SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-times-are-forced-to-change dept.
When trying to understand the two bad choices we have now, it can help to look into the past at where they came from. In this article, Matt Stoller at The Atlantic provides a deep dive into a transformation the Democratic party underwent in the late 1960s onward. In it we see how the Democrats morphed the anti-big-business politics that had powered it for over a century into the big-government politics that define the political conversation today.
Modern liberals tend to confuse a broad social-welfare state and redistribution of resources in the form of tax-and-spend policies with the New Deal. In fact, the central tenet of New Deal competition policy was not big or small government; it was distrust of concentrations of power and conflicts of interest in the economy. The New Deal divided power, pitting faction against other faction, a classic Jefferson-Madison approach to controlling power (think Federalist Paper No. 10). Competition policy meant preserving democracy within the commercial sphere, by keeping markets open. Again, for New Deal populists like Brandeis and Patman [ed: links mine], it was democracy or concentrated wealth—but not both.
[...] The story of why the Watergate Babies spurned populism is its own intellectual journey. It started with a generation of politicians who cut their teeth on college-campus politics. In their youth, they saw, up close, not the perils of robber barons, but the failure of the New Deal state, most profoundly through the war in Vietnam. "We were the '60s generation that didn't drop out," Bob Edgar, a U.S. representative from the class of 1975, told me. The war in Vietnam shaped their generation in two profound ways. First, it disillusioned them toward the New Deal. It was, after all, many New Dealers, including union insiders, who nominated Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and who supported a war that killed millions, including 50,000 Americans their age. And second, higher education—the province of the affluent—exempted one from military service, which was an explicit distinction among classes.
[...] By quietly cutting back the influence of unions, [Democratic strategist Fred] Dutton sought to eject the white working class from the Democratic Party, which he saw as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." The future, he argued, lay in a coalition of African Americans, feminists, and affluent, young, college-educated whites.
[...] By 2008, the ideas that took hold in the 1970s had been Democratic orthodoxy for two generations. "Left-wing" meant opposing war, supporting social tolerance, advocating environmentalism, and accepting corporatism and big finance while also seeking redistribution via taxes.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:20PM
It doesn't take a supermajority to get a bill passed - just simple majority. The state of Texas has demonstrated that in recent years. Wait for the house to recess for Christmas, or whatever, then call an "emergency assembly" for which your own party has been warned. You end up with a super-super majority, because the opposition has already made other commitments.
But, it's doubtful that the dems would have had to resort to any such tricks. If they wanted a fifteen dollar minimum wage, they would have had it. If they wanted a real "pathway to citizenship", they would have had it.
Bottom line, neither party has any intention of "fixing" anything important, and certainly not anything that might upset their corporate masters.
We, the voters, are merely the tools and fools used to keep the parties in power.
THAT is why Trump has done so well, and also why a lot of people claim to be voting third party this time around. And, it's also why so many democrats sat out the primaries, and may well sit out the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:42PM
Congress was designed so that the House of Representatives is more of a populist chamber while the Senate works slowly, protecting the interests of the minority (which could be conservative, liberal, or something else depending on the issue at hand).
So in part, your complaint is about our system of government - the one that was designed 200+ years ago by the drafters of the Constitution.
As for the $15 minimum wage nationwide, that is controversial even among Democrats. Hillary, for example, doesn't support it, while Bernie does. There is evidence from the cities that have instituted it that that leads to significant loss of jobs. I think most top Democrats support the $10.10 Fed. minimum wage proposed by Obama, and many would go a bit higher.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:03PM
Three states will vote on $12 by 2020, Washington on $13.50. There is no need for voters to wait if they have ballot initiatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:22PM
But, it's doubtful that the dems would have had to resort to any such tricks. If they wanted a fifteen dollar minimum wage, they would have had it. If they wanted a real "pathway to citizenship", they would have had it.
No. They did not have the ability for an infinite wish list. They spent all their capital on obamacare. It was an enormously hard fight. The republicans have voted to repeal it something like 60 times since. I'm pretty sure that's a level of opposition unprecedented in the entire history of the US.
The fact that they had to pick and choose their battles is not proof of neglect, its proof that they didn't have unlimited power and resources. Which should be self-evident to anyone with a brain larger than a pea.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 03 2016, @09:12PM
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:35PM
That's exactly right, Runaway.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Thexalon on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:48PM
Which is strange, because the only difference between Trump and the politicians controlled by their corporate puppetmasters is that Trump eliminates some of the middlemen. Trump, doing what's good for Trump (which is all he's ever really done) would do exactly what's good for Goldman Sachs just as assuredly as Clinton would. His biggest con in this election is convincing a large number of people that he's not a part of the political establishment, when in fact he wouldn't have been able to do most of what he's done without all sorts of political connections. Had Trump not had political connections, he probably would be in jail already for tax evasion and fraud and immigration law violations and sexually molesting minors.
Sure, he's not a politician, but the idea that he'd answer to the people is ludicrous. The only person Donald Trump has ever answered to in his entire life is Fred Trump.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:04PM
tax evasion
You mean the law William Clinton enacted and uses himself?
sexually molesting minors
You mean the forum shopping the jerry springer show made up and is doing to try to damage him? It was filed in Cal and thrown out, then in NY which will listen to the complaint (which it must do by law) then throw it out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @07:39PM
The only person Donald Trump has ever answered to in his entire life is Fred Trump.
And Vladimir Putin.