Republicans do not have a problem. They're doing what they were designed for, advancing oligarchy and the concentration of wealth, suppressing the wages and rights of workers, acting as a repository for all the anger and self righteousness of old white scrotes, etc.. But what of the Democrats? Are the Democrats loyal to their New Deal principles? Or are they corrupted as well and who are their corruptors? My favorite rogue economist Dean Baker critiques the "Better Deal" put forth this last week by the senator from Wall Street, Chuck Schumer in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/better-deal-than-what_us_598051b8e4b0d187a5969002
As far as I can tell, the Democratic leadership is still handling the peasants without addressing the real transfer of wealth problems. But the peasants are tired of being handled.
I have to disagree about the Republicans. The party counts more fault lines than cross ties on a railroad or stars in the skies. With a disaster in a blue suit tweeting "send me something to sign, in huge letters, and brag about" they couldn't even pass a tax cut for piggies under the heading of health care. On top of which, rhe blue suited disaster is still supported by 39 percent of voters (Rasmussen) who think he is a Republican and they are the party. So they can all have to worry about taking friendly fire in a primary before they ever sink their attack ads into Democrats. Even some of Mitchell's friends are suggesting he isn't the smoothest bill passer since LBJ anymore. And Ryan has to pretend Steve King and Louie Gohmert aren't two of most twisted tailpipes on the truck.
ReplyDeleteSo before they save the country from "their" president, they have to save themselves from each other. And there won't be anything left to save if they have to run on his record. So, no. The Republicans do have trouble. There are too many ways to screw te public, and each one has a different way he wants to get credit for.
Still their mess is a surfeit of bad options. The D's don't have any. The Rs would have to set aside their egos to get out of their mess, but the all the D's need is a brain. Toto, run and find Dorothy.
I guess my main point is that the Repubs stick to their "ideals". They have worked the system more smartly than the Dems as evidenced by their control of the majority of state houses and subsequent gerrymandering. Will their present disarray cause loss of their voter base? I really can't predict what those people will do. But the Democrats need to excite THEIR base.
ReplyDeleteI was a Republican most of my adult life. Republican "ideals" have gone way to the right since I was young, just as the Democrats' "ideals" have swung way to the left. At one time, both parties had strong centrist groups, who could actually work together on the hill to accomplish something. I finally was officially fed up (after years of dismay at what I saw going on with the Republicans) when the Tea Party took control of the GOP, re-registering as an Independent.
ReplyDeleteLike Tom B, I think that the GOP will continue what it is doing unless something happens at the congressional and state levels, even if Trump blows himself out of the water on or before November 2020. In Congress, something like 98% of incumbents are re-elected. Many will ticket split, as they did with Obama. Everybody "hates" Congress, with the exception of their own representative. T
The primary fights might be interesting in the future, but it seems the uber-right will probably hold on. The first signs of rebellion at the state level occurred in Kansas when Republicans joined with Democrats to pass a new tax bill aimed at undoing some of the disastrous consequences of Brownback's term. I'm sure there is great cheering in Kansas that Brownback will be leaving for the "international religious freedom" job. What a joke.
So, the future may still include a dominant, but not quite as dominant, GOP at all levels of govt, even if Trump loses next time. There are efforts among some in the GOP, conservatives, to try to swing the party back to the center. Jeffrey Flake, Senate AZ, is trying to lead this movement. Will he succeed? He'll find out when he's up for re-election. But, any conservatives who want to try to bring the party closer to traditional conservatism will be supported by the #NeverTrump conservatives, including several notable conservative writers in the NYTimes and WaPo (Brooks, Dreher, George Will, Jennifer Rubin, Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker, etc). Unfortunately, I suspect that the far right, Freedom Caucus Republicans have more money at their disposal than do the centrists. The Politico article at the link below (copy and paste) is by Jeffrey Flake.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/31/my-party-is-in-denial-about-donald-trump-215442
The Republicans have changed over time for the worse. It was Nixon who established the EPA.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are still basically doing what they're supposed to be doing - it is they who tried to get to universal health care and who have stood against the Republican health care bill. They are the ones trying to save civil rights for immigrants, for minorities and women. It is they who are trying to stop a tax cut for the rich.
Nixon established the EPA. Reagan was the first to liberalize state laws on abortion. He also was the first to mandate that hospital ERs could not turn away anybody, even if they could not pay for their care. And he granted amnesty to millions of "illegal" immigrants, while calling for immigration reform - REAL immigration reform. Republican conservatives ("real") are not isolationists, they understand that free trade is better for everyone than trade wars and tariff walls, and the importance of maintaining strong alliances with Europe, and other western nations. Etc. These were very difference stances on issues than most Republicans take today on the same issues.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the GOP is screwed up. It is definitely screwed, what with Trump as prez.
ReplyDeleteI do know the Dems are screwed up, and those "lean in" ladies need to lean back and let somebody talk for the working class ifmthey're not gonna.
Them and their Nordstrom outfits and and mani-pedis don't have any idea what real life is like on the line for most women.
And I hate to pick on women, but their cluelessness is way harder to take from them than from some man who doesn't know any better.
When I think of "leaning in", the first person I think of is Sheryl Sandberg. Because of course, she wrote the book. I find her personally admirable. But it is exhausting just to read about the lives of people like that. However it is a different kind of exhausting than "life on the line"; I'm assuming that means a production line. That would feel like being a hamster in a wheel.
DeleteAh, I had to look up that book - hadn't heard of it before. Yes, some rich people are Democrats. Some rich people are Republicans.
DeleteWhat women Democrats are you talking about? All senators and congressmen/women make a good salary - all of them, men and women, dress well when they are at work. I don't see anything wrong with this - it's not like they're Ivanka and her zillion dollar wardrobe.
ReplyDeleteBoth parties at least give lip service to helping the working class. But the Democrats are also for those who are lower middle class and the poor = the Democrats are the ones trying to save Medicaid and social programs that help the elderly, the disabled, the poor. The Republicans are the ones trying to disenfranchise those groups. How then are the Republicans not screwed up?
Part of the problem the Democrats are having trouble is money, and its corrupting influence on politics. And the big money interests are on the side of the Republicans. Soft money, hard money, dark money, out in the open money, you name it. Oh, there are some outliers; I've heard that Warren Buffet is a Democrat. But the fix is always in. Big money likes to take care of itself.
ReplyDeleteMoney influences politics, of course. But how is this a sign that there's something especially bad with the Democrats? Of the two parties, they are the party that stands up for the less fortunate.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a sign of something bad with the Democrats. I think it's a sign of something messed up with the whole political process. We need to restore meaningful campaign finance laws; and (especially) shorten the campaign period.
DeleteAgree about the campaign financing laws. And that's on the Republicans because it is that party that has campaigned on doing away with pretty much all regulation of this. Their 2016 platform said this ...
Delete“Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders. We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits, protecting the political speech of advocacy groups, corporations, and labor unions, and protecting political speech on the internet. We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/blog/2016-republican-platform-campaign-finance-far-cry-teddy-roosevelt-days
We had a campaign finance law. The Supreme Court said it violated free speech. Since we got a conservative Supreme Court some weird laws have been made from he bench. But that law was named for the sponsors. One was a Republican (John McCain) who is currently dwindling down. The other was a Democrat (Russ Feingold), who Wisconsin voters replaced in the Senate with Republican Ron Johnson, last seen as a reed shaken by the wind wondering if he should stand for something in the repeal/replace effort or simply go along with the gang. He went along with the gang. As I expected him to.
DeleteJohnson had Republican money, Tea Party money and his own money, made by shearing or mining or growing polyesters, or however you get that stuff.
The Democrats aren't good enough. Money isn't just influencing politics, it's sitting in the driver's seat and we're all in the back of the bus. Crystal, I really wish you would direct some of the critical energy you direct at the RC Church at the Democratic Party. They really need it.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't understand . I criticize the Republicans because barely a day can go by when they aren't trying to do something horrible, from wrecking the environment to giving tax cuts to the rich, to taking away people's health insurance, to trying to step on women and gay people and racial minorities, poor people.
ReplyDeleteBut what exactly is it that the Democrats are doing that is so bad? The party isn't perfect, of course, but its basic values are correct, I think, especially in comparison to the alternative.
Can't speak for Stanley, but the Democrats have sold out the working class, unions, education, higher ed, and want to put poor people on programs rather than reject big donors who don't pay workers decently.
ReplyDeleteMany workers have no pensions anymore. Tenure is gone, and 70 percent of the academic workforce is adjunct. Corporations are off shoring assets in order to avoid taxes, and this gets little play from Democrats. Last Dem who looked at serious tax reform was Jerry Brown decades ago.
The stock market is sky high, but that is not translating into better wages. Democrats are doing nothing to see that it foes.
Democrats build rickety systems like Obamacare that is subject to all sorts of problems, and then they expect us to lick their hands gratefully for their noblesse oblige.
The only thing I see Democrats get real excited about is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy because she can't afford a child or the care for a disabled child. I believe there are times when abortion should be held morally neutral. But the solution to poverty and sickness ought not always be termination.
I see Democrats launching their Cancer Moonshot that's going to cure us all. At least all of us who can afford the exorbitant amounts of money Big Pharma will make off these cures. For those who are too far gone to be helped, there is no focus on palliative care or quality of life. Instead many Democrats go right from cure to their crusade for euthanasia. Where are the Dems whom support heroin, superior to synthetic opioids in the final stage of life.
Those are just some of the things I wish Democrats would think about.
That covers it!
DeletePreach it, sister! Amen and Amen!!!
DeleteI don't see how Democrats are responsible for all the badness you mention. Except for abortion, it sounds like you're describing the Republican party ...
ReplyDelete- It's the Democrats who support public education, and people like Elizabeth Warren spoke up for student loan relief. Hillary was supported by the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the US.
- The Democrats support unions, not Republicans, who support giant company CEOs instead.
- Yes, Democrats support a woman's legal right to choose if she wants to be a parent or not, irregardless of the reasons. That's the law. Nobody is forced to get an abortion.
- About health care, at least the Democrats have tried, against a lot of adversity, to get health care for everyone. Obviously it's not an easy thing to do in our country but they have been trying to do this and ObamaCare, with all its flaws, was an idealistic effort. The Republicans. on the other hand, would like to see everyone who isn't both rich and well crawl under a bush to die.
There are a lot of problems in the country but if I had to choose which party I trusted the most to help those who really need help, I would choose the Democratic party, even with all its flaws, because that is really what they stand for ideally, though they don't always hit the mark.
PS - it's not euthanasia, it's physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia is where someone murders another person against their will. And many Catholics support physician assisted suicide, including my governor, Jerry Brown, and Canada's Justin Trudeau.
ReplyDeleteJean, you covered it all for me on the Democrats. And yes to heroin for palliative hospice care. There's a time for everything under the sun.
ReplyDeleteI guess this is why I'm the only actual Democrat here ;)
ReplyDeleteSorry - lots of sweeping comments about how the Democratic Party has sold out - insert any number of groups.
ReplyDeletePlease - politics is local - sweeping judgments fit this truism......90% of truth is still 100% a lie!
Some counter observations:
- if roughly 45,000 votes had been allotted differently in three states, Clinton would have won....do you think all of this criticism and navel gazing would have then happened?
- suggest that the Democratic Party values will rise up for 2018....the issue is articulation in this new age of technology
- suggest that Clinton failed because the voters did not turn out....let's see if Trump and the morally bankrupt Republican Party fixes that issue?
- again, as in the year 2000, we have a Republican Party because of the unique form called the Electoral College - with a couple of exceptions, no Republican presidential candidate has received more than 50% of the votes in years - 2000 and 2016 elections; Reagan only got 50.5% in 1980; Bush got 50.7% in 2004 - so, why the bemoaning of what the Democratic Party failures are?
- suggest that the bigger divide is rural/white vs. urban/diversified and demographics align with the latter; not the former
The Democratic Party fell out of love with the working class decades ago and fell in love with the idea that free trade, silicon valley and the internet were going to bring on a new golden age ex nihilo. Nothing but Republican NEOLIBERALISM with a different set of hot shot players. I think loyal Democratic voters as well as loyal Republican voters could use rear view mirrors to see whose zippy is up their bippy.
ReplyDelete"Zippy up their bippy"?
DeleteThe last time the Democrats nominated a liberal for president was 1988. That's almost three decades ago. He lost, and for an encore they nominated a candidate who promised to be competent. Liberals want to make people better through better living conditions. Modern Democratic standard bearers say the people were fine and only needed to have government work better. In a way, that goes back to Carter in 1976. Stanley's "decades ago" is precise.
DeleteMy grandmother's husband was a bandy-rooster Irishman from Chicago who moved to Wisconsin to work in the lead and zinc mines. He used to sit me down and tell me, firmly and passionately, that, as I was (at least partially)Irish I had to have the whole package: Catholic, Democrat and Union supporter. Mickey, if ever put on the spot, would have been a Molotov cocktail-throwing Wobblie. He would NOT have voted for Clinton because it would have been obvious to him that his beloved Democrats had long ago abandoned his kind of working man for the coastal "white wine and brie, swimming pool" liberals and he would despise them vehemently. Luckily he died long before he would have had to vote for Trumplethinskintinyhandserialadulterer.
DeleteThe assertions about Democrats are not true. The one about them embracing euthanasia is an example for all of them ... it's is false. Euthanasia is against the law in the US. Euthanasia is the killing of one person by another without their consent. What is the point of blaming the Democrats for things that they are not actually doing?
ReplyDeleteWell, I got the convo started, anyway, even if Crystal has kicked me out of the Democratic Party and Bill says I'm a liar :-)
ReplyDeleteI still won't be voting for any Repubs. But I think the Dems are skating on their past successes at social justice and not doing much but giving lip service.
Bernie and Eliz. Warren excluded. And maybe Uncle Joe Biden, though that Cancer Moonshot is nothing but a huge handout to Big Pharma.
The rest of them are just swells in their brand new leopardskin pillbox hats.
On the drive home from Greenland had a fact-filled lecture on the NLRB under Obama. Appears that the Dems may have tried to do a few things for Labor. That doesn't excuse Hillary's $$$ speeches to Goldman Sachs. Then we moved on to Venezuela. I did not go off the road.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone else noticed that Trump has succeeded in sucking all the oxygen out of the room, as far as news? Margaret mentions Venezuela above. On virtually all the news sites, anything about Venezuela or any other country is buried several articles down. The top news is always Trump and his latest stunt. What would he do if everyone decided he's no longer news, and you had to scroll down five or six articles to even find anything about him?
ReplyDeleteCongress could pass sanctions against Trump stunts, lies, and misremembering.
DeleteYes. And Trump might sign them, grudgingly, if it gave him a chance to talk about what a great, untold (meaning you'll never see his tax returns) multibillion dollar corporation he built and his unbelievable election victory, including Michigan. Did he tell you about Michigan? Huge. And the lying media said he couldn't win.
DeleteOne thing I'd like to clarify is that I vigorously criticize the Democratic Party because I still CARE. As far as I'm concerned, the whole Republican Party could be abducted by aliens from a parallel universe. But the shift and sellout of the Democratic politicians is what I consider to be the true tragedy. I know Crystal ended her comment on being the only Democrat with a winky emoticon, but people who say one is not a real Democrat remind me of those who say one is not a real Catholic because one criticises what one cares about.
ReplyDelete