The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out

[Neven]

It doesn't really matter all that much what you call yourself, as long as you show integrity and a vision to help as many Americans as possible. In fact, if you stand for what you believe in and wear a label with pride, it only reinforces an image that is genuine, instead of all the fakeness you automatically exude when all you care about is beating the other Team.

Why do you let the Republicans skew your thinking? Why do you let them or your fear of them determine what you do and say? Think about life, think about morals, think about universal laws, be passionate, be radical, be real.

Most of the Americans want things like single payer health care, free college, ending the wars, stopping the banks, etc. They will vote for an asshole clown like Trump if he promises them such things (and nobody else is), so imagine what genuine people like Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders and dozens of self-proclaimed socialists who are winning elections across the US, can achieve if they overcome the biggest hurdle: Corporate Democrats?

What you are doing, Martin, is spreading memes based on decades of conditioning that maintain the status quo. That is the number one reason Democrats are losing (and a lot of them don't mind).

Be real, stand for something.

[sidd]

Too many Democratic candidates would rather lose with corporate money than win without. As Ocasio-Cortez points out

"knocking doors wins, phone banking wins, direct voter contact wins. But it doesn’t make people money."

sidd

[SteveMDFP]

@Susan: I know you know I'm right

But I'm not hair splitting. IF the Dems seriously want to win, they sure should not use the wörd "socialism". Not just because it's wrong, nope, it makes the Banana Republicans go mad and just gives them ammo to fire at the Dems. "Socialism" is political self-mutilation. It is time the left and the Dems stop doing this to themselves.

Plus, wouldn't social Democrat be a nice distinction from corporate Democrat?

And, they should more often use the wörd

"Banana Republicans"

for that describes that party perfectly. (I learnt it yesterday from the Strzok hearing.)

Oceans have consequences.
I absolutely understand what you're saying from a European perspective.
But on this side  of the Atlantic, the social-democrat position has chiefly been advanced by Democratic Socialists of America, DSA.
https://www.dsausa.org/

Decades ago, at my ivy league college, these were the folks carrying the torch.
 

[jacksmith4tx]

There seems to be a theory that one reason the US has such corrupt and dangerous leaders is that not enough citizens vote. I'm not sure that maters as much as having an informed electorate but all other things being equal more voter participation might produce better outcomes.

https://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/07/massachusetts_senate_passes_au.html

"It should be the state's burden to register voters - not yours," said Senate President Harriette Chandler, D-Worcester, in a statement...

Under the bill, H.4671, any adult Massachusetts citizen who completes a transaction at the Registry of Motor Vehicles or signs up for MassHealth would be automatically registered to vote. People could still choose to opt out.

The goal is to get more eligible voters onto the rolls. Supporters of the bill estimate that up to 680,000 eligible voters could eventually become registered to vote.

The bill would be implemented in time for the 2020 elections.
...
Massachusetts would become the 14th state to have some form of automatic voter registration.

As anecdotal evidence I think this is how Texas ended up electing Ted Cruz in 2012.
https://ivn.us/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-won-senate-seat-just-632000-votes-state-27-million/

"Ted Cruz was chosen to be the next junior senator in Texas by about 4 percent of the eligible voting population by virtue of winning his low-turnout (under 9%) Republican primary runoff. This is a fact about almost all primary elections today that is often missed by media talking heads and politicos.

Cruz didn’t place first in the 2012 Republican primary; he placed second behind then-Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. However, Dewhurst, who received roughly 45 percent of the primary vote, was not able to garner enough votes to avoid a runoff. Cruz placed second with approximately 34 percent of the vote.

The 2012 summer runoff election produced an even worse turnout — 8.5 percent — the lower the turnout, the more ideologically extreme the voters tend to be.

And in that runoff, Cruz garnered 57 percent of the vote, while Dewhurst received a little over 43 percent. Cruz then advanced to the general election, where voters got to choose between him and Democrat Paul Sadler. In a Republican-dominated state, this ‘election’ wasn’t a real competition."

[sidd]

Taibbi:

--
The notion that Democrats need to look and act more like Republicans to win elections has been practically a religious tenet in Washington for more than 30 years.  From the embrace of NAFTA to welfare reform to triangulation to repealing the Glass-Steagall Act to slobbering over Wesley Clark (instead of opposing the Iraq war) to hiring infamous Republican media hitman David Brock, this soul-sucking drift has been sold to voters as an electorally necessary compromise.

...

Repeatedly, when asked to make policy changes favored by sizable majorities of Democratic voters (and often by majorities of all voters), party leaders said: We can’t do that: we need to win!

...

This sad-sack “wait til’ next year” routine is just a way to scare people away from voting their own interests. It’s not sexy. It doesn’t even work. It’s time to try something new.

--

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/center-is-not-sexy-698699/

sidd

[jacksmith4tx]

Mostly off the topic of corporate democrats but I thought some might enjoy this:
https://popula.com/2018/07/15/bourdain-confidential/
Anthony Bourdain last interview.

Look—after my ill-advised hemlock comment to TMZ, I found myself um, you know, with hundreds if not thousands of death threats and MAGA trolls, and Russian trolls, and anonymous posts and letters to me, my ex-wife, to everyone in my life. And I ended up being interviewed by the Secret Service, who were very nice. They had a large number of official complaints, and of course they have to respond, so we had a very cordial meeting of the minds.
...
But I will tell you that as frightening as that was at times, when I sat there with Asia, as she texted her sisters… watching the Clinton apology on Weinstein, and [Asia’s] watching this statement, there was a lot of anticipation. People were really hoping she’d come out with a… I don’t know. Let’s just say with something different. I immediately tweeted my disappointment, very much shaped by what I saw around me. And I will tell you, that was really fucking frightening, the reaction to that. You know, I voted for her.

I was really disappointed with the statement. But even by expressing that, the way that my comment was turned, very neatly—suddenly I wasn’t expressing disappointment in her statement; I was blaming her for Harvey Weinstein’s crimes. The way that turned very nicely was a good bit of artistry and deeply frightening to me and really, really…

Bill Clinton, look, the bimbo eruptions—it was fucking monstrous. That would not have flown today. A piece of shit. Entitled, rapey, gropey, grabby, disgusting, and the way that he—and she—destroyed these women and the way that everyone went along, and, and are blind to this! Screamingly apparent hypocrisy and venality. How you can on the one hand howl at the moon about all these other predators. And not at least look back. OK, let’s say, well, it was all consensual: powerful men, starstruck women, okay fine, let’s accept it at its most charitable interpretation. Fine. He is a very charming man, I met him, he’s fucking magnetic.


I will really miss Anthony 

[jacksmith4tx]

Beto O'Rourke for president!
Smart, compassionate and HONEST.

"7 Texas Republicans in Congress just got outraised by their Democratic rivals"
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/16/7-texas-republicans-congress-were-outraised-their-democratic-rivals/

[wili]

Thomas quoted: "...U.S. does that sort of thing all the time..."

The US has bombed other countries frequently. By this logic no American should be the lease bit upset, therefore, if another country bombs the US...in other words, there's no logic at all here.

[TerryM]

The US has bombed other countries frequently. By this logic no American should be the lease bit upset, therefore, if another country bombs the US...in other words, there's no logic at all here.

Bombing another country is a rather extreme action that is in fact an act of war. Trying to exert influence over the electoral process in another country is something that has been going on between neighbors, not necessarily enemies, probably since the beginnings of democracies.


Conflating one with the other doesn't shed much light on the present situation.


Terry

[Neven]

Greenwald should never become a politician, but keep doing what he's so good at: Journalism. I'm watching those Democracy Now! videos now (thanks for posting) and that guy really gets it. He manages to put things in perspective and can thus delineate what should be the order of priorities. And that's because he's thinking things through, creating a worldview for himself where he doesn't have to rely on the cognitive dissonance and flexible morals that by necessity complement shallow and conditioned thinking.

He's very much on the ball, and consistently so. I hope he can keep up this high level for a long time, because it explains so much of why the world is like it is, and that's what young people need right now. In my view he's perhaps the best journalist around. We need many more of him, just like we need many more (young!) people like Bernie Sanders on the political side.

One big mistake that progressives can make, is focus all of their hopes on Bernie Sanders. I don't think he can deliver on that. But he's a perfect role model.

[Martin Gisser]

Trying to exert influence over the electoral process in another country is something that has been going on between neighbors, not necessarily enemies, probably since the beginnings of democracies.

I have said that the Russiagate denial exhibited on this forum is very similar to climate denial. This one of Terry's (and Neven, and ...) is the analog of "climate has always changed".   

[Neven]

Of course, there's a very strong link between Corporate Democrats and Russiagate hysteria, but I'd still like to suggest you take your powerful arguments to the Russia thread.

[Neven]

we need many more (young!) people like Bernie Sanders on the political side.

One big mistake that progressives can make, is focus all of their hopes on Bernie Sanders. I don't think he can deliver on that. But he's a perfect role model.

Speaking of which:



But no, don't speak of these things, because the Republicans will then say this or do that.

[jacksmith4tx]

If Beto O'Rourke (100% PAC free) can beat Ted Cruz (100% bought by PACs) that might be a sign of hope.
Wait, what was I thinking! Of course if he does win he will still have to defeat the entrenched DNC toddies, the media, the GOP, and hardest of all convince the thought-leaders like Glen Greenwald.

I guess it is hopeless after all.

[sidd]

America's Finest News Source:

Comey: Leftist politics puts you on an FBI watch list

https://politics.theonion.com/comey-warns-democrats-that-having-leftist-politics-gets-1827803838

sidd

[Neven]

Here we go, this is the discussion that needs to be had, because it's the only way to beat Trump. Whoopi shows zero political consciousness or knowledge, that blonde lady is the conditioned thinking that Martin G is so afraid of, and Joy Behar is doing a pretty decent job at countering (but there's much more where that came from):



As soon as you hear a Democrat talk like that blonde lady, you know they're not really a Democrat.

[Neven]

And criminal James Comey is also playing right into Martin's fear:



If people like Comey tell you to do one thing, do the opposite.

[sedziobs]

As soon as you hear a Democrat talk like that blonde lady, you know they're not really a Democrat.

"That blonde lady" is Meghan McCain, daughter of warmongering Republican John McCain.  You think she's a Democrat?

[TerryM]

Megan knows that government doesn't work because she's spent her entire life witnessing her own father's ineptitude.
If she had grown up as the daughter of J. Brown, F. Castro or V. Putin she might have learned an entirely different narrative.
Terry

[Neven]

"That blonde lady" is Meghan McCain, daughter of warmongering Republican John McCain.  You think she's a Democrat?

No, I didn't think that, although I didn't know she was the "Hero's daughter" either. But there are Democrats who talk like her, most of them Corporate Democrats. That's the conditioned thinking that needs to be taken head-on, for global problems like AGW to have even a chance of getting solved.

[Martin Gisser]

And criminal James Comey is also playing right into Martin's fear:

(video)

If people like Comey tell you to do one thing, do the opposite.

Comey is/was a lifelong Republican.
"Socialism" is/was a political swear word.
So, no surprise there.

I still think it is politically suicidal in general (and BTW the Planet is also at stake) for a social democrat to call themselves democratic socialist. Ocasio-Cortez will sure win her progressive precinct. But what about the flyover American wingnuts who actually determine the overall political direction? Remember, Obama was a socialist...

Apropos Mr Turk complaining about MSNBC, here's what a quick google gave me. (I recall her sitting in Rachel Maddow's show - couldn't find that - perhaps I misremember.)

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/why-is-the-right-so-scared-of-a-democratic-socialist-1284645956000





http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/-seismic-political-upset-as-ocasio-cortez-defeats-crowley-in-nyc-1264818755638

[wili]

"social democrat to call themselves democratic socialist"

Coming from Germany, I can understand why you feel that way. But as an American, I can tell you that not one in a thousand Americans would have any idea that there is any difference.

[Martin Gisser]

"social democrat to call themselves democratic socialist"

Coming from Germany, I can understand why you feel that way. But as an American, I can tell you that not one in a thousand Americans would have any idea that there is any difference.

Well, yeah. Susan Anderson told me the same. And I knew that before. (Many Americans think that Switzerland is north of Niagara...)

Bbbut there's no "ist" or "ism" in "social democrat".

It's just about that f-ing wörd, or polit label, "socialist". I deem it explosive. Given the superior messaging capabilites of the Republicans ever since Ronald Reagan, it is just a matter of time that it will be used as an explosive. One clever polit ad would suffice, and the elderly Joe Sixpack votes Republican again, this time not out of Hillary frustration, but fear of socialism.

In a modern multi-party system I would have no complaint. They could just split up the Democrats in two parties and then see how it works out, without much danger. But this is America, with its stone age black-white (red-blue) voting system. (Plus, the Planet can no longer afford a major nation ruled by Banana Republicans. We need to minimize any risk.)

[SteveMDFP]

"social democrat to call themselves democratic socialist"

Coming from Germany, I can understand why you feel that way. But as an American, I can tell you that not one in a thousand Americans would have any idea that there is any difference.

Well, yeah. Susan Anderson told me the same. And I knew that before. (Many Americans think that Switzerland is north of Niagara...)

Bbbut there's no "ist" or "ism" in "social democrat". -- It's just about that f-ing wörd, or polit label, "socialist". I deem it explosive. Given the superior messaging capabilites of the Republicans ever since Ronald Reagan, it is just a matter of time that it will be used as an explosive. One clever polit ad would suffice, and the elderly Joe Sixpack votes Republican again, this time not out of Hillary frustration, but fear of socialism.

Well, yes.  On this side of the pond, the progressives to the Left of the Democratic Party have been the Democratic Socialists of America, for decades.  Many colleges have chapters.  There are no Social Democrats on this side of the pond.  If you called yourself a Social Democrat here people would assume you were either 1) visiting from Scandinavia, or 2) a member of the Democratic Party who likes to socialize and attend parties.

But it's simultaneously true that "socialist" is a political swear word.  People on the right are often ignorant, thinking that such a "socialist" favors either the Soviet Socialist system, or the National Socialism system, or both.  It does make for an uphill battle in dialogue.

Possibly the DSA should change their name to the Social Democrats of America.  But that sounds very Euro-centric on this side of the pond.  So many of us call ourselves progressives.

[Martin Gisser]

"That blonde lady" is Meghan McCain, daughter of warmongering Republican John McCain.  You think she's a Democrat?

No, I didn't think that, although I didn't know she was the "Hero's daughter" either. But there are Democrats who talk like her, most of them Corporate Democrats.

Show me one.
Meghan McCain is talking classical Republican stuff. Perhaps it doesn't work as well anymore. Let's hope they don't find a better messenger to ignite those classical subliminal fears.

[Neven]

Remember, Obama was a socialist...

Yes, and he went out of his way to tell everybody he was actually Republican lite (incidentally sounding a bit like the Hero's Daughter (hey, you asked me to name one)):

Apropos Mr Turk complaining about MSNBC, here's what a quick google gave me. (I recall her sitting in Rachel Maddow's show - couldn't find that - perhaps I misremember.)

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/why-is-the-right-so-scared-of-a-democratic-socialist-1284645956000

That first link had good guests (Sam Seder, yay), but Chris Hayes has become so weak, a bit like Rachel Maddow. I guess that's what being a millionaire does to you.

Meghan McCain is talking classical Republican stuff. Perhaps it doesn't work as well anymore. Let's hope they don't find a better messenger to ignite those classical subliminal fears.

Listen to what those guests in your MSNBC link say. If you come across as honest and passionate in what you believe in, and you present policies that most American people want (yes, a lot of those 'flyover wingnuts' too), you will gain ground. Best of all, you're no longer playing by the GOP's brainwashing playbook, and because you're no longer a Democrat hypocrite, you can actually call them out on many things (like taking corporate money, and the horrible Trump policies).

If you keep thinking strategically like the Republicans want you to, you may win an election based on traditional swings, but in the end the Banana Republicans win and you get a Trump. So, why not go all out - given how dire the situation is and we can't afford to lose another 10-20 years like we did the last 30 - and embrace whatever label it is that the Republicans want to smear you with? Make them afraid, instead of being led by fear?

People don't care as much about perfect ideological definitions as they do about policies that affect their lives. I mean, Social Democrat - a lot of which are actually Corporate Democrats in Europe as well - vs Democratic Socialist, there's so much overlap there until you get to the end state. Embrace it, be real, be honest, be convincing.

Sanders has shown away, now we need dozens of Ocasio-Cortezes to pick up the baton. And they need all of us to stand behind them, and stick with them. Even if they don't have the perfect answers, they're heading in the right direction, directly. But they need to overcome the Corporate Democrats first to really start hurting the GOP.

[jacksmith4tx]

People don't care as much about perfect ideological definitions as they do about policies that affect their lives. I mean, Social Democrat - a lot of which are actually Corporate Democrats in Europe as well - vs Democratic Socialist, there's so much overlap there until you get to the end state. Embrace it, be real, be honest, be convincing.

Sanders has shown away, now we need dozens of Ocasio-Cortezes to pick up the baton. And they need all of us to stand behind them, and stick with them. Even if they don't have the perfect answers, they're heading in the right direction, directly. But they need to overcome the Corporate Democrats first to really start hurting the GOP.

I'm supporting this Beto guy. This is his first campaign video. (1 min.)


0% PAC or corporate donations.
https://betofortexas.com/issues/

[Neven]

I've heard about this Beto guy. Who is endorsing him?

BTW, here's Kyle Kulinski's take on that The View fragment we discussed a bit:

[jacksmith4tx]

RE: Beto
Aren't endorsements kind of a weak measure of a candidate? Remember even Bernie endorsed Hillary (which pissed off a lot of his followers).
Maybe a better gauge is who is against him.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/78533/beto-orourke

To hear him in person he hits most of the same issues Bernie does. Health care, environment, min. wage, state funded education, pro-choice. No ones perfect but if he won Texas it would really shake up the right-wing. Like loosing the Alamo all over again 

[Neven]

Sam Seder also weighs in on the Hero's Daughter meltdown:

[Susan Anderson]

@Neven, thanks for posting that. I watched the original and that is Meghan McCain's default mode. She's an improvement on her predecessors; the panel is four to one and the others are liberal (NOT neoliberal), and she does tend to yell and talk over the others. Whoopi is wonderful. They had just had Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on, who was brilliant; I think once she encounters real government she's going to be practical while not abandoning her ideals. But she has everybody freaked out (Martin Gisser wishes it was Social Democrat instead of Democratic Socialist, and I see his point) and has slightly increased Republican poll numbers while energizing the progressive wing. You're quite right; we are clueless about the benefits of European-style socialism.

McCain Sr. is dying of brain cancer, and I don't care for his politics, but he is honest and he does try sometimes to be fair, unlike the sewer creatures running things these days. He got almost twice as much from the NRA as anyone else (~$6 million) and Meghan's idea of weekend fun is the shooting range.

The View does model a female kind of disagreeing without being disagreeable (even with the "meltdown" there's affection there).

Republicans have forgotten that the "good old days" they aspire to were accompanied by high taxes for the wealthy and regulations about health care and pensions etc. which were good for everyone. Nixon privatized the Post Office (I mentioned it in a complaint and got a visit from the feds, which I was too naive to realize at the time!). They don't realize that privatizing means somebody is going to make a profit. The criminalization of poverty proceeds apace, and the market in inflated luxury goods is awash in money.

Here is some US tax rate history (hope you can ignore lousy formatting; here's the original: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
Reagan: 1980-1988; Bush2: 2000-2008

   Lowest    Top Rate   Income over:   Modern equivalent
1950 17.4%   84.36%   $400,000      $4.07 million
1951   20.4%   91%      $400,000      $3.77 million
1952 22.2%   92%      $400,000      $3.69 million
1953   20%      91%      $400,000      $3.65 million
1964   16%      77%      $400,000      $3.16 million
1965 14%      70%      $200,000      $1.55 million
1968 14%      75.25%   $200,000      $1.41 million
1969 14%      77%      $200,000      $1.33 million
1970 14%      71.75%   $200,000      $1.26 million
1971 14%      70%      $200,000      $1.21 million
1981 13.825%   69.125%   $215,400      $580 thousand
1982 12%      50%      $85,600      $217 thousand (Reagan)
1983 11%      50%      $109,400      $269 thousand
1987 11%      38.5%   $90,000      $194 thousand
1988 15%      28%      $29,750      $61.6 thousand
1991 15%      31%      $82,150      $148 thousand
1993 15%      39.6%   $89,150      $151 thousand (Clinton)
2001 10%      39.1%   $297,350      $411 thousand (Bush)
2002 10%      38.6%   $307,050      $418 thousand
2003 10%      35%      $311,950      $415 thousand
2013 10%      39.6%   $400,000      $420 thousand (Obama)

Trump tax cuts will significantly lower the top rate. Clinton had to give in to the Republican majority and lower the rate on investment income to 15%. The wealthy pay much less. Social security is a flat fee on income up to $128,100 and nothing after that. (Medicare is similar.)

[Neven]

Still alive, still speaking truth:

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I think there’s—her victory was a quite spectacular and significant event. I think what it points to is a split in the Democratic Party between the—roughly speaking, between the popular base and the party managers. The popular base is increasingly, essentially, social democratic, following, pursuing the—concerned with the kinds of progressive objectives that she outlined in those—in her remarks, which should be directed not only to expanding the electorate but to the general working-class, poor population of the world, of the middle-class population of the country, for whom these ideals are quite significant. They can be brought to that. That’s one part of the party. The other part of the party is the donor-oriented, managerial part of the New Democrats, so-called, the Clintonite Democrats, who are pretty much what used to be called moderate Republicans. The Republican Party itself has drifted so far to the right that they’re almost off the spectrum. But the split within the Democratic Party is significant, and it’s showing up in primary after primary. Will the party move in the direction of its popular base, with a, essentially, social democratic, New Deal-style programs, even beyond? Or will it continue to cater to the donor class and be essentially a moderate wing—a more moderate wing of the Republican Party? And unless that issue is resolved, I don’t think they have a very good chance in the forthcoming elections.

(...)

Notice, as everybody’s well aware, the tax scam was a purposeful effort not only to enrich the super-rich and the corporate sector—corporate profits, of course, are overflowing—but it was also an effort to sharply increase the deficit, which can be used—and Paul Ryan and others kindly announced to us right away what the plans were—the deficit could be used to undermine any elements of government structure which benefit the general population—Medicare, Social Security, food for poor children. Anything you can do to shaft the general population more can now be justified under the argument that we have a huge deficit, thanks to stuffing the pockets of the rich. This is an astonishing phenomenon. And under those conditions, a properly designed progressive program should appeal to a large majority of the population. But it has to be done correctly and not shaped in ways which will appease the donor class.

(...)

I would again urge that we think in broader terms. We should be considering why people are fleeing from their homes. Not because they want to live in slums in New York. They’re fleeing from their homes because their homes are unlivable, and they’re unlivable, largely, because of things that we have done. Overwhelmingly, that’s the reason. That tells you right away what the solution to the crisis is: rebuild what we’ve destroyed, compensate for the atrocities that we’ve carried out. Then the flow of refugees will decline.

[Neven]

I think it's a mistake to put all hopes on one charismatic person, whether it's a Bernie Sanders or an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. What is needed, is a movement, with at least 25 faces. People like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, Elisabeth Warren, etc. Who else?

[wili]

"Can you name one successful new movement calling for significant change, throughout human history, that did not have a definite leader / statesman at the top who spoke for and on behalf of that movement and everyone knew he/she led it?"

Well, you've set it up so you can decide anything that doesn't fit your standard of leadership wasn't by your lights 'successful' or 'significant,' so I'm not sure you are really interested in looking.

That said, current and recent importnant movements such as MeToo, Black Live Matter, Occupy, and the various fights against oil pipelines were not, as far as I understand, characterized by having one strong central defining leader. There were important persons in each, but not one central controling and defining leader, as far as I can see. But maybe you are looking deeper in history?

[magnamentis]

That said, current and recent importnant movements such as MeToo, Black Live Matter, Occupy, and the various fights against oil pipelines were not, as far as I understand, characterized by having one strong central defining leader. There were important persons in each, but not one central controling and defining leader, as far as I can see. But maybe you are looking deeper in history?

one has to distinguish between movements that want to change a small (can be important but still) part of the system or the system as such.

there were changes that started from withing a group and a leader emerged and others started with a leader and it remained that way and again others started with a leader and ended in a group like i.e. MAO to recent China etc. while either way, even when starting from within a group, often there was toppled leader in the beginning of such groups.

TLTR to go into details here but the first paragraph is important.

one should not mix between topics that some want to change and changing an entire system.

last but not least many changes of political system start with an idea and what ultimately
becomes a renown movement is the kind of compromise that has reached the necessary amount of followers to reach the critical mass, which is why many leaders get replaced by other leaders who were in the lead of that derivative movement that get's sufficient public attention/followership.

again often such movements were/are taken over by groups with their own interests, just using the follower base to achieve their own goals

etc. etc.

[Susan Anderson]

Neven, Tulsi Gabbard is a centrist/corporatist. EDIT: corporatist is too extreme, apologies, what I meant was willing to compromise and work with corporatists https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

If you were in the US and saw what a range of people are saying, you'd realize that your (and my) preferred leaders are not doing well in the public sphere. The first stage of demoralization is nearly complete. Look at the comments sorted by Reader picks; the attacks on Warren are fierce. She's not young, either. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html

I like Ocasio-Cortez because I watch her in action; she is intelligent and she listens to people, and she's not about setting people at each other's throats. Too many cliques here and there are busy fighting with a very small fragment of the population with a my way or the highway attitude.

[sidd]

Thomas Frank on Democratic Party betrayals of their own supporters:

"The Democrats, however, remain a mystery. We watch them hesitate at crucial moments, betray the movements that support them, and even try to suppress the leaders and ideas that generate any kind of populist electricity. Not only do they seem uninterested in doing their duty toward the middle class, but sometimes we suspect they don’t even want to win."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populism

sidd

[Neven]

Neven, Tulsi Gabbard is a centrist/corporatist. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

Thanks for a very interesting read, Susan, but I'm not really reading anything about her being a centrist, let alone corporatist. But the Hindu stuff was very intriguing.

I'm not proposing she be a leader, but she is one of the many faces that are needed to swing things around. My point is that it would be foolish to invest all hopes in just one person (like Obama, for instance). This person could either be disingenuous or get corrupted along the way (like Obama, for instance). A movement is needed, in which we are all involved, not just one glorious leader who is going to solve it all for us.

A movement away from what the Democratic Party has been the past few decades (as described by Thomas Frank in his last column for the Guardian, that sidd posted).

[jacksmith4tx]

Plan A: Within a year the US supreme court will be packed with right-wing pro corporate judges and it's game over for decades(till they retire, get impeached or die). The court will be 6R-3L and they decide what is law. A political solution will be nearly impossible since they can overturn any law and even a presidential election. This is where we are currently going.

Plan B: Mass labor strikes - cripple the economy, destroy the debt markets... overthrow the government and hope what replaces it will be better.

I'm out of the labor force so I'll just boycott everything not essential to the health and well being of my family.

Somebody set a date. What are we waiting for?

[Tor Bejnar]

re Plan A:  when Democrats next gets a 'super majority' in both houses in Congress (with room for blue dogs to vote against it, so as to keep their jobs in conservative districts, and keep the House Democratic) (and the Presidency), they can increase the number of justices, and balance the court in 'no time'.  If this isn't also doing a Roosevelt-styled 'grow government big-time', it should work.

Demographics are supportive of this happening, perhaps as soon as 2020.  Of course, other changes in the political rubic's cube could balance the parties by shifting other things.  (After all, the Democratic Party went from being pro-slavery to being the party of 'minorities', and Reganomics was partially based on 'what's bad for Russia is good for the USA'.)

[Susan Anderson]

Neven, I've posted an edit/apology above for misrepresenting my read on TG. I know a lot about her friend Trey Gowdy, and he's a piece of work.

I spent some years when I was young following a very fine yoga teacher (and teaching hatha yoga (the exercises) myself, before - at my teacher's behest - I returned to "civilization" and went to MIT). I didn't like what I saw of TulsiG's "master's" cult. Explaining that would be too long winded and off topic, but I have a very good instinct for cultism in eastern religions. This one is borderline.

Guys mostly prefer women who are not shrill or aggressive and it helps if they're pretty. Sadly, we have to live with this unacknowledged bias.

[Neven]

Chuck Schumer from the #Assistance not looking too great again:

[Neven]

Another example of shallow, conditioned thinking, which shows that a lot of people who think they're liberal, or leftist, actually never really thought about these things. It's all emotions and conditioned responses. Now, this Trevor Noah guy isn't American, obviously, but how stupid do you have to be to ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez these questions and do the Republicans' work for them?

BTW, I never thought that Trevor Noah was funny and didn't understand why they made him Jon Stewart's successor, but I didn't know he was such a PoS:

[Ranman99]

Humans are not the rational beings they "THINK" they are (that IS just thought by the way). We are emotional beings through and through with some token capacity to reason.

Every time a person believes a thought and has a physical response they are being duped by whats not happening. That is the old Indian "spirituality" snake and rope story.

It is not some great teaching. It is a description of a physiological trap we have found are selves in after centuries of believing we are the thoughts and stories in the system. Dust bunnies really. I didn't put them there.

It is ok to have memory. But to believe that they are true or TRUTH is delusion.

The universe (whats dat?) is absolutely and always fine and ok and life is actually not personal it is a much more encompassing thing (what's dat again?).

When it is over it will not have been a mistake. It will simply be what played out. The TRUTH of it all will not be affected in the least (some kind of "EMPTY" subjective, ah no can't touch that, nothing can be said about the other direction).

Now what? ;-)

Let's play a good hand. The best hand we could have ever played at this juncture!!!! Not some mediocre nonsense but what would the breakout archetype do. Hmmm probably not be that concerned except for the entertainment value unfortunately.

Me, I like to share what I see. As far and as wide as I can. Soon to go out on more airwaves in support of the few.

At least the others wont wake up towards the end and say holy crap if I knew this was going on I would have done things different the last few years.

People do not like their beliefs messed with. They get very ornery. That I have learned the hard way.

But it is OUR story and what is happening at least APPEARS to be happening and that is all that counts.

Play on ;-)

Ciao,

[sidd]

In a Jacobin article from 2016, Ackerman outlines the obstacles to a third party in the USA, and points out that, ironically, Citizen's United and later court cases have lowered the barriers:

"in 1931 Illinois raised the petition requirement for third-party statewide candidates from one thousand signatures to twenty-five thousand. In California, the requirement was raised from 1 percent of the last total gubernatorial vote to 10 percent. In 1939, Pennsylvania suddenly decided it was important that the thousands of required signatures be gathered solely within a three-week period. "

"Indeed, when the Florida legislature found socialists and communists advancing at the polls, it responded in 1931 by banning any party from the ballot unless it had won 30 percent of the vote in two consecutive elections; naturally, when the Republican Party failed to meet that test, the state immediately lowered the threshold."

"In fact, some US electoral procedures are unknown outside of dictatorships: “Unlike other established democracies, the USA permits one set of standards of ballot access for established ‘major’ parties and a different set for all other parties.” "

Read the whole thing:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman

sidd

[wili]

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/02/healthcare-medicare-for-all-hawaii/

Health Care Lobbyists Secretly Secure Democrats’ Opposition to “Medicare for All,” Internal Documents Show

One of many things we're up against...

[TerryM]

Wili
That was a good article with interesting comments, thanks.


Are we advancing our cause when we elect politicians who campaign by saying what we want to hear, while privately pledging do do otherwise?
How are we to determine who will work to enact the platform that they ran on, as opposed to the positions advocated by the lobbyists who financed their campaign?


At a minimum we must demand:
No Corporate Donations.
No Pac Money.
No spousal entanglements.


Then we need some luck
Terry

[Tor Bejnar]

from my 'favorite' political blog (electoral-vote.com):
The Democrats Are Having an Identity Crisis at an Inconvenient Moment

Election analyst Thomas Edsall has a fascinating piece in the New York Times about the Democrats' dilemma. In short, the Democratic Party is two things. It is a normal political party, whose goal is to win as many elections as it can. It is also an engine for social change and a representative of formerly powerless constituencies such as blacks, women, gay people, Latinos, etc. This split is the root of the Democrats' problems.

No party can be all things to all people. FDR was a strong advocate of rural Americans, unions, and working-class people generally. Ending economic inequality was a main driving force in his Party. Starting with the civil rights movement in the 1950s, Democrats became more focused on race and identity than on economics. Thus began the shift of white people away from the Democrats. If the Democrats had said (like the Republicans): "To hell with social justice, we want to win elections," they wouldn't have gone all out for civil rights, which resulted in the solid (Democratic) South becoming the solid (Republican) South. Nowadays, civil rights have moved to the back burner, but when Democrats support the right of anyone to use whatever bathroom they want to, they are again discovering that fighting for social justice and winning elections don't always go together.

Another factor that is causing the Democrats grief is the rise of the affluent urban professional as a key part of the Democratic Party. These people have different priorities than the average voter, according to the Voter Study Group's survey of 8,000 Americans in 2016 and also in 2011-2012. The Democratic elite gave top priority to different issues than the population at large. These included gay rights (61%, vs. 34% for the average voter), gender equality (69% vs. 35%), and racial equality (66% to 39%). In other words, the Party's social goals put it at odds with many voters, who have different priorities.

What are those priorities? They are terrorism (58% for all voters vs. 12% for the elites), crime (57% vs. 18%), taxes (57% vs. 19%), the budget deficit (51% vs. 5%), religious liberty (48% vs. 22%), and immigration (46% vs. 17%). So if the Democrats would just forget about gay rights, gender equality, and racial equality and focus on terrorism, crime, and taxes, they would do better. Of course, then they would be Republicans, who, by and large, have no social goals and will support whatever position gets them the most votes. This year, however, the Democrats are starting to put more emphasis on winning elections than on who uses which bathroom, with Conor Lamb being the poster child for this shift. Of course, come 2020, the old split is likely to emerge again. (V)

Interesting:  nothing (almost) about "Corporate Democrats" in either camp!  [Edit: put quote in quote box.]

[SteveMDFP]

from my 'favorite' political blog (electoral-vote.com):
 
Interesting:  nothing (almost) about "Corporate Democrats" in either camp!

I think it's a perceptive essay.  There really is a tension between advancing social justice and winning elections.  It's important not to let that tension turn into Democratic internal warfare.  Because then the Neanderthals win.

[sidd]

Well, hello there.

"a judge ruled that dark money groups that spend at least $250 in independent expenditures—a key type of political ad—must report every contributor who gave at least $200 in the past year as well as those who give to finance independent expenditures generally"

will be appealed, but a useful first step.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/crew-scores-major-court-victory-against-dark-money/

https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/04161001/Crossroads-opinion.pdf

sidd