hill!'" Sorry, bozo, don't buy it! Barack needs balls (or maybe a shot of 'T' or some Androgel), and if he had half the balls of John Kennedy, he'd teach those Teapee twerps, dysfunctional Reepos a thing or two. One example: He could have opted to use the 14th amendment last year to increase the debt ceiling on his own, as opposed to allowing the insane sequestration that now looms, unnecessarily I might add. But invoking the 14th would have required some balls. He didn't do it, now we have even more of a mess as this "fiscal cliff" evolves.

Sure it might have invited a constitutional crisis, but that is the price when you must confront insane nuts who somehow managed to get elected and are wreaking havoc - holding the nation hostage - by using the same ploy as leverage when they weren't taught properly not to do so the first time!

The difference between these wussie -ass, corporate-puppet Dems and the old line liberals like me, is we are still prepared to take the other side to the mat, not sit down with them and make tea....and give them everything they want.

If there is to be a Democratic Schism, I say bring it on! The sooner we get rid of the DINOS in the D- party, the once upon a time party of fearless men like FDR and JFK, the better off we all will be. Then we can leave the corporatists behind! 

If corporatism, on the other hand, is the only game to be left in town, then count me out as being any future contributor to its advancement.