Tom Perez Apologizes for Telling the Truth, Showing Why Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention
Party officials seem to protect and entrench the same mentality that empowered Trump.
The more alarmed one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party. That Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote on her way to losing to Donald Trump, and that the singular charisma of Barack Obama kept him popular, have enabled many to ignore just how broken and failed the Democrats are as a national political force.
An endless array of stunning statistics can be marshaled to demonstrate the extent of that collapse. But perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence is that even one of the U.S. media’s most stalwart Democratic loyalists, writing in an outlet that is as much of a reliable party organ as the DNC itself, has acknowledged the severity of the destruction. “The Obama years have created a Democratic Party that’s essentially a smoking pile of rubble,” wrote Vox’s Matthew Yglesias after the 2016 debacle, adding that “the story of the 21st-century Democratic Party looks to be overwhelmingly the story of failure.”
A failed, collapsed party cannot form an effective resistance. Trump did not become president and the Republicans do not dominate virtually all levels of government because there is some sort of massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism. Quite the contrary: This all happened because the Democrats are perceived — with good reason — to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.
What drove Bernie Sanders’s remarkably potent challenge to Hillary Clinton was the extreme animosity of huge numbers of Democrats — led by its youngest voters — to the values, practices, and corporatist loyalties of the party’s establishment. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primary war — which was far more vicious and nasty but devoid of any real ideological conflict — the 2016 primary was grounded in important and substantive disputes about what the Democratic Party should be, what principles should guide it, and, most important of all, whose interests it should serve.
That’s why those disputes have not disappeared with the inauguration of Trump, nor should they. It matters a great deal, perhaps more than anything else, who leads the resistance to Trump and what the nature of that opposition is. Everyone knows the popular cliché that insanity means doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes; it illustrates why Democrats cannot continue as is and expect anything other than ongoing impotence and failure. The party’s steadfast refusal to change course even in symbolic ways — We hereby elevate by acclamation Chuck “Wall Street” Schumer and re-install Nancy “I’m a multimillionaire and we are capitalists” Pelosi — bodes very poorly for its future success.
In sum, demanding that one refrain from critiquing the Democratic Party in order to exclusively denounce Trump over and over is akin to demanding that one single-mindedly denounce cancer without worrying about who the treating doctor is or what type of research is being conducted to cure it. Trump happened because the Democrats failed. And he and similar (or worse) phenomena will continue to happen until they are fixed.
The obvious determination of Democratic establishment leaders to follow the same failed and dreary course explains why the race for DNC chair has become so heated. In reality, that position is little more than a functionary role — mostly focused on fundraising and building the party apparatus at the state level — but whoever occupies it does serve as a leading public face of the party.
For the last five years, the face of the DNC was the living, breathing embodiment of everything awful about the party: the sleazy, corrupt corporatist, and centrist hawk Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who — as a result of WikiLeaks’ publication of DNC emails — had to resign in disgrace after she got caught engaging in sustained cheating in order to ensure that Hillary Clinton would be the party’s nominee.
But her disgrace was short-lived: Upon resigning, she was quickly rewarded for her corruption by being named to a high position with the Clinton campaign, as well as having the D.C. establishment Democrats, led by Joe Biden and Clinton herself, support her in vanquishing a Sanders-supported primary challenger for her seat in Congress. As a result of the support from the party establishment (as well as massive funding from corporate and banking interests), she defeated that challenger, Tim Canova, and the nation rejoiced as she returned for her seventh term in Congress.
Wasserman Schultz was replaced as DNC chair on an interim basis by longtime party operative Donna Brazile, who was quickly engulfed by her own scandal when she got caught secretly passing CNN debate questions to the Clinton campaign, then repeatedly lying about it by denying it and insinuating the emails were forged by the Russians. For that misconduct, CNN fired her, as anchor Jake Tapper denounced her cheating as “horrifying” and CNN said it made the network “completely uncomfortable.”
But Brazile continues to this day to run the DNC. Think about that: Her behavior was so unethical, dishonest, and corrupt that Jeff Zucker-led CNN denounced it and publicly disassociated itself from her. But the DNC seems perfectly comfortable having her continue to lead the party until the next chair is chosen.
Perhaps worse than the serial cheating itself was that it was all in service of coronating a candidate who — as many of us tried to warn at the time — all empirical data showed was the most vulnerable to lose to Donald Trump. So the very same people who bear the blame for Trump’s presidency — by cheating to elevate the candidate most likely to lose to him — continue to dominate the Democratic Party. To describe the situation is to demonstrate the urgency of debating and fixing it, rather than ignoring it in the name of talking only about Trump.
Early on in the race for DNC chair, Keith Ellison — the first American Muslim ever elected to the U.S. Congress and an early Sanders supporter who resides on the left wing of the party — emerged as a clear favorite. He racked up endorsements not only from progressives like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Jesse Jackson but also party stalwarts such as Walter Mondale, John Lewis, and even Schumer himself, who seems to recognize that throwing a few symbolic crumbs to the Sanders wing of the party is strategically wise in light of the enduring bitterness many of them harbor toward the DNC’s behavior and the party’s centrist, neoliberal, pro-war policies.
Photo: AP
The knives were then out for Ellison, as operatives began dumping controversial college-age comments about Louis Farrakhan and Israel into the media. The New York Times began running articles with headlines such as “Jewish Groups and Unions Grow Uneasy With Keith Ellison” — a strange headline given that Ellison has been endorsed by multiple unions, including the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers, UNITE HERE, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, among others. Even unpaid parking tickets from the 1990s made an appearance thanks to Democratic slime artists.
The assault on Ellison’s candidacy was formalized when the Obama White House recruited and promised to back one of its loyalists, Labor Secretary Tom Perez. As he did with his endorsement of Wasserman Schultz, Biden made the establishment’s support for Perez official by publicly endorsing him last week.
Perez is a pleasant liberal and loyal party stalwart: Before the first primary vote was cast, he endorsed Clinton over Sanders and became one of her most outspoken surrogates. Despite claiming to be devoted to American workers, he was a loyal supporter of TPP even after Clinton was forced into insincere opposition.
It’s not hard to see why the Obama and Clinton circles want him to run the party instead of Ellison. He’s acceptable to big donors. He has proven himself loyal to the party establishment’s agenda. He is a reliable party operative. And, most importantly of all, he will change nothing of substance: ensuring that the same policies, rhetoric, and factions that have prevailed continue to do so, all while protecting the power base of the same people who have run the party into the ground.
Two recent incidents vividly highlight why Tom Perez so perfectly embodies the Democratic Party status quo. The first occurred two weeks ago, when my colleague Zaid Jilani attended an event where Perez was speaking and politely but repeatedly asked him about Israeli human rights abuses — which had been in the news that week because of new demolitions by the IDF of Palestinian homes, and because Perez had been asked about his views on boycotting Israel as a way of stopping its decadeslong occupation.
With the domination of the Democratic Party by Saban and others looming, just watch how this profile in courage who wants to lead the Democratic Party responded to being asked about his opinions on this matter:
Tom Perez condemned BDS at the DNC Chair Debate so I asked him what he thought about Israeli home demolitions.. pic.twitter.com/8QI8FRVhHl
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) January 21, 2017
An even more illustrative episode occurred late Wednesday. Perez was in Kansas campaigning for votes from county leaders and was asked about the need for the party to retain the support of the Sanders contingent. Perez unexpectedly blurted out a truth that party functionaries to this day steadfastly bury and deny even in the face of the mountain of evidence proving it. This is what Perez said:
We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged and it was. And you’ve got to be honest about it. That’s why we need a chair who is transparent.
That’s quite an admission from the party establishment’s own candidate: “The process was rigged.” And he commendably acknowledged how important it is to admit this — “to be honest about it” — because “we need a chair who is transparent.”
But Perez’s commitment to “transparency” and “being honest” had a very short life-span. After his admission predictably caused controversy — with furious Clinton supporters protesting the truth — Perez demonstrated the same leadership qualities that were so evident when Zaid Jilani asked him about Israeli human rights abuses.
He quickly slinked onto Twitter with a series of tweets to retract what he said, claim that he “misspoke” (does anyone know what that word means?), apologize for it, and proclaim Hillary Clinton the fair and rightful winner:
I have been asked by friends about a quote and want to be clear about what I said and that I misspoke.
— Tom Perez (@TomPerez) February 9, 2017
As I've said repeatedly, we can't have a primary process where it is even perceived that a thumb was on the scale.
— Tom Perez (@TomPerez) February 9, 2017
Hillary became our nominee fair and square, and she won more votes in the primary—and general—than her opponents.
— Tom Perez (@TomPerez) February 9, 2017
To ensure there was no mistaking his loyalty oath, he made that last tweet his pinned tweet, ensuring it would sit at the top of his Twitter page. (He also included a couple of scripted, empty banalities about the importance of transparency, objectivity, and “fighting like hell.”)
So in Tom Perez’s conduct, one sees the mentality and posture that has shaped the Democratic Party: a defense of jobs-killing free trade agreements that big corporate funders love; an inability to speak plainly, without desperately clinging to focus-group, talking-points scripts; a petrified fear of addressing controversial issues even (especially) when they involve severe human rights violations by allies; a religious-like commitment never to offend rich donors; and a limitless willingness to publicly abase oneself in pursuit of power by submitting to an apology ritual for having told the truth.
That is the template that has driven the Democratic Party into a ditch so deep and disastrous that even Vox acknowledges it without euphemisms. That is the template that has alienated voters across the country at all levels of elected office and that enabled the Donald Trump presidency. And it is the template that Democratic Party establishment leaders are more determined than ever to protect and further entrench by ensuring that yet another detached, lifeless functionary who embodies it becomes the next face of the party.
One can spend all of one’s time and energy denouncing Donald Trump. But until the systemic causes that gave rise to him are addressed and resolved, those denunciations will do little other than generate social media benefits and flattering applause from those already devoted to opposing him. Focusing on and attempting to counter the fundamental flaws of the Democratic Party is not a distraction from #TheResistance; it is a central priority, a prerequisite for any kind of success.
While it is undoubtedly true that Ellison will represent the Progressive/Sanders wing of the DNC if elected, it is also plainly true that he is a Jew and Israel hater. One need only follow his history, see with whom he consorts, and be familiar with the basic tenets of Islam – a religion which he chose as an adult – to see this is true. So, if that;s what the Dems want, more power to you.
Of course, that is why the rest of us who oppose the Left also support Ellison’s candidacy. His election to this post can only accelerate the DNC into the dustbin of history.
I agree that the Democratic Party is a corporatist, elitist and conservative (especially relative to its European counterparts) institution. But we’re never going to realize a truly progressive vision of America if we don’t confront a simple yet devastating truth: it is much, much harder to effectively promote, much less implement, progressive policies in the United States than it is neoliberal or conservative ones.
Remember, Hillary Clinton got more primary votes from run-of-the-mill rank-and-file Democrats than Bernie Sanders – 3 million more in fact.
The reality of the matter is, progressives like Bernie Sanders, throughout American history, have had an uphill battle (think Eugene Debs) – and the hill has only gotten steeper. For one thing, the sorts of institutions that not only channeled but created support for progressive policies, particularly among the working classes, from the late 19th to the mid 20th century are either all but dead (in the case of unions) or politically impotent (student organizations, black churches, minority interest groups) – and it’s not like any of those organizations were anywhere near as strong as their European counterparts anyway. Progressives don’t have nearly as many think-tanks as neoliberals, let alone conservatives, so useful progressive policy research is severely lacking in this country.
Furthermore, Bernie said it himself – “poor people don’t vote.” It’s uniquely difficult to vote in this country, especially if you’re poor, young or not white. But even if it were easier to vote, there isn’t a strong culture of political activism in the places where it’s need most, like my hometown of Syracuse. There is, as far as I am aware, no AFL-CIO or NAACP or National Urban League or SNCC or any other organization helping to register people to vote. Particularly in small and mid-size cities, and in middle America generally (I tend to think of Syracuse as middle America), the political infrastructure and culture required to grow and channel support for progressive policies is almost non-existent.
Then consider the possibility that the Democratic party might alienate more centrist voters by adopting more progressive policies. How does the Democratic Party explain to them why Black Lives Matter isn’t a threat to American police officers? How does the Democratic party convince them to support a single-payer system when nothing of the sort has been seriously attempted or even proposed in all of American history? How does the Democratic Party convince them to still be angry enough about the 2008 crisis to want to break up the big banks? Or that we as a country can afford universal public college? Or that a living wage won’t kill small business? Or that gas prices have to go up for us to save the planet? Or that a tax increase to support any of these ambitious progressive policies is worth it? Trump may be extreme, but that doesn’t necessarily mean centrists won’t vote for their Republican congressperson or state senator if Democrats move too far to the left.
And if Democrats really want to implement a progressive agenda, they’re going to have to get a lot of people in red states to be more progressive – despite the fact that as of now there isn’t a significant Democrat Party infrastructure in those states. Besides, what happens when you start to reach out to white Bible Belt Republicans and end up in the middle of inevitable cultural disputes involving LGBTQ, Muslims, and African-Americans?
Debate in the United States on issues from climate change to health care to foreign policy favors conservatism/neoliberlism. We’re not arguing about whether to do cap and trade or an across the board limit on carbon emissions – we’re debating whether climate change is real. We’re not debating how much health coverage American should get or how much they should have to pay for it – we’re debating whether health care is a human right. We’re not arguing over the merits of BDS – we’re arguing over whether or not to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We’re not fighting over how small to make the banks or how much corporate CEOs should be paid – we’re fighting over whether who, the Mexicans or the Chinese, have taken more of our jobs. Shifting debate is extremely difficult. And as the tea party movement and primary victory of Hillary Clinton have shown us, the American mentality is for the most part fundamentally conservative and specifically anti-government. Why else would millions of Americans vote the plutocrat-tax-cutting, Social-Security-and-Medicare-hating Republicans into office? If Marine LePen or Nigel Farage or Geert Wilders decided to cut entitlements and rich people’s taxes like Paul Ryan, they’d lose all their support. And yet, Trump’s supporters – who are very much like the members of the National Front and UKIP and the Party for Freedom – still side with the Republican Party.
It’s not that we have nothing going for us. But we’ve got a lot of work to do if we’re going to make it so that the whole progressive vision is a viable one in the minds of most Americans.
The reason we reject Democrats is precisely because we reject the “progressive” vision. It is a failed, regressive, vision that leads directly to totalitarianism. It is based on a hatred of Western, Judeo-Christian values, a naive utopianism and a desire for power. The latter is fanned by the conviction that average people are too stupid to govern themselves and therefore, need an elite of their betters to govern them.
To these nefarious insults is added the continued abuse of aloofness, condescension and profound arrogance. The “progressives” do not understand anything about the 90% of American counties that voted for Donald Trump, nor do they show the slightest desire to listen and learn. They simply babble on about how they need to repackage their message so that it is better received. But those of us in red state America are not the stupid rubes that we are made out to be. We are not about to be fooled by dressing up a pile of stinking rubbish in new wrapping.
The fact is, we are sick of being lectured at by a morally bankrupt elite that is more interested in placing their sons in the same bathrooms as our daughters than they are in addressing the economic devastation that their globalist corporate masters have wrought on our country. We are done with the dumbing down and indoctrination of our children by those who, as the Podesta e-mails admit, desire to create an “uninformed and compliant” citizenry. In sum, we are fed up with you, the progressives, because you are the enemies of freedom, justice, morality and our Constitution.
There was a time (at least I believe so), when American voters had some say into who their elected officials might be. We also know that after WW2 and over the decades more and more wealth has been accumulated by fewer and fewer people and companies. Thus
How in the world can we fight the huge media, banking, petrolium, pharmaceutical, food and chemical cartels who are shaping public opinion and elections with their billions of dollars? I’m not sure we can at this point.
I understand that Secretary Clinton was a very flawed candidate, yet I have to wonder if even with a spotlessly clean record would she have won the election. I have my doubts.
Well, here’s a question for you: can you tell me any stance which you honestly believe Clinton really holds and would never repudiate?
She isn’t a hard-core feminist — when her idiot philanderer husband got caught cheating on her in the Oval Office, she viciously attacked the women who came out to accuse her using sexist lines of attack.
She isn’t a defender of abortion — when Breitbart produced that faked video a while back, she was the first to try to throw Planned Parenthood under the bus.
She isn’t anti-corporate or anti-war or pro-civil-liberties — quite the opposite, her record is noticeably pro-corporate, pro-war, and anti-civil-liberties, but has *claimed* to be the other way around when addressing audiences who are not in sympathy with her.
Clinton, like the Democratic Party as a whole, has been spending so much time trying desperately not to be anything anyone hates that she isn’t really anything at all any more. There really isn’t any policy or project you can look at Clinton and say “this is it, this is something she really wants and would never betray”. She doesn’t stand for anything, except for not being Donald Trump.
Speaking as someone who was monumentally angry with both parties for their candidate selection: I’d be happy to vote for a Democrat who actually stood for something I agreed with, even if they weren’t flawless. I would have been willing to vote for Sanders even though he was unwilling to take a hard anti-war stance (or even an anti-drone-bombing stance) and has a dubious history on guns, because he obviously and genuinely stands in opposition to Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks, and despite attempts by the Clinton camp to smear him, he is better on race issues than Hillary “I Have Black Lives Matter Representatives Escorted Out By Security” Clinton.
In other words: stop being scared of what the Republicans might say about your candidates, and pick candidates who really fight for the things you claim, at least, to believe in, rather than pre-compromising by choosing amorphous vapid windvanes like Clinton.
I would like to point out that the reason Hillary lost is not because she was a poor candidate or the shenanigans of the Dem Party. She lost because we do not live in a democracy. The founding plutocrats created a Republic for and by the plutocrats (white men of property). They were deeply fearful of direct democracy and designed the system we have, in order to filter the wants of the majority (the mob) through the plutocratic elites who would know better the wisest course of government. I would wish that every article of this sort begin by acknowledging the we do not have one person one vote in this country on either the federal or state level. The age old practice gerrymandering to perpetuate political control has risen to an art form by the GOP. They clearly understood that defining the battleground, controls the outcome (mostly). Hillary could have won by 10 million votes nationwide and still lost the Electoral College. The reason we have a GOP house and senate is not because the most people vote for them. It is because we do not have one person one vote in this country (sadly).
This may be but it doesn’t change the fact that Hillary Clinton was a train wreck of a candidate. One can acknowledge that and still understand that there is systemic corruption within our political system.
Well, if you consider the Founders’ vision of a democratic republic inherently corrupt, you and your party are up against a strong structural system that you can pretend doesn’t matter when the Dems are in power, only to have it bite you when they forget that the Constitution is still the law of the land.
There’s plenty of systemic corruption in the system, but it’s the constant attempts to suborn the structure that feed it. I might point out that historically, the Dems have been the party of hypocritical corruption (we’re for the common people, but in bed with the big donors). At least the GOP platform is consistent about being in bed with business. By the way, it’s business that made this country rich and powerful, not socialism.
Hillary Clinton ultimately lost, in a purely mechanical sense, because the votes she was counting on were right-of-center voters who she had been chasing since… well, actually since the 1990s, and at the last minute the Comey announcements caused those voters to switch back. Her entire campaign was a constant stream of kicking the base in the teeth and chasing Republican voters — and that’s not just my assessment, it’s something the campaign actually admitted. (“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”)
A voter who doesn’t really like your party, but has just barely been convinced to vote for you anyway doesn’t take much to change their mind back to voting against you. Thus when Comey came out with his announcements to Congress, a lot of people who had been thinking of voting for Clinton suddenly came out of it with a pop and changed their minds.
Clinton could have avoided this either by focussing on getting the base out (rather than discouraging it), or by simply not having all the baggage which she had (and still has). (In fact, a lot of Republicans seem to have voted for Trump not because they liked him, but because they hate Clinton so much that they absolutely felt the need to try to keep her out, and Trump was the only option available — something which would not have been the case had the Democrats nominated almost anyone else in the entire party.) But she didn’t do that.
Therefore: Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate. QED.
Another fine article…thanks Glenn.
We shall soon see whether the Democratic ‘leadership’ has learned anything from the 2016 debacle and the trend-lines that were visible to many long before.
The signs thus far don’t bode well; from Brazille’s installation as temp DNC chair to the naming of status quo minority leaders in House & Senate, the continuous effort to blame the Russkies for the 2016 losses, to Biden’s and others’ endorsement of Perez. If the latter is installed, it will be clear to all that the Democratic Party is doubling down on its corrupt obeisance / deference to money. On the bright side, it will likely lead many to concede that a third party is the only viable alternative for those seeking peace, justice and sustainability on this planet.
It’s worth remembering that Drumpf – whose father attended a KKK rally in the 1920s – only won because of the Electoral College, a process created to maintain slavery. You just know that all the reich-wingers would just LOVE to own slaves, and overturn the laws granting women and minorities voting rights.
As for the Democrats vs the Republicans, it makes no sense to even have political parties. The idea was that political parties got formed by people coalescing around an idea. But when parties stay around too long, they turn into cults, just like the communist party in the Soviet Union did. No doubt the people the world over never predicted that the US would become just as corrupt as the USSR.
I always look for Greenwald’s material. He is to the left what Jim Webb is to the right. Someone who speaks without without intent to deceive. Bless them both.
How come you can only get such honest, incisive, impartial articles from Greenwald? No one else at the Intercept is worth reading at all. Thank you for another great piece, Glenn.
I think that’s unfair. Glenn is definitely the shining light but there are a few others well worth reading.
Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban — the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign — smeared Ellison as “an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual” and said his election “would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”
And this is a problem how?
What do you mean by your statement ?
“until the systemic causes that gave rise to him are addressed and resolved”
Um, that systemc cause would be white females who act with impunity, and in total complicity with the surveillance state they built.
Mebbe those Hillary white women and their colorful clones with the universal ethnicity and the [now] rudderless party could follow his lead- those morons need to get out of bed with the bolsheviks, and international treachery.
Apologize for what they did to the party.
Not all DemoRats believe that a police state and American fascism ala Hillary, Schumer, Wassermen Scheitz, Feinstein, Pelosi et ass is a good idea. If ever violence against women is called for, it would be against those women, now, with great violence- lynch them for what they did to the party. Grab ’em by the cc…c….c….oh never mind. This is a primarily DemoRat reader base….
America first! (but only after we get those morons out of it, and into a Russian gulag where they belong.)
[CORRECTION: Russian gulag’s are no longer necessary, as those morons built better gulags, here, in America to lock up da bad menz. Put those crooks in there, and give them some of the RAAAAAAPE they cried about for the last 30 years.]
Glenn Greenwald is a national treasure. And you’re disgracing him with this horrid, hateful comment. I urge you to delete this at once. You’re only hurting Mr. Greenwald by associating such ideas with his thoughtful article.
Orange Agent 13, your adolescent attempt to be provocative is reminiscent of the cheap crap put out by Tea Party thugs who couldn’t pen even a justified criticism of Obama without including the words “monkey” or “lynching.” Oh, how shocking! There are plenty of us white women who were totally repulsed by Hillary & Friends pulling out the “woman” card while ignoring the problems faced by working class women, women of color, and women in marginalized communities around the globe and giving nothing more than lip service to the threats posed by our police state, failed capitalist system, and the continued destruction of our environment. However, unlike you, we are well aware that violence, including rape, is still being used as a tool to silence women here at home and abroad and recognize that only a misogynistic moron would suggest such measures, if only in a juvenile attempt to be “edgy.” If anything good will come out of the Trump presidency, it might be that we will all come to recognize that undisciplined ranting aimed at getting attention by being “politically incorrect” contributes nothing of value to our communal discussion.
It is time for a new political party.
Both parties want predictable voters who they can count on. That’s why in NY they erased 200K people from rolls in Brooklyn before the primaries. A educated voter with options is dangerous and not predictable. They are all in the pockets of the big banks and overlords, and nothing will change unless we all get up off our asses. How do we get the DNC to make the right moves and get the old guard out!!
Every thing you’ve said about the democratic party is true. However, that does not justify voting for Trump or a third-party candidate given the giant chasm that was apparent between the two candidates. The claim there was no or very little difference between Clinton and Trump just doesn’t stand up to rigor; it’s a fake claim as fake as any news out there.
Just as many people couldn’t identify or reason through a fake news story, they couldn’t reason through the Clinton=Trump fake equivalence. That doesn’t give me much hope for the future, as truth can be much more nuanced and difficult to convey than a lie repeated over and over verbatim by a thoroughly bankrupt party.
Excellent strawman, feel better now? The “giant chasm” you refer to must not include: fracking, endless war, wall street give-aways, neoliberal economics (actually Trump is better in one respect, he nixed TPP…funny, huh?), oil pipelines…shall I continue?
The reason Trump is BETTER is because he rips the facade off of the single party system that we have. HRC would have let you go back to sleep thinking everything is fine. It’s not and now you know it.
amen…
exposed!
I left a comment two days ago, and shared this post to facebook. I have received from Facebook three or four notifications that that more than 12, or thirteen people have either liked, and commented on my comment, but when I tap on that notification, none of the likes, or comments are displayed, just the original post from the Intercept??? Why is this the case, and can it be corrected????
Thank you Glenn. It seems you’re the only voice willing and capable of telling the truth, please keep it up. America needs you now more than ever.
If people could ignore the stench of the rotting corpse that is the Democratic Party, they’d find it still has much to recommend it. Many voters, even though they won’t admit it, are guilty of Deathism – an unwarranted bias against dead political parties. But this ignores the fact that the Democrats are still much better than the alternative.
Yes, zombie like, they will continue the policies of the previous Republican administration, but they won’t make them any worse. If voters don’t see the tremendous improvement this represents, I’m afraid I can’t help them.
Utter nonsense. Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. Humanity may drive itself extinct within the next decade, unless we reverse course NOW. It may already be too late. But if you seriously think that the Democrats’ insistence on coddling the Republicans no matter what is somehow preferable, then there’s no helping you.
it’s snarcasm
The Republicans did not win control over all three branches of government, and control over most state governments. Democrats gave them control. For eight years the DNC acted as nothing more than a placeholder for Hillary. They spent eight years dreaming of all the goodies they would grab during the next Clinton administration and they did nothing at the state of local levels to strength their base. There was zero strategy for the midterm elections, zero strategy for pushing Obama’s agenda, zero strategy for staying in touch with the needs of their constituents.
Before the primary, I had concluded that the Democrats were weak, ineffective and just occupying space in Congress. I was wrong. They way they schemed, manipulated and connived to shut Bernie and his supporters out of the process, I understood that they had not forgotten how to fight, they just didn’t care enough to fight for the American people. They turned our media into a propaganda machine. They remained stone silence while hundreds of thousands of Democrats were denied a right to vote. They refused to register new voters, feeling it would benefit Bernie. They deliberately alienated our young people. The fiasco during the convention took the cake. They locked out delegates and paid actors to sit in the seats. I still can not believe what I witnessed.
If Perez wins, the Democratic party is history. It is history anyway. Franky, I don’t know why Bernie bothers to try to revive it. We are better off with a new party, representative of the people minus the sell outs who work only for corporate interest. The Democratic name scares like minded Republicans who are sick of the Republican party for the exact same reasons. American people are better off leaving both parties to their madness and just moving on. Both parties work for Wall Street, not American citizens.
Well written Donna, couldn’t agree more.
working to take back the Democratic party so it is transparently attractive to citizens so fed up, desperate and revolted by deep systemic corruption that they backed Bernie and then voted Trump in order to “blow up the corrupt system “
“Flaws” is putting it mildly. The Democratic Party is irredeemable. If they had made Bernie Sanders the Senate Majority Leader instead of Wall Street fixer Chuck Schumer, there might be some hope. But they didn’t and they never will.
Your disdainful description of the Democratic party could be interchanged with the despicable Rethuglican party with the additional insult of 8 years of bupkus to show for themselves!
Same sh..t different piles. So what will you do about it?
The politicians of the Democratic Party are mentally incapable of comprehending how subservient they are to the psychopathic elite. The fact is both parties and the judiciary that represent all three branches of the U.S. state and federal governments are owned and managed for the benefit of and by the psychopathic elite, leaving the vast citizenry in a state of isolation and hopelessness.
Both parties now, ever so clearly, represent the same corrupt entity that places the people within the realm of “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
In actuality, the Democratic Party is only concerned with saving itself for the benefit of itself so that it can continue to play its role in the charade of deceiving the people that something exists for their benefit.
What the words in the Lord’s Prayer call for, “deliver us from evil” is what the people need, and that includes deliverance from the Democratic as well as Republican Parties.
“It’s the human trafficking, stupid.”
Little did I know 6 months ago, that EVERYTHING Glenn is writing about here and the important questions he poses is tied to GLOBAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING (child and adult). EVERYTHING. It’s the lynchpin.
Why did Trump really win the election? What did so many voters know at the last minute that others did not? Why does everyone on both sides of the aisle despise him? Why are Pelosi and Schumer still around? Why did Trump pick Mad Dog, Flynn – and Sessions as his AG? Why did the Senate drag it’s heels for so long in confirming Session? Why, why, why? Because all those guys know what the decades long open secret in Washington (don’t get me started on Hollywood, New York, the Hamptons, Chicago, etc.) and they want it stopped – NOW.
At least 30% of Washington is up to their eyebrows in human trafficking and pedophilia and 30% more are guilty of enabling and/or covering it up. It’s been going on, hidden in plain sight, at least since George HW Bush was in office. Bush? Yes, the Bushes are involved, and Bill and Hillary, and sorry, but Obama, too. There is almost no one in our government this cancer hasn’t touched in some way.
Sounds crazy, outrageous, like the ranting of a lunatic? I’ve been on the chans since the Wikileaks DNC and Podesta emails were dropped, along with about 500 others working on this stuff since then. It’s larger and more horrific than anyone can imagine. I’ve had to to stop several times for a few days, during which all I could do was cry and vomit.
All I ask is that you take a few minutes and prove me wrong.
George Webb, an insider, started leaking info. awhile ago through short videos. He had released 59 segments when all of them suddenly “disappeared” from YouTube. That happens with regularity wherever this topic appears. Now, folks have to start at segment 60 and move forward. To-date they are still there.
“DAY 60 – WHERE IS ERIC BRAVERMAN?” https://m.youtube.com/user/georgwebb
Prefer to read: CLIFF NOTES for the series that someone else put together: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5t0b0q/slug/ddjhaj5
McNeal is spot on! And Glenn Greenwald needs a Pulitzer Prize for journalism. Matt Yglesias as well. The Democratic Party elite are so estranged from reasoned people who vote the ticket it’s pathetic. I’m one of them. The messaging is abysmal. That they have tried to become Republican by accepting Faustian pacts for money and at the same time trying to tell us on the campaign trail that they’re something different is shameful. The time to cut the ties is now. No, it’s way overdue. But let’s do it now so we have a chance in the 2018 mid-terms. George Lakoff has offered the messaging strategy over and over and over and still the elites refuse to pay attention. They’ve dug the hole; now it’s time to quit digging and re-invent. The Perez part is so purely party politics it cannot be described with words (tell the truth and then, oh yes, walk it back – this is just too rusty to work anymore). Keith Ellison is the savior of the party’s rising from the ashes we need. 30 years of election defeat? c’mon Elites: get going on a new plan. As Thom Hartmann tells us, Tag, You’re It ….get elected to school board, city council, district congressional seat — DO SOMETHING to make change from within.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary * made a deal long before the election*. He may have been pressured into honoring it but he had agreed very early on that she would be the Dem. candidate. He would whip up the base that she might not have been able to – or able to as effectively – and then, at the appointed hour, stand down and deliver all those votes to Hillary. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397#efmAAAAB2
I’m skeptical of your claim. Partially because Sanders didn’t appeal to the same people as Clinton and couldn’t deliver their votes to her very effectively, and although I’m willing to believe that Clinton’s people would be unable to see that I can’t imagine that he would make the same mistake. But moreso because the linked e-mail doesn’t say they have an agreement to do that, it just mentions “an agreement”, which could mean any number of different things, including “Sanders agreed to keep the kid gloves on in exchange for being permitted to run for the Democratic nomination even though he has been an Independent for years”. (In fact, that would explain a lot.)
Well said, Glenn!
I’ve been conveying the same painful dose of “adult reality” to those blaming Jill Stein and Bernie for Clinton’s unsuccessful run for the Oval Office. 2 days ago, I referred to your article in order to rebut the “meme” promoted by does who refuse to see the dire need to either revamp the DNC or place our efforts in creating a labor party that doesn’t play “republican-lite” on capital hill. Case in point, Dan Savage’s slog article titled: “Jill Stein Is a Right-Wing Tool”. My posting at the end of his ridiculous article was as follows: “You describe Jill Stein as pretty much “destroying” Clinton’s chances at becoming the POTUS and facilitating the Trump’s accession to the presidency. As you stated in your blog yesterday: “Jill Stein is a Right Wing tool”. My humble opinion regarding those who share your perspective on this matter is; keep blaming the one that got a negligible percentage of votes on November 8th, 2016, rather than facing the painful reality articulated in this article by Glenn Greenwald (https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-…). If this foolish and misguided denial of the dire need for true revamping of the democratic party continues, do not be surprised if the downward spiral continues to our own demise. A big part of being an adult is to accept painful truths and to have the courage to change things without engaging in this unproductive childish whining behavior: “she did it, not us”. My point being that we need to call this BS coming from the democratic establishment and its vehement supporters for what it is: BS that always ends up hurting us all.
Thank you Glenn. We need you more than ever.
The integrity of the Democratic Party is unimportant unless the country and the world survives the next four years, which is far from a certainty; or indeed perhaps far from probable. It is time to figure out how to save ourselves. When we emerge in four years, (or eight years, if we live through the first four) it will be time to figure out how to deal with the extremely different landscape that will be facing us on the other side, if there is anything left.
Now is the time to transform the party. If Clinton had won the US would already be buzzing drones in Ukraine and parachuting yet more troops down onto the Russian border.
While reading this piece I was struggling with the thought, “Don’t the Dems know they will surely lose with this approach?” Then it occurred to me: they don’t care if they lose – they won’t change course until the very survival of the party is at stake, if then. Thankfully, I think we are approaching that point.
If all defects that the leadership of democratic party has caused the party to lose elections, it has begs the question of why have the republicans won? The republicans have all the same defects to a much larger degree plus supporting an ideology that the majority of the country disagrees with. Both democrats and republicans lie and are corrupt so the problems withe the democrats losing can’t be attributed to that.
Will Rodgers said, ” I don’t belong to and organized political party, I’m a democrat”. What has changed since the 1930’s.
The ideology of the republicans is held by a minority of Americans but they still win. The republicans know to win they have to be more highly organized, find issues that use fear to energize their voters and get the rich donors that are the benefactors of republican policy to pay for the effort.
The republicans produce victories with campaign tactic like the “Southern Strategies” which sought to appeal to southern conservative, white voters to leave the democrats and join the republicans based on the democrats backing civil rights and desegregation. All the republicans presidents starting with Nixon have relied on white southerners to win.
Lewis Powell authored the blue print the republicans have used since Nixon to popularize conservatism and systematically build up the conservative brand in the US. Conservatives have also been helped by demographics as the wave of baby boomers got older and tended to vote more conservative than in their youth during the 60″s and 70″s.
We have also seen highly organized tactics by the republicans like the “K street project” which was a drive to force more conservatives into lobbying firms and pressure donors to stop funding democratic lobbying efforts.
One of the most effective stratagems we see today was “Redmap” which was a highly organized, comprehensive and well financed plan to work on the state level for the 2010 elections to get more republicans in office so when Congressional districts got drawn republicans could maintain there advantage even though they are the slight minority party in the US. The differential in the number of seats in the house of representatives is directly attributable to that effort. On a national level very few people pay attention to state politics but well funded republican organizations like “ALEC” have no similar democratic operation.
Republicans have also benefited from republicans supported initiatives to reduce controls on campaign spending in the federal government and in the states.
Voters suppression is one of the biggest factors in the nation wide victories of republicans. Purging voter registration lists in Florida and Ohio may have cost Gore and Kerry the presidency. The last three republicans presidential wins have been tiny in terms of the voter differential. Trumps win in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania was a margin of 77,744 votes out of 13,233,376. Those three states which polls had said would go to the democrats barely voted republicans and that gave trump enough electoral college vote to win. That is a a margin of .0061, you would only have to purge 6 out of 1000 voters to win the way trump did.
Voter ID laws may also suppress the vote and republican controlled states have the most voter ID laws and the strictest voter ID laws. Paul Weyrich is famously quoted in 1980 confirming that conservatives know that they lose when more people vote.
The Reagan administration revocation by FCC of the “Fairness Doctrine” led to the rise of irresponsible conservative news organizations that are nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the conservative moment that benefits the republicans that there is no democratic party equivalent.
The real reason we see the democratic party is not so much to do with the problems stated above but the fact that the republicans have found that they can use the better organization and better funding to constantly and bitterly attack the democrats. The democrats being as unorganized as they are cannot find a ways to fight back effectively.
I am not a democrat. Democratic party policies more closely track my personal views than republicans but I find the difference between the two parties not so much of one is right and one is wrong but one is less wrong than the other.
Your first assumption that the GOP is just as corrupt as the Dem’s is incorrect. The major difference in the 2016 election was the the Democratic establishment picked their nominee, where with the GOP the electorate picked theirs. Are you forgetting how aggressively the GOP establishment fought, even up to weeks before the election, to remove Trump from the ballot? The GOP members nominated a non-politician, someone with no governing experience what-so-ever. Trump was the anti-government vote. After the 2008 election, it was stated that it would take the GOP 20 years to recover, well, thanks to the corruption of the Clinton’s and the ineffectiveness of Obama, it has only taken 8. The Democratic party losing to DT is like a professional football team losing to a Div3 college– some serious, serious systemic problems.
You’re correct in your assessments.
But the difference isn’t organization. It’s attitude.
Democrats run to govern. They think that since they have the better ideas, their efforts will be rewarded in elections.
Republican run to rule. They don’t care about good ideas or good government. They calculate — accurately — that by attacking and slandering the opponent, by motivating angry voters, by spreading false rumors, by challenging every vote and hyping something insignificant as apocalyptic, they can win elections.
For Democrats, politics is a battle of ideas. That is what they’re paid to present.
For Republicans, politics is war. They’re paid to win.
Here is an article from The Atlantic, November, 2004.
Until Democrats realize Republicans aren’t just their opponent but are actually their blood-feud enemies, they will continue to be defeated.
Apparently Obama thinks he won because of his soaring rhetoric.
He won because with Bush the Republicans had driven the country into a ditch and they couldn’t hide from it.
The consequences Trump brings will be far worse than those Bush brought.
Don’t deplore.
Fight!
“Democrats run to govern. They think that since they have the better ideas, their efforts will be rewarded in elections.”
Seriously? Are you so out of touch that you actually believe that?
The Democrats, who refused to even mention single-payer in public until after the ACA was passed? The Democrats who continued all of Bush’s wars and even started a bunch of new ones? The Democrats who passed an extension of the PATRIOT Act? The Democrats who didn’t prosecute the banks for crashing the economy by way of subtle fraud?
The Democrats don’t want to govern, and they certainly do not want to fix any problems — they want to keep the the country exactly stable enough that the looting can continue as long as possible.
Yes, the Democrats can be cowardly and ineffective.
You’re about to see their true value. Donald Trump will introduce us to political life without the Democrats acting as a restraint on the worst Republican excesses.
It’s a wonderful life here in capitalist paradise.
If you hate the Dems as you say, you should hate the Republicans even more.
This is my point.
Why blame the Democrats for what the Republicans do?
This is the dynamic in American politics that people refuse to admit. Bullies win by bullying. But instead of decrying the bullies, you blame the bullied.
So will you be leading the revolution?
If so, tell me where to sign up.
As I have said elsewhere in this section: the Democrats are the Good Cops, to the Bad Cops played by the Republicans, and the key to understanding the Good Cop/Bad Cop game is that neither cop is ever actually on the suspect’s side. The suspect is just as screwed if they trust the Good Cop as if they are bullied by the Bad Cop; the point of the game is to make them believe, falsely, that the Good Cop is on their side by demonstrating that the Bad Cop is *not* on their side, and then pretending that the Good Cop is in opposition.
If the Democrats are as good as you think they are, then we’re safe from anything too serious. After all, the Republicans don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and as we all observed a few years back, the Democrats were unable to do anything whatsoever that the Republicans didn’t approve of when the positions were reversed. Therefore nothing really bad can make it through, at least until 2018. (I’m predicting that the Democrats will actually lose ground in 2018, because they are dead set on Clinton-style triangulation and radical centrism, which is actively unpopular both with the base and with independents, but I could be wrong.)
If the Republicans manage to do anything terrible, it will mean one of two things:
1. The Democrats were lying when they said that a filibuster-proof majority was necessary. If this is the case, then I am right, and the Democrats were never serious about fixing anything in the first place.
2. The Democrats are actively assisting the Republicans by breaking ranks just at the most critical moment when their constituents are demanding they do no such thing. If this is the case, then I am right because the Democrats are actively evil.
So far, it looks like #2 is true: look at the Democrats like Warren who voted for Carson’s confirmation.
Yes, the Democrats can be cowardly and ineffective.
No, they just pretend to be in order to help achieve what they want.
Donald Trump will introduce us to political life without the Democrats acting as a restraint on the worst Republican excesses.
No introduction needed; we’ve had that life for decades.
If you hate the Dems as you say, you should hate the Republicans even more.
More or less is irrelevant. What matters is that both are too heinous to consider supporting.
Why blame the Democrats for what the Republicans do?
We don’t. We blame the Demicans for what they help the Republicrats do.
AGREED!
@Glenn Greenwald
Saw your recent interview on TYT Politics regarding the failed Democrats. Comments were made about how Democrats are not changing/doing autopsy on their failure and seems that the protests are somewhat of a distraction.
What seems to be happening IMHO is that the Democrats are trying to ride the coat-tails of the Trump protests. It seems like they have already decided their course of action to be Anti-Trump and nothing else.
The real boogeyman for the party isn’t Trump, it’s actually the Clinton and their loyal Super-Delegate friends who are trying to hold onto power within the DNC.
Great article.
Great article Glenn. What do you think of the concept of Bernie starting his own party?
Over the years Greenwald’s position has been pretty consistent. He favors change from within the party instead of splitting the party.
I personally believe this is the only way to change the party and get rid of the slimy corporate element. Party leaders or IMHO most leaders refused to accept their own failures.
Thanks Glenn for reporting from reality – one of the few.
Keep it up
I don’t know why you bother ,Glenn. But I am glad that you do.
Let me say that Hilary lost because a lot of Americans haven’t gotten the memo that the economy is great and were unconvinced that she would do anything for them.
Glenn’s message is timely in that there are mid term elections Next Year!!!!!!
Another screed denouncing the wrong without even mentioning why this wrong is allowed.
Year after year after year and you’re no closer to solving the problem.
You stupid fucks. You will never fix anything until you remove the primary source of all corruption.
Stop allowing your leaders to be bribed. Make it a crime to ever give a politician a single penny. Ban all form of campaign contributions.
It really is that simple. And yet year after year, you fail to even acknowledge this fundamental truth.
“Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention?”
No. Your stupidity is what needs attention. You will never reform the Democratic party, or solve any of the problems of the world, until you first fix the one problem that facilitates all others.
STOP LETTING YOUR POLITICIANS GET BRIBED.
I don’t think you’ll find “one iota” of push-back here on what you’ve said. For example, Greenwald’s April, 2016 article highlights the hypocrisy of the Democrats position on money in politics.
yes we know it’s a problem. how specifically are we supposed to overturn the rigged results of the primaries that delivered clinton the nomination? how are we supposed to get the new york times and the washington post to stop lying? what do you mean “we fail to acknowledge this obvious truth?” for example, is this the first greenwald article you have ever read?
Right, and we shall accomplish this with a Supreme Court that overturns election reform so feeble that to term it milquetoast would be to overpraise it.
If one thinks clearly and distills the problems facing this country down to the most important connection the result is that federal elections have to be public funded w no outside influence. period.
American is blind and denies the obvious. Tom Perez is more concerned about his aspirations than his sense of decency.
How many more Palestinian homes will be demolish before humanity does its job? Do these people have to wait and see? Should they cross their fingers and hope that some Israeli policeman doesn’t come inside their home or place of worship and shoot them for refusing to leave? Israeli law enforcement has not seen fit to protect the Palestinian community. Democracy is not a inaccessible system that is not subject to change. The only social system consistent with this democracy is one that displays full respect for individual rights, yet Israeli group rights have historically been used both to infringe upon the individual rights of the Palestinian people. The future will be molded in the arena of social activism, by individuals willing to
pledge their minds and their efforts to the mission of peace with justice. Tom Perez is not that man.
The way Perez walked away from Jilani’s question, proves he is one of the biggest, bad mannered, ignorant and arrogant gobshites in the western world. No doubt he will be promoting Chelsea as President at the next election.
Pointed in the right direction. However, some interesting points to make:
1. Wasserman Shultz won because her representative area is older, has more Jews who voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and her surrogates in primaries across the country, and because Sanders refused to campaign for him locally by the time the Florida primary ran. (It was after the Democrat’s Convention). There are plenty of interviews Tim gave at the time wondering why Sanders had seemingly abandoned him, after dropping his name in national media and igniting a fund raising storm online. Most people think it is because Sanders agreed to take a lower national profile in opposition to anything the centrist Clinton campaign staked out in return for a positive post-election outcome should he win. (Meaning head committee appointments).
2. Sanders isn’t really addressed too much in this essay. And while its summary approach is welcome, you can’t leave out the enormous impact Sanders had on the Democrats. More even than Nader. He crystallized in a grown up manner ALL of the issues of false alignment and duplicity the Democratic Party suffers from. It’s why hundreds of thousands showed up to see him speak. It was clear to the millions of people who voted for him (47% of the primary voters allowed to vote). Nader, Jackson and Kennedy never came that close.
The term “Berniecrats” is often used to identify the half of the party that is representative of the population (populist) as opposed to the narrow spectrum of elites (aka yuppies) who occupy positions that are enriched by offshoring labor. That’s a big fingerprint to leave behind as demonstration of his impact on the ideology of the party.
Even now, he is the go-to talking head on news networks when they need opposition voice. I’d much rather have that than Schumer or Pelosi. Warren enjoys slightly less authority in the press, mostly because she plays loose with the facts outside of her comfort zone of finance corruption.
3. It would have been worth noting that Obama went out of his way as he was leaving office to use his usual centrist counter-babble as a way of putting a finger on the scale *against* Berniecrats seeking controls in party organizations across the country. Not just pointing out the usual fandom of Ezra Klein, who went out of his way to attack Sanders’ policy positions through the early primary season but remained silent after Hillary adopted many of them.
Still, I would have no problems sharing this link on FB and other media streams as a pointed pill anyone who still wants to vote Democrat needs to swallow.
Trump is needed because it won’t be long before the potus will have to order American citizens to be shot down in the streets and who besides Trump would ever do that? Talk about political reform is a joke at this stage. At least 20 years too late.
Your article of 2/9/17 is about as complete and intellectually satisfying treatise on the severity of the Democratic Party’s corruption and the utter “obliviousness” of its leadership as I have seen.
I know “obliviousness” is not a word but if you want proof of its existence here’s a direct quote from Eric Bauman who is running for CA Democratic Party Chair regarding Clinton’s loss: “None of us saw this coming”! Nothing could be further from the truth of course: a lot of us saw it coming and tried to warn the Party.
Another example of high ranking “obliviousness” is Tom Perez’ describing his Listening Tour as addressing the fact that “many have not heard our message of economic optimism”. Optimism?! How about Economic Honesty? How about acknowledging that the American middle class is dying and with it our Democracy?
Some of us are working very hard to save the Democratic Party. For example, we’re having training for newly elected Delegates to the CA Democratic Party, especially those who became Delegates on Bernie’s mandate to Take Back Our Party. We’re doing this not because it wouldn’t be lovely to Dem-Exit and start anew, but because nothing short of fixing the Party is going to work. Our country and all of its major institutions (Congress, Healthcare, the Fourth Estate (Media), Education, Criminal Justice, Elections, etc.) have been corrupted by what might be called the Billionaire Class. The Democratic Party is one of the richest and most powerful political organizations in the world; there is no scenario in which the plutocratic take-over of our country would somehow skip the Democratic Party. Any new party or group will remain uncorrupted only as long as it has no power or money. But the Democratic Party’s platform and in particular its processes for inclusion are remarkably progressive and are worth saving. Ergo, we need to reign in the Billionaire Class and take back our party. I agree that Trump is not the cause, but a symptom of the problem, but given that Trump appears to be heralding the rise of the first American national fascist movement, dropping out or starting over are not options.
Despite the thousands of people working for change, I am NOT hopeful. Once fascism gets embedded, people get scared and try to stay out of the way rather than affect change. It could be decades before we take back our country. But it doesn’t matter to me that we may not win: our country is going down and we have to fight.
We are preparing a list of reforms needed in the Democratic Party. Top on my list is developing a process by which candidates can actually be held accountable. (I’m writing a paper called “What do Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Holding Elected Officials Accountable have in common?” — you can guess my answer: they’re all total fantasies.)
Please tell me how I can get copies of your article to distribute at workshops etc. Or can you come and speak? We can get you a big crowd.
Background: I was a Bernie Delegate to the DNC Convention; and I have been a Delegate to the San Diego County and California State Democratic Party for several terms. I am a member of many social, economic and criminal justice groups. I am a Poli Sci major. I’m putting together a training agenda called “The New Unity and the New Diversity”.
Thank you for your work.
Your note is inspiring, wish you very well.
Good insight into fixes…keep it up.
Success has many parents, failure has none. There were many hands that cooked the soup that fed us Trump.
One item, not the only or perhaps the most important one, is that Trump had novelty and passion, while Hillary was old news and tired. I will skip all the issues but candidates who don’t have passion ( have extrovert personalities) and novelty just won’t do it.
Bayh in Indiana was an example of old and cold. So was Feingold when he was cast by the Koch Bros money as a Washington insider, when Johnson was the man from inside the Beltway.
The Dem Senate candidate from Missouri was the type of candidate with money and support would bring the Dems back. It appears he was left out in the cold because….. he wasn’t a Dem insider.
Conclusion: Bernie had the fire and the novelty but the inside game of the insider Dems killed him. He will be too old for the next cycle. So the insider, neo liberal Dems will not bring the party back with attempts to build a coalition of groups concerned about rights. Toss the computers, get real!
just say #notom
Great article.
“Trump happened because the Democrats failed.”
Yes. But not just because.
Add “The Media,” which utterly failed to filter out bias in their reporting, failed to even see bias in their reporting; aired Trump’s speeches in full all the time with nary any commentary; gave cover to all of Clinton’s detractor’s claims no matter how lame or even untrue — over and over and over; failed to cover nay of Trump’s well-documented history of malfeasances; gave Trump surrogates free rein to continually make falsehoods that were never challenged; and more failures… The Media did perhaps more to elect Trump than Democratic failures.
Add the “Anybody but Hillary” Democrats. Yes, they are part of the Democratic Failure. They were not just criticizing, they were hateful, absolutists that harmed the democratic election process as a whole.
Add the Democrats who, though exposed legitimate and true “errors” Clinton made demonstrating that she really did have power grabbing in mind, taking the “registered Democrat” folks for granted, but who never even tried to produce ideas and suggestions for ways to keep the Democratic party from being too lazy on one hand and from imploding by the other.
Where were the Democratic/Liberal/Progressives writing about how to take the helm of the Democratic movement?
Add James Comey.
Of course, the two Democrats that really failed were Hillary Clinton and President Obama, who, when “They went low,” did not “go high.”
Toward the end of the campaigning these two moved from talking about Democratic ideas/ideals and started talking down Donald Trump in all their speeches. Democratic TV spots were all “Trump, Trump, Trump and Trump is a horrible person.”
They attacked his character — which is always a stupid thing to do. Had the attacked his record, Clinton might have just won.
And not the least is the real, deliberate, and deplorable Republican vote suppressions tactics that the Media — as usual — completely ignored. Ever hear anything about Crosscheck? Not from the TV.
Many people are to blame. Many people could have tried harder though.
Those who knew Trump would be a disaster yet continually wrote tens of thousands of words more against Clinton than Trump have much to answer for.
look, the media was mostly biased against trump, see the coverage by the nyt, the washington post and the guardian for numerous examples. and no, it’s not the fault of sanders supporters. give us a democrat to vote for next time, unless you want more trump.
I think you’re being a bit simplistic, there. The media was very disapproving of Trump, but they gave him any amount of free publicity. (In fact, the DNC even had a hand in that: according to the leaked e-mails from Podesta, they actively encouraged their media contacts to give Trump extra coverage in hopes that he would be nominated, because they thought he was the weakest candidate and the easiest for Clinton to beat. Google “pied piper strategy” for details.) Meanwhile they refused to cover Sanders at all — I specifically recall one time when one of the networks spent an hour showing Trump’s grounded airplane, instead of a speech Sanders was giving.
If you doubt that “any publicity is good publicity”, consider this: in those early southern-state Democratic primaries, the ones which gave Clinton an early lead over Sanders, exit polls showed that 70 to 80 percent of voters who chose Clinton were choosing her not because they liked her or approved of her stance on issues, but because they recognized her name but hadn’t heard of Sanders. (And yes, this was deliberate — the order of the primaries was something the Schultz-led DNC designed to try and head off any competition for Clinton.)
i didn’t say anything about sanders; the media, working in concert with the clinton campaign, smeared him at every point in the campaign. i think the wapo published 16 negative stories in one day (maybe it was 13, i’m going from memory). they also published a wealth of laudatory clinton articles, both during the primary and the general. indeed, sanders supporters were told they weren’t needed after the nomination of clinton. turns out they were.
You missed my point, which is that the media’s stance is irrelevant. The only thing which actually helps or harms a candidate is the amount of coverage they receive, not what kind of coverage it is. It doesn’t matter whether CNN says Trump is an idiot or whether they say Trump is a genius, as long as they’re saying Trump.
i disagree with your point, negative campaigning does work effectively, particularly when it’s the supposedly objective doing it in concert with one of the campaigns. to the extent it is true, it is true of somebody like sanders, who had little name recognition at the start of the primary campaign, but not of trump, who had as much name recognition as anybody in america.
If the Democrats were sincere, that might hold. Sadly, they aren’t. They spent the last 30 years or so demonstrating thoroughly to anyone who pays attention that they really, really, really want to be Republicans. So much so that they actively despise (what used to be) their base, and care only about the opinions of Republican voters. This culminated with the selection of Hillary Clinton as nominee, someone most of the base could only describe in terms like “holding my nose to vote for her”. A lot of the base stayed home, or even voted against Clinton, because she was such an insult to their principles.
Meanwhile, the Republicans alienated anyone in their party who has even the vaguest notions of policy or history by choosing Trump.
Under those circumstances? Name recognition is the key. Most of the people willing to vote are those who are not paying attention, and have no clue what the candidates’ positions even mean. Name recognition plays a big role.
(It also plays a big role in why incumbents, even lousy incumbents, have an easy time winning reelection. Incumbency is the single biggest factor in winning an election.)
Rhymin’ the times:
I won’t eat my peas.
Nosiree.
Peas are green and stuff
Ice cream’s never enough.
So give me no peas,
Oh sirs, please.
I like ice cream.
Don’t make me scream.
Don’t give me peas please.
I WANT ICE CREAM, SEE?
Never peas for me!!
Ice cream and cake
Fer heaven’s sake.
I think you must agree
I would even say,
If I may …
Better shit than peas
milton, i’ll settle for avoiding a war with russia. you have to trivialize the concerns about clinton, in order to justify continuing to support the corrupt and dangerous political machine that has taken control of the democratic party, over the corrupt and dangerous (but slightly different) political machine that has run the republican party for the last few decades. a lot of us just can’t do it anymore, and dr seuss rhymes won’t win us back. i’m not going to vote for somebody that wants to destroy the vestiges of the new deal, or won’t fight for the middle and lower classes, or wants to continue the aggressive and extremely dangerous games of empire pursued by both republicans and democrats–socializing the risk to all of us, but profiting privately. I’ll support somebody that treats snowden and manning as heroes, and aggressively fights the fossil fuel companies to mitigate climate change and move to renewable energy. the only candidate that came close to that is sanders, and clinton cheated him in the primaries.
pedinska said it better than i could, a couple of days ago, in one of her replies to you. i don’t want to argue with you, either; i’ll try not to get short with you, because i know you’re sincere.
I appreciate your tone. My previous post — Suessified — only makes the point that Donald Trump is so much worse than Clinton, it’s truly agonizing to listen to these very childlike discussions led by GG. How can anyone put the two of them side by side and shrug, “comme ci, comme ça” (“comme ci, comme ca”)? It’s preposterous to the point of bizarre.
Let my offer three simple propositions that I think are objectively indisputable yet entirely ignored in this nonsense of equivalent evils.
1. Republican run against government. They slander, fabricate and bluster not for policy but for power. (I can list dozens of examples — from Willie Horton to Obama’s birth certificate.
But why? I’ve already made this argument several times and it’s generally ignored because it doesn’t fit the orthodox argument that both parties are the same.
Both parties march through the same terrain, sure. Both are composed of fools, clowns, miscreants, and liars. For one politician to call another a liar is about the same as clowns spraying each other with seltzer bottles. But that doesn’t mean all people with a political point of view are fools, clowns, miscreants and liars. This assumption is childish, wrong and — as we see — dangerous.
2. Clinton is not the warmonger participants on this site make her out to be.
She’s faced with a political problem similar to Obama’s undeniable political problem (his race). Her gender, her party and her opponents (authoritarians) demand that she must appear more muscular — because equally muscular is a push. Remember, same terrain.
In fact while the authoritarians (and Israeli rightwing) clamored for war with Iran, she organized — through diplomacy — a peaceful alternative. Whether you approve of the treaty or not, NO WAR. Same in Libya. No invasion, no occupation, no ground, no US exceptionalism, and with UN and NATO agreement. Yet her blundering smart-ass comment “we came, we saw, he died” is repeated as proof of her blood thirstiness. Meanwhile, her political enemies (not opponents, enemies) pissed off by no war with Iran, (and who cheered the invasion of Iraq relentlessly) use this one bit of blubbering stupidity to mark her as a warmonger.
Meanwhile, of course, her opponents ignore Trump’s sincere comment — “I love war” combined with his belligerent strategy that killing civilians is a great idea for fighting terrorism — while they jabber about the Deep State, Putin’s benevolence, and the evil US.
Truth would be a nice alternative to these dyspeptic adolescents with their screaming hormones “I HATE YOU!! I HATE EVERYTHING! WHY WAS I BORN!! YOU’RE ALL NAZIS.” And with a Cheshire Cat grin an actual fascist tiptoes past the media by calling them liars and frauds.
Yes, the US is the largest military by far. The US is an empire in every sense of the word. I don’t disagree … and I’ve marched in my share of protests stretching back to Vietnam. So why put a self-declared nutjob and Putin acolyte in charge of this?? Sure, you may avoid war with Russia (actually I think that’s wrong too) … but what about the rest of the world?
3. Mr. Greenwald is wrong about many things. Nobody is a perfect messiah … especially not in this political universe. To his credit, he often confronts his critics. Further, he is scrupulous in research and building an argument.
Unfortunately most of the comments which follow reiterate his premise. Some are cries for attention. And others have their own agenda. (We all know who belongs in which category)
Thus an almost cult-like dynamic appears where — in my opinion — an open exchange of ideas vanishes like a rock thrown into the ocean. Running feuds marked by projection and snideness not only destroy what could be a valuable opportunity for discussion and learning, many of those who might have something interesting or important or informative to add don’t participate.
Maybe they lurk, maybe they go somewhere else, maybe they just stop caring. I don’t know.
But unless people of good intent don’t wake up quickly, the Bowling Green Massacre won’t be a humorous fiction.
“How can anyone put the two of them side by side and shrug, “comme ci, comme ça” (“comme ci, comme ca”)? It’s preposterous to the point of bizarre.
That you to continue to make this claim considering who comments here regularly, who writes here regularly, and the actual comments and writings they’ve authored is puzzling, to say the least.
Some may have made this ‘lesser of two evils” assertion, but certainly not all, or even most.
I have no idea what this means … except that you’re puzzled.
Would it make more sense to you if instead of distinguishing parties, I used the word “elites” — a useful elision designed to delegitimate political “experience” — as out of touch political professionals?
Why not attack the “elites” of both parties?
It worked well enough for Trump and for the Republicans who’ve used their own elite expertise in their continuing efforts to dismantle government.
Then, here’s a terrific idea, blame the Democrats for losing to these amateurs.
Why?
Because the Demoncrats don’t listen. Does it matter that climate change is already intensifying the weather and ravaging much of the coastline from New York to New Orleans? Forget the weather! The DemoRats don’t listen. Anyway, climate change is a hoax.
Does it matter that we don’t go to war with the entire Middle East? Forget the war with Iran. The Dumbocrats are weak. Did you know Obama and Clinton founded ISIS?
Does it matter that the jails are filled? Forget the jails! The liberal government pussies want to take away our GUNS! Did you know the Europeans have lost their FREEDOM? No wonder people voted to Brexit.
As Wallace Shawn’s character in PB would say, “Inconceivable!”
Yet here we are with the most sincere populist billionaire ever who cannot accept photographic proof or most of ordinary reality.
Yet the “elites” did this?
But only one set of elites did this — those who had the foresight not to have their computers hacked by the Russians. Those smart enough to call for more police state tactics. Those sly enough to make an issue of undocumented workers.
The word “elite” is code for “both parties are the same” because it’s the reality based elites spreading fake news about climate change and ruining the best medical system in the world with Obamacare.
Sure, let’s blame the elites.
You know, the ones running a child prostitution ring in the basement of a pizzeria.
I’m more puzzled than ever.
How unfortunate for you.
Regarding climate change, evidently you’re not keeping score. HRC is a big proponent of fracking. Was as Sec State and was as a candidate…just toned down for consumption. She loves(d) pipelines, too.
And your excuses for HRC and her love of war make a pretzel look like a straight line.
I trust
if I must
but tell me please
you were looking
in a mirror
so your prose
couldn’t be clearer
Colossal, you forgot to say HRC lost despite leaked intel of Russian interference, several exual assault claims, on prime time tv, leaked IRS data claiming DT didn’t pay any personal taxes, leaked audio tape of private locker room talk, surreal row Khan vs DT, 100’s of million USD spent on negative advertising and last but not least all-out campaign help from Obamas.
. i dont think so. Hillary felt too good about the wrong things. Too scripted, insincere, didnt need to confess 2 faces to see them. She favored selling the sovereignty of the US to a TPP tribunal. She advocated that women be draftable, catered to wallstreet thieves, didnt seem to mind destroying the environment with fracking and lied and lied more and lied often with her 2 sets of laws. And betrayed Bernie. All that is definitely grounds for divorce.
Sigh…”deplorable”. Couldn’t resist using the word…or is your vocabulary that limited? Deploable. Trailer trash. Goober. Low IQ. Purist Clinton Demcrats seemed to luuuve those words. Those folks who your bunch denigrated in that way were V.O.T.E.R.S…you know, numbers of people? Did you not take math in school?
At one time, the Dems supported the working man. Then, the working man did well for a while, and could afford…a Limousine. Until Bill Clinton, who became the compassionate conservative…http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/25/us/1992-campaign-death-penalty-arkansas-execution-raises-questions-governor-s.html
And your post is exactly why Hillary lost in a nutshell. It completely ignores the fact that she’s a bad politician and has a huge amount of Clinton baggage. I’m not talking about the rightwing nonsense they trump up. Real issues that have never had a proper airing. TPP, the Clinton legacy, her glowing speeches to Wall St, her love of fracking, her disrespect for the Democratic base, her continual service to the powerful at the expense of the many, her disrespect for democracy, and much more.
Yeah, there were other factors in her loss, but her fans refused to see who she is and what a Clinton presidency meant. Most of us wanted “Hope and Change” 8 years ago and got precious little of both. Clinton represented more of the same and that was too much for many people to bear.
Apologies for length, at least it’s not a game theory:
Many Democratic elite politicians and journalists are in complete denial of the fundamental nature of their political problems. Much like the Right sees climate change as cyclical and temporary, Democratic leadership sees no more than a political pendulum that is swinging the other way right now. Such a view has the added advantage of absolving its adherents of any responsibility for the current state of affairs or for offering anything more than minor course corrections as solutions.
Accordingly, as Glenn notes very effectively, the Democratic power structure is seemingly not budging, offering little more than “better messaging.”
It is not only younger people who are moving away from the Democrats.
Having politically-liberal parents steeped in the New Deal politics of their day and having voted for Democrats more than 90% of the time (that figure is probably closer to 100% until the last ten years), it is safe to say I have been a lifetime Democrat up to this point.
While I followed politics closely in the 60’s and 70’s when my general political outlook was being developed, I sort of stepped away in the 80’s and 90’s and only came back with the extremism that took hold in the early Bush 43 years. Since I returned to the political circus when I did, I had missed the Democrats conversion from New Dealism to corporatism. (Matt Stoller has a great piece about this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/ ).
I continued to operate under the assumption that Democrats generally leaned toward New Deal-ish policies for quite some time, likely aided by my tuning in too much to their rhetoric and too little to their legislative votes. The turning point for me against the Democrats was the exclusion of even a narrow public option from Obamacare in 2010, which clearly was the way to go to curb costs for those who needed it the most. This convinced me that if the Democrats couldn’t do it when the political wind was completely at their back, they never would. What pushed me to the cliff was Obama’s Bowles-Simpson nonsense later that year. What convinced me that the Democratic Party was in need of either a 100% overhaul or political death was the stacked-deck nomination of Clinton and its aftermath.
And I’m speaking as one on whom the Democrats could count in their column for decades, AND who mostly escaped the economic teeth of the 2008 crash. I cannot imagine how those who were harmed, who elected Democrats in landslide numbers to fix it, and who were then left behind or worse in favor of the large corporations, must feel.
Yet the Democrats still hem and haw, talk about the need to work with Trump, vote in great numbers for his terrible cabinet nominees, while prominent politicians and pundits continue to belittle critics. Exactly what part of the electorate do they expect will be attracted by this, much less be willing to invest their time and money? Exactly what part of the electorate do they expect to trust them? If the Democratic Party continues along this suicidal path, believing in nothing, offering nothing concrete while placing their fortunes on being the “anti-Trump,” they are about to find out.
for me the final turning point was the way obama went back on promise after promise, failed to prosecute any of the crimes of the previous administration,
and kept appointing conservates (or retaining bush appointees) to crucial posts. even before he took office, his reversal on the fisa court issue was a big warning flag. and when i watched decent, intelligent liberals blindly support him no matter how many bush policies he advanced, i knew i had no party.
I resemble your comment, with the proviso that I’m one of those that did feel the pain of the past forty year decline of the middle and lower classes – while I and many like me also got quite the hammering with the 08′ crash; I lost fifty percent of my savings, adding more debt on top of it in order to try and make it through. “Luckily” I still had a good enough credit rating to become even more beholding to the big banks.
And still I consider myself fortunate compared to many who did lose everything, including their lives, via suicides, lack of medical insurance, etc.
That’s not hyperbole.
Completely abandoned is not too strong a phrase. Over the decades, with help from Democrats, the GOP has cut safety net programs; schooling and many other public services have been farmed out to private industry under the guise of “accountability and savings;” and the banks have become the only public policy makers in town.
We’ve got to end this madness before it ends us.
I thought open borders and H1-Bs to help corporations drive down wages was pretty good, too. I also thought the site of Hillary, Schumer, Obama, et al with their heavily armed bodyguards explaining why the peasants needed to be disarmed worked well at impressing the “irredeemable deplorables” that they should consider voting for anyone but a Democrat. It was loud and clear – peasant lives don’t matter.
I thought the open borders and H1-B programs that permit corporations to drive down wages was pretty good, too – along with the notion of disarming the working people while Hillary, Schumer, Kerry, Obama, et al wander around with heavily armed bodyguards. I mean, since when do the lives of the little people matter except when they are needed to do something for the billionaires?
On Tuesday night on a CNN debate, Bernie Sanders defended robbing taxpayers of several hundred billion more per year to give to his crony ‘health’ mafia for goofballs for fake, marketer-invented disorders. Making it more difficult for Americans laboring under the stranglehold of ACA to scrap together $ needed for actual and infrequent maladies.
And that has…what to do with the column?
Thank you again, Mr. Greewald. Excellent.
I was thinking, Democratic representatives should probably engage people on blogs randomly, even on some rational, conservative blogs. If they are attacked, take in stride. Negative feedback can be valuable information. They have to figure out the politics of the unexpected before venturing into such territory. I think that approach would be much better than twitter.
I know I appreciate it when Glenn chimes in. Although he’s not a rep, his celebrity and status carries weight. It makes the comment section more interesting, forces people not to be mentally lazy or jingoistic with their information.
Why is no one talking about the complete lack of political will shown by the Left over the past 8 years? Do you know that Republicans call their elected officials 10 to 1 over Democrats (until the past week, where we broke all records)? This is not about the weakness of the Democratic Party. It is about the apathy and complacency of mostpeople to the left of center, right up until the sudden emergence of Sanders, which no doubt caught the Democratic Party by surprise. No, they didn’t handle that too well, and they still are struggling to figure out how to channel the sudden explosive demonstration of political will. But the job of a Party is to represent us. We are the ones who have to tell them what to do, and we’ve been doing a lousy, mousy job of that for years and years. Don’t blame the party. Look in the mirror.
Great article GG, thank you.
this “ding dong the demos are dead” business has got me a bit worried
after all, they still control deepstate (well the social services part anyway) PLUS they dominate hollywood, and most yoga studios
everyone still has to deal with them, they are our bosses sometimes and also frequently the person making the coffee drink at starbucks or some other hip bistro where all the cool people hang out
they may not have access to polonium, but they can still sneeze in your cornflakes .. or slow down our progress towards coast-to-coast ecological blight
i for one want to be able to play tennis at the local outdoor rec center without wading through several inches of mine tailings …… NIMBY
if perez wins it is over!
The Republican and Democratic parties compliment one another very well. They set the parameters of our political discussions, which is confined by a narrow consensus that exists between them. They set the agenda together, and stake out two positions, one for the R’s to follow and another for the D’s. Anything outside of that narrow range is taboo. They do not tolerate competition and monopolize north of 90% of the vote in any given election.
The Reps and Dems also do a good job of removing anything their money men object to in legislation. Conversely, if there is something that they can add which will benefit their donors, they will not hesitate to add it even though it is a big middle finger raised in the face of the voting public. Basically no law will get passed until the money men are quite satisfied that it enhances their power and privilege. No consideration is given towards the many people at whose expense those powers and privileges are bestowed upon a select few.
I wish more people would wake up to the fact that the United States is, at it’s most basic level, the business interests of extremely evil men. We do not have 2 parties and have not for quite some time. Any differences between them are there by design. Meaningful change is impossible so long as the parasite parties remain intact. What we have is a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy, where peon citizens get to have a rooting interest in which set of hucksters is going to have them over a barrel for the next 4 years.
Great article. Like other readers I feel like a new party might need to be formed—the corruption is like bed bugs in the democratic party. But holding out for an Ellison reform. If it doesn’t happen, time to burn the house.
Totally agree. The Dems may be beyond saving, but that doesn’t mean America is. Have you heard of the attempt to draftbernie.org into a new party?
Perez was being vetted to be Hillary’s VP. Why would anyone think he will be a more transparent DNC chair? Already he is back pedaling his honest comments to Kansas by using Hillary’s favorite word, I “misspoke” . Hillary never tells a lie, she misspeaks. The Democrats are hoping everyone has a shortterm memory with regards to the rigging of the primary and the cheating by Brazile. They showed their true colors, they are no different from the other corporate, wall st loving, party. Stop calling us progressive democrats, I’ve dropped the word “democrat”. It would be refreshing to have politicians tell the truth, with no spin, instead of being mugwumps on a fence.
Let the Democratic Party die. (More accurately, put the dumb beast out of its misery.) Work for a **real** Left Populist party.
I voted for Hillary, certainly not with glee but I didn’t have the opportunity to vote for Bernie, the candidate who probably could have beaten the orange nightmare.
My reasoning in considering my 2 choices was that at least Hillary was sane and perhaps less vile than the alternative. That doesn’t mean I didn’t condemn some of her abuses of power but the alternative, to me, was even worse. Yes, with Hillary, I know we would have had but a few crumbs of alleged
democratic benefits thrown to us. I guess I just thought Trump was capable of
unbelievable horrors to not just us but the world as well and I still have that belief. I believe the democrats must get back to their roots or they will remain losers. The only difference between the democrats and republicans is the degree of their vileness and I still believe the republicans are the most vile. I’ll give them credit for one thing though – they are right out there with their selfishness, greed and lack of empathy for those of us who are not millionaires/billionaires. The corporate democrats are not as sincere as to who they are and who they are really looking out for – it for the most part isn’t us. Their are no more FDRs, JFKs, and that ilk in the democratic party, other than perhaps a few, with the exception of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (who is an independent). I don’t know where this country is headed but as of now it looks pretty dark. The only way I can see the democrats becoming democrats again is if they have the guts to see their own reality in every way and get back to what they are supposed to be. If Trump is able to blow the whole 2 party system up, and perhaps if anyone can do it is him – if we survive the blow up – what will happen to the U.S.A. and it’s political structures God only knows. We are truly living in ominous times.
Like they say in baseball or golf commentary, you got just about all of that ball. But I replace your term “failure” with “cowardice”.
Greenwald seems to royally miss the point. There are no good democrats. The democrats and the repuglicans are both the party of american fascism. Both derive their power from militarism and corporatism.
SOUNDTRACK to our Age:-
Background Noise of Glenn Greenwald & David Miranda’s
multiple barking, howling, yelping, squealing, & yodeling dogs.
Cf. Jordan Chariton’s recent interviews with GG @ TYT Politics @ YouTube.
What Social Democracy Delivers:
No one has yet figured out how “Free Marketers” like Cruz can support Trump who already demonstrates he’s willing to directly interfere with free markets, picking and naming winners and losers via tweet storms against private companies and making active, interventionist moves to “punish companies” and demand they comply with his personal agenda in order to “save jobs”. Had any Democrat made similar moves the right would be on camera with pitchforks and torches demanding an end to the “liberal” idea that partisan government knows whats best for free enterprise. That Democrats won’t even play opposition to make the point that Trump is not only interfering, he’s really bad at it is puzzling but not unexpected. Not only have Democrats lost the ability to speak the language of the left, they won’t call out the right by effectively speaking the language of the right in order to divide it. They’d rather keep aiming “friendly fire” at their own voters.
Well, yes, “Democrats are perceived — with good reason — to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.” Of course, and that isn’t just the perception, it’s reality. However, the Repubs are described even more accurately by that sentence; the “choice” is only allowed to be between the repugnant Dems and the even more repugnant Repubs. The real power insiders of the Dems know what’s going on, why they get their asses kicked by a party whose major policies are uniformly disliked by the majority, and decided to adopt the opposition’s methods, only they don’t have the money or organization provided by the Kochtopus et al. And won’t have.
So I want to reiterate a point made earlier: want to know how we got here? Get and read Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money” (with the 2017 preface). The only solution is people power, as control by entrenched money can’t be matched by the Dems without they becoming the enemy too. Only when the country becomes ungovernable will the consent of the governed again become the controlling factor.
Yeah, Jane Mayer’s great and the Democratic Party is zombie, but how exactly do we make the US ‘ungovernable’?
“the Democrats are perceived — with good reason — to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.”
Meanwhile, the Rs were perceived to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Big Oil, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.
It’s a good thing we have freedom of choice.
Have you ever heard of the phenomenon of “Good Cop, Bad Cop”? The Bad Cop comes in and snarls and threatens and perhaps roughs up the suspect, demanding a confession (or whatever). Then the Good Cop comes in when the Bad Cop leaves, and he’s nice. He puts his arm around the suspect’s shoulder, and gives him a glass of water, asks about his family. After a while the Good Cop leaves, and the Bad Cop comes in and starts in again. Finally, his shift is over and the Good Cop comes back in. The Good Cop says: “I don’t like what the Bad Cop does, but I have no control over him. If only you would confess, then you wouldn’t have to deal with him any more. I’ll make sure you don’t suffer.” Often, the suspect will confess — sometimes even make stuff up — just to get away from the Bad Cop, because he thinks the Good Cop will protect him. And the suspect gets screwed, because the Good Cop was lying, and the Bad Cop was just acting.
Of course, neither the Good Cop nor the Bad Cop is really the prisoner’s friend. Usually, the Good Cop and the Bad Cop take turns playing those roles — when the next suspect is brought in, the former Good Cop becomes the Bad Cop, snarling and threatening, and the former Bad Cop is suddenly all concerned. It’s all a game, in which the Good Cop and the Bad Cop are on the same side, along with the rest of the police (who are by definition Bad Cops if they let this go on) against pretty much all the rest of society.
The Democrats are our Good Cops. They tell us: we don’t *want* to curtail your civil liberties, we don’t *want* to have regulatory capture, we don’t *want* the rich to get rich and the grindingly poor to die, it’s all the fault of the Republicans, those Bad Cops. Vote for us, and we’ll keep you safe from the Bad Cops. Then the Democrats get into office, and somehow we get policies and actions which look suspiciously like what the Republicans want, only a little slower and performed with a certain amount of finesse. And if you ask the Good Cops why this happens, they shrug and say “the Republicans made us do it”. They aren’t on our side, any more than the Good Cop is on the suspect’s side.
When they use “misspoke” it means either they were lying and got caught or told the truth and got caught because it was too true.
I want to give a standing ovation to Zaid for chasing that scumbag Perez out the door!
I have watched that on twitter many times because I enjoy Zaid’s discomforting of Power so very much.
Perez is complicit with the SKDK cabal that has corrupted our elections, media, economy, and the DNC, and was behind the Wasserman-Schultz campaign to push Bernie out of the primary and other revealed and unrevealed corrupt activities that handed the presidency to Donald Trump. You’ll find info on how Perez exempted SKDK’s financial fraud criminal from his Department of Labor ethics ruling before being repaid by SKDK with media blasts and political capital that led to his possible replacement of SKDK’s other DNC head shills in this section of our online book: http://www.amodernquest.com/chapter2sobook.html#perez
Spot on Glenn. Thank you for another insightful analysis.
Thanks for this GG. ThinkProgress ran a total puff piece on Perez yesterday. Now questioning their funding.
Communete
slightly [edited] for clarity
[I] Support[ed Trump] a[s a] candidate because he wants to make all [Americans] serfs, and because his crazy hair cuts a distinctive silhouette[.] [He] is a form of personality cult indistinguishable from that of [other dictators from] years earlier.
The Politics of the Possible: 150 Federal Prosecutors Denounce Trumps Muslim Ban
Stingrays Provide FBI NSA Informal Federal “Oversight” for members of the Congressional Committees Providing Formal Oversight of the FBI NSA , Hampton Homeowners, Gun Owners, Anti War Activists and Intercept Readers.
“A New Frontier in Police Surveillance”
Featuring Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Adam Bates, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; moderated by Julian Sanchez, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.
https://www.cato.org/events/stingrays-new-frontier-police-surveillance
It’s not like the Democratic Party is in total control of its own situation. It’s easy to criticize them after a loss but Democrats have to put up with lots of Republican bullshit that narrows their options considerably. Their voters are being siphoned off via gerrymandering and voter suppression, it’s not surprising that their actions are flailing and panicky. That’s precisely the behavior that Republicans hoped to compel when they started furiously rewriting our election laws.
Wow Levi
this makes me less inclined to want to vote for Democrats. If they are so weak.
Also this is not Monday morning QB,ing. This is not A loss, this is losing on a grand scale over a long time. I am 56 years old and most of my adult like Democrats have been playing defense.
It took a long time to realize but this is based NOT on Republicans and their tactics (disgusting as they may be) but on a wholesale abandoning of the core values esposed by FDR by the “New Left” after 1968.
If you think this is only a loss, look at the loss of Senate, House and Governorships across the country.
After the trilateral commission findings the Democrats and their leadership agreed that there was too much democracy and that the cure would be to form an elite based solely on social issues. After all, even Democratic elites dont want to live alongside the great unwashed
You know what? The Democratic base doesn’t care about Republican bullshit, and neither do a lot of independent voters. The people who care about Republican bullshit are mostly Republicans. The only reason the Democrats are vulnerable to Republican bullshit is because the Democrats, for the last 30-odd years, have been kicking their base in the teeth and trying to chase Republican voters. That was what the Triangulators — Clinton and crew — told us the party *had* to do, back in the 1990s, when they chased out all the New Deal Democrats and then promptly lost control of Congress, which had been Democratic even under Reagan. They *know* they are kicking the base in the teeth, they *know* the base is staying home in greater and greater numbers, and they don’t *care*. Schumer famously said: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” That has been the plan of the Clintons and their sycophants (like Rahm Emmanuel) all along. It doesn’t work. It has been a failure since the 1990s.
There’s a new generation of voters out there. They aren’t scared by the term “socialism”. (Maybe because the Republicans use it on every single Democratic candidate, and are clearly unaware of what the word means.) They aren’t alienated if Fox News attacks the Democrats — but they *are* alienated if the Democrats tell them to sit down and shut up and let the Democrats act like Republicans, which the Democrats have been doing consistently since 2009. You wonder why all those young people who were so enthusiastic for Bernie didn’t turn out for Clinton? It’s because Clinton told them to sit down and shut up and let her be pro-war, pro-banks, pro-fossil-fuels, just in general a quieter version of a Republican.
http://twoplustwoequals7.blogspot.com/2016/11/da-mic-drop-austin-teebore-gorton.html
People are tired of the guys who spout fucked-up and incoherent messages, so they voted for Trump.
That makes sense. I myself am tired of this persistent,pesky cough I’ve got so I voted for the bubonic plague.
that’s the problem, lung cancer is being misidentified as a persistent, pesky cough. people choosing between lung cancer and bubonic plague may reasonably disagree over which is the lote. but know what you’re voting for.
Varying definitions of “misspoke”:
Normal usage – to have accidentally expressed oneself unclearly or inaccurately.
Corporate Democratic usage – to inadvertently tell the truth, thus letting people know what one really thinks about a subject. Especially when caught telling a fact that offends one’s donors or the party hierarchy.
Trump administration usage – Yes, you stupid fuck, I flat out lied to your face. I don’t care how obvious it was or how much proof you have that it was an intentional lie. Of course it was intentional, you dumb motherfucker. But I’m now telling you I misspoke and you’re going to believe me or I’ll crush you like the worm you are.
And fuck you, I’ll do it again whenever it suits me. Probably at least 3 more times in my next 2 sentences.
The Intercept really needs to build a ‘Like’ button into the comments.
Great definitions! ;)
:)
I apologize for the all-caps, I’m pasting from a blog and it’s so true.
Trump’s MAIN mission, if I may use caps myself, was to block horrible Hillary and her bizarre, repulsively disgusting entourage – think of it: her rapist husband, pervert Weiner, lying Brazile, corrupt to the core Schultz, menstrual-blood-drinking Podesta – from re-occupying the White House. And it’s MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Trump’s secondary assignment is to DESTROY the 2-party system which sucks the life off America and turns politics into a profitable dog and pony show – Hillary was playing “the bearded lady”. People’s REPRESENTATIVES should be accountable to the people and ONLY to the people who elected them not to some party bureaucracy or wealthy Israel-loving ‘donors’.
It’s interesting the Mr. Greenwald hopes that the Demo party can be ‘fixed’. Of course it can’t. It is naive to believe, and I suspect that his belief is totally sincere that a corrupt organization that corrupts in order to acquire and wield ‘power’ will ever transform itself into some transparent, well-meaning, patriotic force, leading the grateful nation on the path to eternal and perfect collective Nirvana. They can’t because they are despicable jackals and hyenas, feeding off normal people’s dreams, wealth and bodily fluids (see Podesta).
Trump may be able to cause the temporary collapse of the 2-party system but that remains to be seen. Hopefully and, yes, it is hope against hope, he would apply the the RICO statutes to both ‘major’ parties and throw practically everyone in prison or in front of a firing squad but the odds for such a thing happening are near-zero.
“It’s interesting the Mr. Greenwald hopes that the Demo party can be ‘fixed’. Of course it can’t. It is naive to believe, and I suspect that his belief is totally sincere that a corrupt organization that corrupts in order to acquire and wield ‘power’ will ever transform itself into some transparent, well-meaning, patriotic force, leading the grateful nation on the path to eternal and perfect collective Nirvana. They can’t because they are despicable jackals and hyenas, feeding off normal people’s dreams, wealth and bodily fluids (see Podesta).”
I agree with all of this. Thank you for saying it.
You agree that John Podesta drinks menstrual blood and otherwise feeds off people’s bodily fluids? This something that needed to be said?
Artistic license, Mona. Widely relied upon by both sides to wretched limits of retch. Check Twitter for confirmation.
Are you familiar with Arth’s output? “Artistic license” is not something he does. Rather, posting outre claims is.
Mona dear,
Try using some ‘intelligence’ IF you possess any if you wish to engage in discussions or debates. So far, you do one thing and one thing only when engaging anyone who disagrees with your fantasies: you assign them a label and then you call them ‘names’. I admit that it can be entertaining for a short while, then it gets boring. Then it gets even more boring. And so on.
Seriously, where is all this blind and all-consuming hatred coming from? Are you taking steps to overcome it? :) Some of us here are willing to help. I know that I am one of them.
You are not anyone with whom I would engage in substantive debate. You’ve revealed yourself to be a foul bigot who endorses all manner of bizarro claims. As i said, you do not do “artistic license.” It’s far more likely in your case that you literally claim John Podesta drinks menstrual blood.
I am sorry but, yes. You do need help. Are you taking some ‘aggression hormones’ possibly to help grow facial hair. What is it that makes you so hateful and so angry?
And… what can you do? Wikileaks, Putin… Can’t do with them, can’t do without them. And Podesta, apparently, can’t do without…
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/spirit-cooking-explained-satanic-ritual-or-fun-dinner.html
Oh… and looky here? Or don’t looky because you will see the picture of an actual dead victim of Jeffrey Dahmer and then its near-exact replica as a sculpture, the piece de resistance in Tony Podesta’s home. The 2 Podestas are big art lovers, clearly. I would have been difficult for Hillary to pick a more bizarre person to run her successful presidential campaign.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5bciwu/john_podestas_brother_tony_podesta_has_a_statue/?st=iz088w6h&sh=d57365d6
bh2 — you catching this? Arth is quite serious about this craziness.
Seriously, the Demo party is clearly way off, off the rails. I am not frend of the GOPs either but with koo-koos like: Hillary, Podesta, Weiner, Pelosi, Brazile, Wasserman-whatever, the guy Hillary picked as her VP… as party’s ‘leaders’…
And pushing conspiracy theories involving ‘Putin’ while some of their more demented leaders accusing Russia of invading Korea while another still believes that the current president is a Bush…
Don’t get me wrong, both parties deserve to be crushed into non-existence because ‘parties’ are the ones most responsible for the unbelievable levels of corruption and the insanity currently rampant in DC. And ‘us’ the unwashed masses are to blame as well. An electorate that elected AND REELECTED the likes of Bill Clinton, W Bush and Obama and almost voted Hillary in as the next president very much deserves what it gets.
For the sake of disclosure, since I wrote An electorate that elected AND REELECTED the likes of Bill Clinton, W Bush and Obama
As part of ‘the electorate’ I never voted for Billythegoat or Doublecrap. However I did vote for Obama back in 2008 but I wrote in my dog (a bitch) in 2012 because there was nobody to vote for.
democratic party sucks. podesta is not a blood drinking space vampire. hillary didn’t kill vince foster to preserve the secret of her love nest with janet reno. all of these things can be true at the same time.
That’s quite a fantasy you’ve got going there about Trump. Trump’s chief concern, indeed his only concern, is himself. Do you really not know this by now?
Clearly, Trump has an oversize ego and he is clearly an imperfect person.
I strongly disagree with his current views on Iran – not our enemy but a victim of our obsession with co-dominating the ME with Saudi and Israel. I absolutely disagree with his clear bias and willingness to act as Israel’s lackey. I believe that the swamp-cleaning will have to be a lot more radical than it’s likely to ever be. I believe that Snowden, Manning and Assange deserve honors and medals (not pardons). And I suspect that his ‘working’ with the GOP’s will, by necessity, corrupt and muddy all the good things, see below. that he is likely to attempt.
However, he happens to be ‘the lesser evil’ because Hillary and Trump seem to agree on all of the above and Hillary’s ‘public positions’ also include idiotic and dangerous views and proposals such as: potentially getting us into a nuke war with Russia by attempting to set a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria, a sovereign country that had officially invited Russia in. Hillary would have further accelerated our race to turn into an even bigger welfare state by importing ever-larger numbers of non-productive ‘refugees’ from cultures that are not compatible with the current prevailing culture in the US – Muslims do NOT assimilate and do not become Americans the way, let’s say, most Asians do. Hillary as president would have brought in unbelievable levels of corruption with various perverts, insane and imbeciles dragging the rest of us into further ruin – if you don’t mind the likes of those Powers, Nuland, Rice aka the harpies of doom igniting more ruinous wars, coups and interventions modeled after what we did in Ukraine, Syria and Libya, amplify those disasters by another order of magnitude and that would be Hillary’s effect on the world. Bringing a women abuser if not rapist like Bill Clinton back into the White House would be shameful, disgusting and demoralizing.
The positive effects of Trump’s administrations are as follows:
– Prevents Hillary from taking office – this is HUGE
– Keeps the Supreme Court within some limits of sanity by appointing conservatives to balance to incapable Looney Tunes and SJWs of Sotomayor kind
– Slows the flood of unwilling to assimilate Muslims currently settling the country. Yes, we did terrible things to Muslims and everyone else who lives in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and we are keeping in power the cross dressing despots of Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and the bloody murderer in power in Egypt but, out of self-preservation, we need to keep these people out because the do hate us.
– There is a remote chance that he will pass a ‘term limits for congress’ amendment to the Constitution.
– He may get us out of NAFTA and rebalance our trade with China. For those who remember the 80′ and 90’s, we USED to have trade surpluses with Mexico and Canada and our trade deficit with China was a tiny fraction of what it is now.
– He might repair our relationship with Russia – yes, a power in decline but also the only country that has the ability to kill us all as we have the ability to obliterate them.
– Some tax and regulation relief, maybe.
– Destroy or cripple the evil 2-party system – yeah, more like a wet dream of mine but you never know.
This is a ‘stream of consciousness’ post so it’s rambling and I am sure I’ve missed a lot, did lots of typos and grammar imprefections but I hope you get the idea.
Oh, and how did I forget: Trump is likely to deport a significant number of illegals. I hope he deports them all because they all did break our laws but the odds are not in his favor. However, I do hope that he deports many violent illegals because, as much as we love the dreaming (lol) illegals – and those employers unwilling to pay minimum wages and provide benefits love them even more – it may not be a bad idea to get rid of as many rapists, drug dealers and murderers as we possibly can.
The DNC and its members, not to mention our representatives are so entrenched that there’s no getting out.
I am embarrassed to have so proudly voted for Bill Clinton and President Obama, twice. The obvious ideological differences I had w the GOP and the Dems spin actually led me to believe they were the party that stood up for the little guy, their actions have proved otherwise.
Our nations government is now so large and entangled with money that there’s no way it can continue in its current form and actually represent the American people.
I’m ashamed to be an American these days. We were once looked to as the guiding light for the rest of the world. What do they see when they look our way now? Embers of a dream long incinerated by the oligarchs that run our once great nation.
The Democratic Party has been swirling around the drain since the party moved to the right with the election of Rancid Ronnie. Cramming H Clinton down the bases throat was the last straw for most people who are sick to death of the corporate democrats who are really moderate republicans. The party has a choice, either chase out the corporate democrats or slowly lose the traditional democratic party base.
As for me I am done with the Democratic Party, I decided long before the election that if the Democratic Party picks another corporate dem for POTUS, I would leave the party and I did. If a democrat wants my vote, they best not only talk the talk but walk the walk, Corporate Dems need not apply.
These are well articulated criticisms but where are the clearly articulated functional goals for the democrats and clear and well defined ideology for the left to adhere to? These criticisms appear as though in a bubble devoid of a highly functioning opposition whose ideology for the most part is united and coherently anti-left and anti-democrat. The democrats could do all things by the letter and still not make significant gains when republicans have no integrity, hypocritically change stance on a dime, change the rules mid-move, and lie, cheat, and steal by any and all means to maintain power and by the way have an active, aggressive, motivated, and semi-cohesive voter base. Republicans great exploitation of every opportunity fairly gained or not seem to always have the democrats playing catch up. Unlimited money in politics pinnacled by Citizens United is unapologetically embraced by the right to which they pay no political penalty. So democrats are expected to play the rules of ideological ethics and purity and not follow suit with the outcome being limited outreach comparatively. Now that would be saintly but only effective if we the complainers do our part and pay attention to issues and not just commercials and chip in out of our pockets when necessary. Sadly that does not happen so the game continues and we get what we pay for. That is a massive obstacle to meaningful progressive change. This article seems to demand perfection from one team while ignoring the flagrant fouls of the other.
I don’t see any ‘expectations of perfection’, it is asking them to meaningfully support the progressive values which have largely defined the Democratic party since the early 1900’s. What Bernie spoke of during the entirety of the election cycle, are extremely moderate viewpoints worldwide. The 3rd way triangulating centrists the DNC has embraced, are why our Democracy is failing, and our peopel are suffering.
The two-party system is only an example of good cop/bad cop currently, while both are working for the monied interests. It is no accident that a Princeton study found that big business interests get their legislation over 90% of the time, while legislation that specifically helps the people passes less than 1% of the time. It doesn’t take many bad actors on the Democratic side to sabotage or succor any particular piece of legislation, or vice-versa.
This is the clearest statement of this problem I have seen. They seem to have learned nothing, except where their funding comes from. It has peen apparent for a long time now that that’s what drives the parties. the congress. the government.
That spigot was all but shut off for anti-globalist candidate Trump, until compromises were made for the introduction of Steve Mnuchin to do some needed fundraising.
They were still outspent 2-1 by Democrats and prevailingly Democratic Wall Street (which also went 2-1 Obama over McCain).
The Ninth court decision, if not overturned, or ignored by POTUS, who has exclusive control of borders, is obviously a juidical overreach and is the most dangerous decision for the future of the US as a aviable entity. NO other country would allow judges to decide which non-citizens can and cannot enter the country.
Ever eaten shrimp cake with lemon balsamic drizzle paired with sparkling water with maybe a hint of grapefruit? Could you imagine following that up with a vanilla bean cheesecake? Wow that sounds amazing. I might try that.
Where are the protests against foreign government interfering to suppress Americans’ First Amendment right of free speech?
From Electronic Intifada, Feb 7, 2017
“Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, is leading efforts to legislate against BDS in the US Congress. (Senate Appropriations Committee)
Earlier this week, Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Representatives Robert Dold (R-IL) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) introduced the “Combating BDS Act of 2016” (S.2531 and H.R.4514), bills which seek to authorize state and local governments to divest assets from and prohibit investment in any entity that “engages in a commerce or investment-related boycott, divestment or sanctions activity targeting Israel. Illinois signed into law a bill last year requiring the state to divest from foreign companies that support boycott, divestment or sanctions (BDS). State legislatures in Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana and New York are currently considering similar legislation targeting any US-based or foreign entity that boycotts or divests over concerns about Israel’s human rights record. (Other states are also considering legislation to ban contractors from doing business with the state if they support BDS, another form of anti-BDS legislation not covered by the Combating BDS Act.) Clearly US states — acting under the impetus of the Israeli government, which has branded the BDS movement a strategic threat and is throwing massive amounts of money into an effort to quash the BDS movement — are not waiting for a congressional green light before taking action.”
absolutely
the elected imbeciles pretend to support religious freedom and diversity and yet give israel $38,000,000,000 who murder Palestinians for their land. And then they pretend to be all christian. Perhaps congress, house and senate, is the asylum for persons with multi personality disorders.
Thank you for your clear insight into part of the problem. There are two parties that represent the oligarchs ~ both completely out of touch with “we the people” ~ Thank you for being an exceptional journalist ~ Thank you for your courage to “speak truth to power.”
Kim Anderson. It seems the republicans voter base has no qualms with their party taking money from any source. The democratic base does seem to take issue with the source of funding sadly now required to be even somewhat competitive. Sources of funding and being beholden to corporate and big money interested seem to be the heart of the problem for many of their voter base that caused them to be out of touch or have distracted priorities. This is a conundrum of a democratic politician. Say that you want to run for a major political seat on the democratic side, what would you do to finance that against a well moneyed and politically shielded republican?
At a guess, I’d say you make that lack of big money funding into one of your selling points. You point out at every opportunity that all of your campaign funds come from small donors, and that the other guy is funded by, and thus beholden to [insert special interest here]. Instead of trying to outspend them, you turn the very fact that they can outspend you into a strike against them.
Democrats are just not as OVERTLY extremely right-wing. It’s not just OVERT racism, militarism; a measured, reasoned greed to dominate and control – it’s just masked, less and less well. Where were (and are) the Democrats for offing Qadaffi? All those coups worldwide? Sanctioning Israel? Invading Iraq? Blaming bin Laden for everything including taking down the Twin Towers? Torture? Nah, no time for human rights, spines or standing up for real democracy; Hey! Sure we’re gonna tap everybody’s phone! Legislate away States’ Rights! We’ll HELP the Banksters foreclose on everybody’s house – and REWARD THEM! With Parties like Democrats – and Republicans – who needs the Nazi President we have now, and his ride-em-hard posse? Obama (and B. Clinton) candy-coated a whole lotta terrible shit – let’s start with Nafta, Serbia, then move on to Tuesday night Kill-List Meetings and the like. Again, with a party like the Democrats, who needs Republicans – or Nazis?
I am no supporter of Clinton; I do not vote for candidates that are subservient to the banksters. But let’s not whitewash voter suppression by stating that Clinton lost the election or that the troll won it. Neither of those occurred, because this election was rigged, and we know how.
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=33e4ec877eed6a43863a4a92e&id=3a5e219073&e=8283eff9b8
It would have been an embarrassment to only trounce Trump by a moderate amount.
It was partially rigged, and the Tea Party candidate still eeked past globalist attempts at preventing a fair outcome.
Richard,
If GNU’s not Linux, then neither is that. On the other hand President Obama appeared on Latino national TV and told them how illegal immigrants and legal non-citizen residents could vote for Madame President, by showing up with what looked like a real driver’s license, flashing it and asserting they were citizens. He said he considered anyone here already a citizen, and that the felony would never be found out because his government makes sure not to follow up on such occurences. That’s important because falsely asserting U.S. Citizenship, if found out or admitted, makes one permanently barred to naturalization, and results in deportation proceedings. Some studies have shown that the illegal vote, while short of 8 million, is actually somewhere between 600,000 and two million. I am sure Richard can’t imagine that anyone actually voted for Trump, since he can’t conceive of doing it himself, nor does he know anyone who did. Therefore to him the only possibility is that the results were rigged. The only thing missing from this vast rightwing conspiracy is figuring out how the Russkis masterminded it.
That’s a pile of horseshit. None of that happened.
Ellison still looks pretty strong, maybe the frontrunner for the DNC Chair race. Not sure why there is an assumption that Perez has it in the bag.
Glenn,
Thank you for this. Amazing how refreshing common-sense, obvious truth can be-in a sicko media landscape of USA-first lies and bizarreness.
I am 48, and I’ve thought the 2-party system was broke since I was 18–30 years ago. Even so, I’ve loyally voted Democrat for 30 years. No more. I’m done.
I am a Bernie proponent. I watched the DNC rig the election against him. In favor of warmonger, corrupt Wall-Street and MIC lover Hillary.
I didn’t vote for her. No way in hell.
I will never vote Democrat again. I’m done. Corrupt party of Wall Street and war.
You and I are exactly the same on this.
Me too, except I am 7l but have also felt this since I was, well, maybe early 20s.
Bernie is a warmonger. Bernie voted for every war over which he had influence either to start them or to fund them. See CounterPunch, MintPress, Anti-Media, AlterNet, etc.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-voting-history
The complete and utter collapse of the modern, tribalist Democratic Party should be celebrated as a half-victory by the people of the US.
Unfortunately, there are (or rather were) two major parties.
One down. One to go.
Americans now have a Tea Party president and National Security Council member and Senior Advisor. Republican voters woke up.
(So exactly who co-opted whom?)
Meanwhile, progressives reconfirmed Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Donna Brazile as their movement leaders. You’d think the left would get a clue yet.
Progressives did not reconfirm Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Donna Brazile. Democratic party hacks confirmed those Democratic party hacks.
You won’t understand this, as you think that, e.g., Antonin Scalia was offed by the Illuminati to put a Jew on the Supreme Court. And lots of other deranged nonsense. Reasonable people, however, get the point.
It is virtually impossible to write fiction as deviously absurd as the real thing that the Democrats are putting out The unguarded off-script comment by Perez followed by his sheepish false rewrite of the truth is so wickedly hypocritical that it should cause all reasonable and rational voters to abandon the Democratic Party immediately. However, the masses of Democrats will likely continue to revel in their brainwashed blindness.
They are all so comfortable following this script. They think stupid formulas work. In their minds, it’s only about tweaking the message and delivery. It’s all marketing to them. They have no sincere human connection to anything they do. You do need strategy but it came off sterile, like a checklist based on banal observations devoid of social intellect.
No one believed their embrace of Bernie’s positions was genuine. It was Podesta’s cynical approach to politics, thinking, the people are stupid, easy to manipulate. Their political calculations were right out of Rove’s playbook.
As I watched the election, it infuriated me that these smug, arrogant phonies might win. I saw Trump for the con he was on many issues but at the same time, I wanted him to win, if only to wipe the smug look off their faces. I didn’t want their brand of politics or Neocon/neoliberal governance. I wonder if they truly understand how disgusted people are with them? They’ve managed to become more smarmy and scummier than the GOP. It’s more obvious with Dems because they’re suppose to be the party of the people.
What’s worse, I think many of them come from a culture, which embraces these phony calculations. All they know is fake smiling and kissing ass. They’ve been conditioned to accept that world. For instance, Tom Perez’s reaction to the questions seemed learned. At this point, why wouldn’t he have a natural response to one of the top 10 issues?
Lastly, the media arm for these imbeciles are more infuriating to watch. MSNBC, constantly parroting corporate, Neocon propaganda and HuffPo speaking to the choir, pushing narratives for their bubble.
I’m exhausted thinking about all the forces behind this train wreck. There are too many of them invested in keeping things the same.
I’ve got nothing against the Democratic Party, per se, Glenn … it’s the democrats I can’t stand.
*actually, I don’t care much about partisan politics either, but that’s another story.
#TheResistance will not be televised.
Great article which perfectly articulates everything about the Democratic party that needs changing. Several of my supposedly liberal to progressive friends were routing for Hillary to the point where they were annoyed when I pointed out the corruption I saw in her and in the DNC. They didn’t even know about Donna Brazille cheating and they minimized Hillary’s email debacle and sabotage-by-proxy (DWS) of Bernie’s candidacy. Everyone was so afraid of Trump (which we all were and still are) that they just stopped thinking!
Glenn locked horns today with Politico, which had to issue this:
It’s okay, Mona. Like your NYT, Politico doesn’t have an agenda.
and Greenwald is so neutral?
Greenwald is many things — neutral as between fact and falsehood, or good and evil, are not among them.
Somnus ? Karl
February 2 2017, 5:43 p.m.
I have read posts by Mona, rrheard and you on a regular basis for some time and it is quite clear why the two of them are threatened by you. As attorneys, they both subscribe to a win-at-all-cost philosophy while neither has a moral compass that points true north. They like to present themselves as champions of the underdog while wearing a certain set of enlightened ideals on their sleeve for all to see. Yet they actually see themselves as wolves among sheep and delight in devouring the weak while simultaneously condemning the dog-eat-dog nature of people like Trump. In short, they are both “narcissistic sociopaths” as you have astutely observed on occasion. They have both provided ample evidence that they have total disregard for the feelings and thoughts of others who choose not to worship them and mirror their world view. Most humorous of all they have displayed a pervasive pattern of grandiosity that is so over the top that their very words and actions could be easily misinterpreted as a form of self parody. Ironically, narcissistic sociopaths are possessed of a parasitic mindset that compels them to form attachments to those whose empathy makes them an ideal host.
You, on the other hand, seem to be tragically possessed of a quixotic nature that is compelled to address the worst in human nature – especially in defense of the intellectually weak and/or the emotionally vulnerable – with little hope of success. Which is rather ironic, because you are constantly ranting about groups like Black Lives Matters and the type of identity politics they embrace that purportedly seeks to emphasize the rights of the culturally marginalized over those of the culturally privileged majority. Also ironic is the fact that you always seem compelled to lock horns with those who endeavor to be perceived as being inclusive while viciously attacking those whose ideas do not strictly conform to their own. As someone who is deeply intolerant of hypocrisy, I marvel at the abuse that you have been willing to take in exposing those who live for the opportunity to abuse others in the name of truth, inclusiveness, and multiculturalism. But I am also deeply puzzled… why bother? The world neither begins nor ends with the incessantly obsequious and self aggrandizing drivel espoused by Mona or rrheard. Given that you possess a workable degree of insight into the darker aspects of human nature, I wonder why you do not simply avoid such types for the sake of your own sanity.
@ Indeed
You know nothing about me, and your armchair psychological analysis is pathetically off base.
I don’t subscribe to a win-at-all costs philosophy as an attorney or as a human being. I only like winning ethically, under the rule of law, and on the merits of facts and logically and morally coherent arguments.
Every client I’ve taken in the last three years, I’ve taken either for free or a flat fee under $2,000.
My Oregon State Bar number is 073960. Feel free to log onto its website and check to see if I’ve had any ethical complaints or disciple as an attorney. It also contains my phone number and address. You are free to come discuss any issue you’d like with me in person, non-anonymously, if you have the time and courage. I invite you to come see who I am as a person or as an attorney, in person, any day you’d like Monday through Friday. All I ask is that you call in advance and make an appointment so I can make sure to be in the office.
Totally got me there, the attorney who gives away his work or charges next to nothing sees himself as a total “wolf among sheep” and is all about a “dog-eat-dog” world. You’ve so got me figured out there man. Like totally. You’re almost as good as The Amazing Kreskin.
Again, you should probably let people actually trained to provide legitimate psychological diagnoses do their jobs, instead of trying to do it based on internet comments.
But it is fun watching people like you and Karl engage in your seemingly pathological ability to project your neuroses and disorders onto others.
I on the other hand am an open book who does not feel the need to hide his opinions behind anonymity for any reason.
DSM criteria for narcissism:
I actually think lawyers are well-educated garbage (wo)men. And I see me profession and my role in it accordingly.
I’ve been recognized in school and work a few times and didn’t bother to show up to receive the award. I don’t enjoy that sort of attention. Neither did I attend my college graduation ceremonies (except as an undergrad to watch a friend who asked me to be there, I did not choose to walk or participate instead choosing to be with family and friends having a BBQ).
My legal cases are public records. I am happy to show you my college transcripts and the few workplace or school awards I’ve received.
I have no fantasies, could care less about power, don’t know how one defines brilliance as it manifests differently for people in innumerable ways, I could care less about anyone’s physical appearance and care what kind of human being they are and what they stand for, and I have no “mate”.
My best friends are in the following occupations: postal employee, events planner, teacher, teacher, copywriter, production supervisor, caterer, machinist, loan paperwork processor for small agricultural bank, small pizza place owner, electrician, and three attorneys two of whom were friends before becoming attorneys. The only ones with as much formal education as me are the three attorneys. Two of them don’t even practice law currently. I don’t socialize with any other attorneys, nor have I ever attended a bar social event. I think we all understand each other pretty well given we’ve all been friends between 20 and 30 years. I’m big on loyalty that way.
I in fact require no admiration from human being. I’ve never done anything to warrant admiration, nor would I feel comfortable receiving it if I had.
Like totally, worked since I was 15, put myself through undergrad by working at night for the USPS, and has never made more than $50K in any calendar year in his entire life. Totally an entitled guy.
Pretty sure I’ve never expected or received a “special favor” in my life from anyone. Friends and family have done me many regular favors over the years for which I am incredibly grateful, and that I try and reciprocate in any way I can to them and any others who need help.
My father became paralyzed from the shoulders down when I was five due to an automobile accident. I took assistance from my mother, me and my sister to care for him over the years. I spent the last four years of my mother’s life being her primary caretaker as she succumbed to terminal lung cancer, while being an associate at a law firm. Yeah I’m like totally all about taking advantage of others.
I don’t consider the “needs” or “feelings” of anonymous commenters on the internet. In the real world I’m sensitive the needs and feelings of all human beings even ones I disagree with.
I’d be shocked to find out someone envies my life, and I’m quite convinced I don’t envy any other person’s life except possibly Gandhi or MLK Jr. Envy is like greed, I don’t subscribe to either.
I drink Pabst and like to goof around with my friends, play golf and go fishing or ride my motorcycle. I wear jeans and a sweatshirt most days and only put on a suit when I’m required to be in court or have meetings with clients or opposing counsel. Now I may come across as “arrogant” to certain anonymous individuals being purposefully obtuse on the internet, but generally speaking never in real life.
you threatened to run me over with your chevy celebrity on naito parkway , that’s pretty mental
I drive a Buick Regal which I purchased used. I have never owned a Chevy Celebrity.
I thought you were a moron then, and think you’re a moron now (assuming you are who I think you are although I don’t remember you using the pseudonym Mary Steyr back then, hard to keep track of all the cowards who run their mouths anonymously here, Salon or Guardian over the years).
Having said that, I’d never harm anyone with my car or any other object, assuming that person wasn’t trying to physically harm me.
I only vaguely remember that conversation, but rest assured I wasn’t threatening you seriously and more likely engaging in hyperbole in response to whatever anonymous stupidity you were peddling that day.
You should probably go back to playing with your pals before I start giving your nonsense the sort of rhetorical attention you won’t enjoy.
you’re wound pretty tight for someone with 14 best friends
anyway, i don’t live in pdx anymore so i’m no longer a target of opportunity
Glenn Greenwald’s misspelling is unintentionally funny:
> We hereby elevate by acclimation Chuck “Wall Street” Schumer
I’d like to see more acclaim for those less acclimated to the swamp.
It’s fixed now. (Michael Lane, below, pointed out the spelling issue first.)
I recently watched a C-SPAN “debate” with all the DNC chair candidates. Corporate media hack Joy Reid was running this, which made it even sillier to watch.
When Perez stood up to speak, all of it was in DNC approved soundbites. What he was really saying was this. I’m an Inside the Beltway Power Player who knows to get things done. The rich white people who are currently in charge don’t know s**t. Only 1 other candidate had the courage to say that we lost because the ignorant silly ass white people in charge f*****d it up.
Perez tries to talk a mean game, but he’s fake. In a sense, he’s just like Corey Booker. Booker’s a corporate Democrat taking dug company money while he says that he’s also concerned about saving people’s lives under the ACA. We can’t import Canadian drugs. They’re not safe. Really? Can you name any Canadians OR Americans who’ve died from taking Canadian made drugs? No you can’t. This just proves that Booker is just another power player hustler who only cares about positioning himself to run in 2020.
If Perez wins, the DNC is finished.
The first time I saw that — coming across Twitter — I actually did the LOL thing. Initially, I wondered how stupid he thinks the average person is, but then realized Booker had no remotely plausible reason to give for that vote (given that the truth was a no-go). What else was he going to say?
canadian drugs are not tested on americans and are thus unproven
Except, of course, most “Canadian” drugs are made in and imported from the good ol’ USofA, so what we’re really talking here is reimportation of drugs made in the US back into the US.
Yeah, I registered as an independent after Obama started another bombing campaign in Syria, meanwhile we were (and are) still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they went and nominated another Democrat who voted for Iraq…great…well done.
I saw the dysfunction on the ground when I volunteered for a senate campaign only to have the coordinator not show up to the training he’d schedule, and then later for a house campaign to show up for phone banking (which the coordinator had scheduled) only to find them moving offices at the time. I don’t know what happened to the field training over the past six years since I did the job.
DWS resigned in disgrace for “sustained cheating.” Exactly what was the sustained cheating? The WaPo says she, “made sharply disparaging remarks about Sanders and his campaign manager.” Disparaging remarks are not cheating? Cheating requires an act. “Sustained cheating” requires sustained action. What did she do? I would like to know.
DWS was rewarded with “a high position with the Clinton campaign”? She was given an honorary chairmanship, “a position that involves no responsibilities, no employees, no budget, and no duties,” according to Daily Kos and others. Doesn’t sound like a “high position within” the campaign to me.
Always heard Greenwald was this highly credible journalist. Don’t see it here.
I’ve given up on national politics and am involved locally. The way to change the party is from the bottom up. Thanks Glen, for another great article.
Sit-ins, GAs, and drum circles are the way to go.
And Spirit Cooking. Works like a charm.
Checkpoint Charlie Schumer is the leftist (synonym: authoritarian) who wants a “no-ride list” for Amtrak. (Reuters, May 8, 2011)
This is Nancy Pelosi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2O5XxDTF7M
Chuck Schumer is not a leftist. The notion is laughable, as is the case with virtually all of your notions.
Then you can point to one passage from this that reinforces your argument:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Charles_Schumer.htm
Progressives, always pointing fingers away from themselves.
I do not engage you or reply to you for your edification. I do so for other readers. Your views on myriad things are simply bizarre, e.g., that nefarious someones murdered Antonin Scalia to replace him with a Jew.
You are not a reasonable person, in any manner. No reasonable person would consider Schumer a leftist.
the commenting software on this site really blows.
Marvelous column, which made my day. I never pass up an
opportunity to read GG.
Busy around here tonight.
Someone’s probably already mentioned this, but just in case….
https://twitter.com/EFF/status/829858593373507584
The governor of WA was just on local news celebrating the ruling. He responded to Trump’s bleat, ‘see you in court’ with, ‘we just saw you in court and you lost’.
(Melissa McCarthy is my new hero)
They lost in the most liberal Federal court circuit in the nation. Not a big surprise. They probably wanted to lose so that they could get underway to the Supreme Court where the final decision will be made.
The 9th Circuit has not been especially liberal in some time. You’re notion there is dated. Moreover, the district court judge is a Bush 43 appointee and Republican, as is one of the judges on the appellate panel.
It would be utterly extraordinary for SCOTUS to touch it at this stage. They very seldom accept emergency appeals on cases that are still at the pleading stage in the trial court.
And, if they did, it’s pretty hard to imagine that they’d get more than a 4-4 split at best, which would leave the 9th’s ruling intact and leave the case in Seattle.
The Supremes will get their chance, after there’s a fully-developed record. At the moment, it doesn’t look like that record is going to be favorable for the government.
Local Faux News anchors (think Hannity-like character – I’d swear they cloned him) expressed concern over the ruling. His female counter-part asked their guest expert, former US Attorney John McKay, what “should the DOJ do?”
He expressed his concern over Trump dissing the judiciary but the DOJ “needs to review the ruling” and fix the constitutional issues. He’s all-in for the ban once those “issues” are resolved because it’s needed .
The faux fear from we are now not safe as we would have been had the stay been lifted is
straight out of Hermon Goering’s famous little blurb. And the xtians are eating it up.
Jay Sekulow was on Hannity tonight and suggested that Trump should sign a new EO incorporating the changes needed regarding Visa/Green Card holders. The Ninth Circuit would again receive the case and would rule against Trump again but Sekulow believes if the new EO went before the Supreme Court even without Gorsuch it would end up in an 8-0 decision for Trump.
It would be good to have all the lawyers here listen to Sekulow and to weigh in on his thinking.
The Peoples Delegates of the Democratic Party are there for you to helpfully assist a confused proletariat in need of guidance.
We can rebuild him . . we have the technology. We can make him better than he was .. better, stronger, faster!
Great article about corruption in Dem party.
LMAO!
Heard recently that the DNC is trying to get Sanders to turn over his donor list to them.
These idiots don’t get it, do they?
We donated to Bernie because of who he is, what he represents and what we KNOW he’d do if he were President.
That is the same reason that no Sanders donor would EVER give a penny to the DNC.
Bernie Sanders (D-VT) is the unstable candidate that your People’s Delegates helpfully guided you away from.
Guided away so that loser Hillary Clinton could lose. Gotcha — they’re stupid.
Actually, communete, sanders is I-VT, and incredibly stable considering he’s been fighting for the same beliefs since he first ran for office.
Wrong, Ashley. As of 2015, Sanders is by all definitions very much D-VT.
Nope. Sanders put a D after his name to run for president. He’s back to an I.
Our “representative” form of government has failed. The grand experiment started by our forefathers, for all of their flaws, once held promise. Now we wait with bated breath, to see what the corpse of our Republic will do once the flesh of capitalism rots away, leaving behind the bony cage of fascism. Weep for Orc, who once shattered the imperialist spirit. Weep for Orc, who has become Urizen.
“Folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “our democracy,” “our democracy,” “our democracy,” “our democracy, ” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “folks,” “volks,” “fol-….”
Thank you Glenn for your insight. It’s true that this party needs new leadership on all fronts: state, local and national. They need better outreach strategies, or to quote Public Enemy, the people will need to ‘Bumrush The Show!”.
It was Bernie Sanders that made us support Bernie Sanders because he represents the majority of us. Nothing, not even the obscenity in the White House today will ever bring me back to the dems, nor any party at all.
We are currently herded by one party, the war party, the oil party, and the arrogant party all in one disgraceful power over mode.
We have to move into the board rooms and boycott fossil fuel, and do it fast because we are running out of time for the survival of our species. We just don’t have time for this foolishness.
Bernie Sanders (D-VT) is a Democrat. He participated in the DNC primary, he spoke at its convention, and he wholly endorsed its nominee.
Progressives are under a form of cult mind control if they believe otherwise.
Supporting a candidate because he wants to make all the serfs equal, and because his crazy hair cuts a distinctive silhouette, is a form of personality cult indistinguishable from that of O eight years earlier.
You are an idiot.
I’d have to second rrheard. Truly you are an idiot.
This particular idiot ranting about personality cults is a huge fan of this freak. He’s repeatedly promoted the thesis that Satanic-Illuminati are controlling our minds. And oh, he also holds that “they” murdered Antonin Scalia to replace him with a Jew on the Supreme Court.
I have to jump on the bandwagon. You’re an idiot, Communete.
A clear-headed analysis of the symptoms. Let’s move to the prescription. I assume by “fundamental flaws of the Democratic Party” you mean MONEY.
Nothing meaningful will ever happen in our republic until the influence of money is removed from the political system (or at least significantly curtailed). Democrats will never be able to convince voters of their authenticity until they adopt campaign finance reform as their NUMBER 1 platform position.
Remove money as the prime mover for politicians and we might just be able to have a meaningful conversation about health care, climate change, voting rights, prisons, etc.
If Dems can’t/won’t do this, they will just continue to be seen as a slightly more hypocritical version of Republicans. And if Dems give us more of the same, a new (Progressive) party needs to be established. Sanders could do this.
Here’s another excellent article along a similar but related line: https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2017/02/fake-and-false-and-just-plain-nonsense/
no one left to sell out…..that says it all……dirty politics did the democrats in – all by themselves
Thank you Glenn. Tom Perez is unfit to lead anything so keep hammering away at him and thank Zaid as well who had the guts to confront this Haim Saban whore.
Schumer and Pelosi and the rest of the aging, feeble Dems are so stone deaf they still can’t figure out why Shillary lost. Keith Ellison is our best hope along with Bernie.
Keith Ellison is an anti-Semite, and Bernie is a counter-Party agitator and enemy of the proletariat.
And….you’re delusional.
The Democrats are not doing too bad if you consider that a Democrat who ran as a Republican finally won.
In the Administration too there are a lot of people who can be quite comfortable wearing the Democrat badge. Kellyanne Conway, Rex Tillerson, Ben Carson, etc., are really not Republicans except by association.
The Democratic Party is doomed unless they can get someone who will deliver prosperity and safety to the voters instead of filling up their own fake global initiative coffers. I wonder who is now paying to hear the Clintons download their enormously expensive wisdom and knowledge.
Start a new party now. I can’t say this often enough or loud enough. The Democratic Party [sic] is likely unsalvageable. More to the point, the energy it would take to overcome entrenched apparatchiks in the Democratic Party simply is too expensive to expend given the larger troubles in American society which need that same energy to address. We can’t spare them that kind of time or energy, only to have them inevitably sabotage from within any actual reforms.
I’m not saying putting a new party in place on the ground would be easy; it will be anything but. But an actual left of center political party to push the solutions we all know, solutions that we all know are needed, but that neither existing rightist faction of the two-headed one party system will address is what must happen. Just as Labor left the slumping Liberals in Britain between the Wars to emerge as the driving force of reform after WW II we need an _actual_ party of ECONOMIC and social justice of the time to promote equitable reform. Not just insincere identity crumbs if necessary ones to factions but actual policies that support the largest part of society—including the terrified white working class and ruralistas who need reform as much as anyone but who are blindly flirting with or embracing fascism in the absence of actual reform.
Launch a new party now. The Unity Party: names matter.
Nailed it! Gary Younge came to my hometown because a red state supported Bernie over Hillary in the primaries. Because of spineless democrats, Indiana has been referred to “flyover country”.
I told Gary in our first meeting, “The democrats are out of touch.”
Bernie got it, and the establishment AND the media (including MSNBC) worked against him.
You didn’t pull any punches Glenn, but I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned the disgusting ploy of Obama and our IC in blaming Russia for their misery. As you eloquently summed it up, Obama’s lack of leadership created Trump, but instead of owning it, they concocted a story about Russian hacking and “influencing the election”.
One of the most pathetic displays of leadership I’ve ever witnessed.
The best part is it also destroyed our corporate run media as part of the problem. My friends who are loyal Maddow fans claim she is the beacon of liberal journalism – I’m losing friends for my honesty.
and the MURDER OF SETH RICH needs to be looked into
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
the beneficiaries of his murder had the most to lose
Thanks Glenn for having the fortitude to write this! Persons like yourself keep hope alive for my planet.
the democratic party is a failed state
introducing Tom “the slither” Perez, a proxied whore for billionaires, israel, and certain friends who takes marching orders from a creepy billionaire. Any coincidence he sounds like Rubio?
This spells THE END of the democratic party, now the party of whores for israel wars.
Talleyrand: “They had Learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”
The democrats are finished – as are the republicans and the two-party system. They are unsalvageable. It’s up to third parties if we are to turn things around.
yes.
Yes.
Dont count your chickens before they hatch. Third party candidates totaled less than 6%.
It doesn’t even need to be limited to three, though this would be a good start. Part of the reason for third failure is the fact that the two-party system is never questioned. Most people are imbued with the spoiler idea. And with a faith in our political system that is only now starting to be questioned in a broad way.
The 2 party system has been challenged almost since the beginning of our nation. The list of third party candidates is lengthy. The “spoiler idea” only plays a role when the election is thought to be close. People didn’t not vote for Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr in the second Obama election because they were afraid of causing Obama to lose the election. Two party systems tend to lend themselves giving the middle of the road point more power, while shutting out radical and extremist points of view. In countries that are set up to allow smaller parties in the government, these smaller parties frequently have power in the gov’t that is greater than would be expected given their support by the voters.
Nancy Pelosi “we are capitalist” really means that she and the other elected officials don’t answer to their constituents, they answer to money. Corporate profits are paramount to everything else so therefor everything is turned into a commody including human life and the natural world. The capitalists will do whatever it takes to hold their positions of power including; lying, cheating, stealing and murder.
To talk about contemporary American elections and not mention the Kochtapus is like talking about colonization and not mentioning genocide. The Koch’s and their network have achieved a truly perverse corporate coup d’etah. If anyone is interested in the Koch brothers and their buying of the US political system check out the book Dark Money by Jane Mayer. Or go here:
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/15884
I understand your take on the democratic party and you know its weaknesses well. However if there isn’t enough faith in the party that places humanitarian values before the party of rampant capitalism, you will lose what little culture we have here in America anyway. So maybe we might not want to tear apart what continuity we can get from the democrats, but with constructive criticism, find the best leaders we can, whatever their party affiliation. There’s nothing like an educated citizen to make America greater than it’s ever been!
Craig Nelsen
slightly [edited] for transparency
[I] enjoy [my] cheap [vices], there, Doc. Trump won because the voters hate [global trade policies and the Elites who forced those policies upon them]. [My] [h]atred of “[truth and facts]” doesn’t [really bother me].
Out of [my own obnoxious behavior here at The Intercept], [Doug Salzmann has been forced to repeatedly] cite [numerous] example[s] of my “racism”.
That Trump was empowered because of the swindle and lying and self deceit of the Democrats is only part of the story. A much greater part deals with the economy which makes American lives a precariat or unnecessariat and of which HRC said that they were the deplorables.
I don’t get this from the articles of the intercept: why do they not state the obvious? People don’t care about Trump or HRC or their crony friends. They care about their lives that are in jeopardy thanks to 30+ years of lying from both the Democrats and the Republicans.
It’s ironic that you make that statement here on Greenwald’s post. It really shows that you don’t actually read his articles and know nothing about what he writes about or cares about. Sad. See below from one of his recent posts.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
This is not new from me, I stick by it. $600 – $800 billion in taxes stolen from America and Americans continues to reside off shore in the form of a couple of trillion in profits sent off shore specifically to avoid the stolen taxes. I have yet to find out how the laws that allowed this to happen were put into effect, but the effects have been devastating, while the ceo of apple continues to whine that the taxes are unfair. Considering the damage to America and Americans grossly rich apple might be thought of as an unAmerican sickness, eager to get richer but unable to think outside of its obligations to itself. Shame. To apple and to all those others who have no regard for their home.
But my point is that the election In my opinion could at last have been easily won, simply by Clinton announcing that she would repatriate the hundreds of billions in stolen taxes to re-energize our economy and provide for the opportunity costs so many Americans paid as a result of the stolen taxes, including no health care, huge debts accumulated for their education, loss of homes and jobs, destruction of families, on and on, all promulgated by the actual fact of the stolen taxes. That is, those grossly inflated profits sent off shore that generated the stolen taxes were in effect the stolen home, the student debt, the lack of education, the stolen healthcare, on and on. The huge profits were in fact the opportunity costs lost by America and Americans.
Hillary could have made this a winning meme in her campaign, I wrote often begging her to consider the approach. But instead she sent out Schumer to offer repatriation of mere pennies on the dollar. No surprise, how many of Clinton’s donors who paid so much into her campaign, and into her foundation, and into her personal wealth have huge amounts off shore?
I don’t think trump will do anything to repatriate those stolen dollars, probably he’ll increase the capability of the corruption that makes them possible, or simply eliminate the tax requirements so the hugely rich won’t have to off shore their huge profits. But I think we can begin to make it clear to the nation the costs we have paid for the corruption that made all this possible and who authored it. Was it part of a coup still in process, bring so much hardship on so many that a trump would be possible? Why not?
This is a little outside the conversation, we all know of President Obama’s popularity, and his play will get boring after a couple of month’s golfing and wind boarding. There seems no way forward, that is the source of the despair being felt, there is nothing that can be done.
One asset we who have gotten quickly sick of trump’s incapability and incompetence have is superior numbers. We can quickly profit from this advantage by conducting a national General Strike, shut down the country. I read there is an effort to have a women’s strike on March 8, said to include women in many countries across the world. It is not strange to me to make it the general strike, in the name of women world wide.
Of course the question of who would lead such an effort is immediately heard, with good reason. My answer to that is he who is most qualified for the effort, he who has led our nation and the world so capably for the last eight years, President Obama. As I said he will probably be bored soon, and the need is huge. The efforts of the leadership can easily be financed, a mere $10 a month from only those whose votes exceeded trumps will net a cool $29 million a month, and I suggest even some of the smarter republicans will find cause to donate, assuming they exist.
Here’s a couple of suggestions, though. If willing to consider it, President Obama should go underground to prevent assassination attempts. And, our media is infected, those organizations that ‘moderate’ all the websites we visit are in a position to shut down those sites used by liberals to communicate. Maybe Anonymous can build us a site that can’t be corrupted.
This is a little far out, but I think the logic is sound.
If you are talking about money held overseas by American people (as opposed to corporations) then: Bullshit – that ship has sailed. The US is the only real country on the planet that taxes its beleaguered citizens wherever they live and tries to tax green card holders too if they have the temerity to stop living in the USA. Americans living overseas can barely open bank accounts or get mortgages Banks won’t deal with them because the banks have such a mega compliance burden reporting these US people to the IRS. And getting rid of US citizenship costs $2350 per person and you first have to be up to date on US taxes even if you have never set foot in the US in your life.
Look at the Panama Papers – it exposed almost nothing overseas being held by “fatcat” Americans. It was virtually all people from other countries. Anything that can be scraped up from Americans overseas – whose lives are made hell by the IRS already – is a drop in the ocean compared with tax evasion by Americans in the U S of A.
Sorry, it is clear I was addressing those who off shore profits specifically to avoid paying their share of taxes.
Very clear to me what “Jimbo” was talking about……corporate tax monies held offshore holding our government hostage……shame on all of them!
Wasn’t clear to me, sorry for perhaps being over-sensitive. There is a myth that the very rich in the United States stash their riches in overseas bank accounts to avoid tax. While there was much truth to that in the past, it simply is not the case now, or rarely. Financial institutions all over the world must report to the IRS the accounts of all US persons, even dual citizens and people who have almost no ties to the US but were born there. This has led to tremendous hardship for Americans who live abroad while bringing in almost nothing in extra remittance to the IRS.
If Jimbo is talking just about corporations then … fine.
London Mayor Boris Johnson has settled a US tax bill he had previously described as “absolutely outrageous”.
Mr Johnson, who has dual nationality, faced a demand from the US authorities to pay capital gains tax on profit from the sale of his house in North London.
American law requires all citizens to pay US taxes even if they live abroad.
The mayor, who is due to visit Boston, New York and Washington next month, had rejected the demand, saying he had not lived in the US since he was a child.
Mr Johnson, who was born in New York, revealed last year he had received a bill from the US Internal Revenue Service. Unlike the UK, the US levies capital gains tax on proceeds from the sale of a main residence.
Asked whether he would pay the demand, Mr Johnson said then: “No is the answer. I think it’s absolutely outrageous. Why should I? I haven’t lived in the United States since I was five years old.”
A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: “The mayor won’t be saying anything more on the subject. The matter has been dealt with.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30932891
Yeah, Boris is a wimp who decided to pay massively to buy his way out of US taxes (ridiculous for him to have to pay US tax of any kind) and US citizenship (which he had by the misfortune of being born in the US and living there till age 5). It will have cost him well into 7 figures to do so because US citizenship is almost impossible to get rid of once you have it. They’ve got you for life. He should have told the IRS to sod off, as he originally boasted that he would. Meanwhile, US citizenship grows ever more toxic for anyone possessing it who does not reside in the States and people will pay almost anything to get rid of it. I really wish TI would look at this issue – it is a gross example of human rights violation. This today: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-09/americans-renouncing-citizenship-at-record-high
spot on
hillary was wallstreet’s favorite whore
for the criminal currency system by club Z.
sorry you used what I wrote to attack Hillary. I’m pretty sure she didn’t write the laws that let the richest steal from Americans. She used what was common to all politicians, I’m sure trump won’t do anything to repatriate those stolen taxes, he will probably add to the profits that will be off shored, if not repatriate them unburdened.
Hillary could have made it a campaign theme, but, as she herself profits from offshore accounts, she did the rare smart thing in her campaign and didn’t harp on that.
The scariest thing is that if Democrats don’t address their problems, not only will Trump be reelected, not only will his successor be an even worse Republican, Republicans will also gain control of enough states to completely rewrite the Constitution.
What are you worried they are going to put in there?
Will they make whatever the president does…legal?
Will they make it more difficult to find an abortion clinic?
Will they gerrymander the seats in congress to give the republicans a majority even when they are a minority of the votes?
Will they make it so congress responds primarily to those with millions of dollars in campaign contributions?
Will they make it so America is on a permanent emergency powers war footing where what the president decides can’t be questioned by the courts because of “national security”?
It seems to me they needn’t bother changing the constitution….the words in it will mean whatever Scalia 2.0 says they mean. I guess they could change the name of the country to “Jesus-Land”, that would probably take a constitutional amendment.
Nothing new here, but pulled together masterfully as usual. You forgot to mention that Rahm is making a comeback as national Dem strategists, as usual telling us DFHs that we’re “fucking retards,” i.e. immature, naive purists. Things are getting hot in Chicago and he’s looking for his next gig.
With Chuck (carried interest, Isreal uber alles) Schumer at Senate, Nancy (never saw a Homeland Security provision I wouldn’t go to the wall for) Pelosi, in the House, Tom (I’m your Huckleberry) Perez at DNC, and Rahm dictating the overall DLC strategy, what could go wrong. Also, ole B’rer Barry, he lay low, or maybe he’s sailing above it all.
This is the team that will bring down Donny and Stevie, I just know it.
I guess I just don’t have the patience for people that are only looking to fight. I find it exceedingly boring. Makes me appreciate what an oasis this site has been with so many interesting and engaged commenters. It’s really a rarity when compared to so many other comment sections. The childishness is minimal by comparison.
The “Macroman” thread I’m quoting from is typical, It starts off well enough, but then at some point, it degenerates to the point where there is almost no substance left. Which I guess for some people, is the goal.
But overall, I’ve learned quite a bit over the years about ways of thinking that I knew nothing about previously. And I guess there is no perfect way to interact with conflicting world views.
I still find “libertarianism” remarkable, the mix of commonsense and insanity. I’d never known much about it before, in many countries you just don’t really hear people say something like “the poor can fuck off and die!” the way you hear American libertarians do. It’s straight out of Dickens of course “Are there no workhouses?”, but many countries have moved on since then, the ones that can afford to. And America can afford to.
Well said. For what it’s worth, my apologies for my contributions to the degradation of discourse. That said, I’ll rationalize my bad behavior by saying this disconnect between all the good things about libertarianism (liberty, personal responsibility, etc.) have been obfuscated by the bad (mostly laissez-faire economic policies) to the extent that it actually gives libertarianism and capitalism bad names – deservedly so based on outcomes.
In other words, for forty years I haven’t and still I can’t relinquish the idea that until we expend every effort on meeting the basic human needs of everyone on our planet and support and encourage having an economic policy that reflects these values we’re simply adding to the misery, when we have the resources to do the opposite.
Thank you for those words -especially the last paragraph. Capitalism sanctions both greed and poverty, and both are evils.
“Capitalism sanctions both greed and poverty, and both are evils.”
I haven’t heard it put quite that way. Succinct and accurate. I’m gonna’ steal it. ;-)
The absence of substance is not my goal. Check our conversation and tell me who ceased engagement and starting talking around and about rather than to the conversants.
Neither you nor sillyputty have ever heard anyone say that about their own position, libertarian or not. You might have heard people slander others with it, sure. (Maybe Stalin is an exception, that famous libertarian?)
But I’ve never said or implied anything like that, and it diminishes the credibility of your “I just want to have, good, honest, productive conversation” posture when you immediately turn around and attack a straw man, in a separate thread no less, rather than respond to the arguments you left hanging below. Actions speak louder than words regarding these values you keep telling us you have.
I spent all day in an airport, being lectured by immoral, classless ignorami about morals, ettiquete, and facts. Yeah, you got me, JL, I achieved my “goal.”
“If you don’t want the government to do X, then that means you are against X.” — Brilliant retort of the erudite to all things libertarian.
macroman to JLocke:
“The absence of substance is not my goal.”
You manage to not achieve your goal spectacularly.
” Check our conversation and tell me who ceased engagement and starting talking around and about rather than to the conversants.”
You’ve called me “retarded” and a “bigot” and more.
Spectacularly …
If you use my response to someone else as if it applies to you,…you still can’t manage to make a point, you retarded bigot.
Then there’s this:
Kevin Williamson for The National Review had this to say about poor whites:
“Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your…”
“Neither you nor sillyputty have ever heard anyone say [the poor can fuck off and die] about their own position, libertarian or not.”
I’ll not speak for JLocke, but or forty year and more, the net effect of the policies we’re all talking about has been just that.
And when your dealing with real humans and how it affects their life, their children’s lives, and now their grandchildren’s lives, that’s an unacceptable success rate, and things must change.
“Neither you nor sillyputty have ever heard anyone say that about their own position…”
From my Facebook TL today:
“Let them [the poor] starve to death. God helps those that help them selves.”
Both parties represent little more than the will of giant oil, banking, media and defense corporations. The only way they differ is in marketing strategies, target populations, rhetorical style, & external fluff.
Anyone arguing for saving or fixing Democratic Party is encouraging people to remain in the illusion that staying inside this society’s traditional institutions will allow ordinary citizens to make far-reaching & fundamental changes in the way society is organized.
This simply cannot be. Our society is the way it is, precisely because it has been organized to function in the interests of a narrow slice of the population at the top. By definition, a “traditional” institution in this society (like the Democratic Party) is PART of the very machinery that permits society to function like this. These institutions work to maintain the social order — not to change it. They are against meaningful change.
The Democrats have always been a faction of the enemy. They play a highly treacherous role in the system — that of the common man’s false friend. They have not “just recently” been infiltrated by some dastardly groups (DNC, Neoliberals, etc.), they are not weak or spineless– they are simply a degenerate capitalist institution that has always served elite interests while pretending to be “the party of the people.”
Not only is it wrong to fight to save them — the truth is, no progress can be made until the Democratic Party has been completely discredited & abandoned. It it nothing but a Pied Piper that leads people off into directions where they are guaranteed to be impotent in terms of challenging the status quo.
Together, the 2 parties form a governing structure that responds only to the needs of American capitalism. If you go to the Dem Party “pooh-bahs” and say, “I have some nice ideas for peace, housing, environment, and education,” they’ll laugh in your face. If you go and say, “I have a $10 million donation for you from Exxon-Mobil, if you just relax a wee little regulation about mileage standards,” they will say, “Please come into my office. I believe we can do business.”
The point is that both US parties are big-business parties, responsive ONLY to the needs & desires of corporations. The personnel of both parties are tightly linked to lobbyists. Both parties are stuffed to the gills with consultants, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, connections in the MSM, & so on. All together, this forms an institutional structure that is completely unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of ordinary people.
Outside of fantasies and party cheer leading, it’s a matter of consultants, corporate donations, favorable mainstream media treatment, approval of career party apparatchiks, and so on.
Of course to wean addled liberals away from their addiction to Democrats, an immense shift of consciousness is required; this is not yet nearly in place. Everyone who does understand the mechanisms that make the Dem Party so pernicious should try to transmit this understanding whenever possible. Discussing the rottenness of Democrats whenever possible is an important activity.
Whether or not Hillary out and out lost the election- what is clear, is the Republican party has been steam rolling over the Democratic party in a multi state criminal conspiracy to purge voters, and shut down polling locations. The election was tainted, fraudlent, and there is existing precedent (in content not scope, to declare it void, and half the energy of the populace should be focused on that, since there will be nothing but naked corporatism, and crony capitalism, for at least 4 years. Make no mistake either, if the Republicans got away with voter purges under a democratic president, once Gorsusch gets in, there will never be another Democratic victory higher than dog catcher. http://canceltrump.website
When Obama first took office, Democrats had control of Congress and the Executive Branch.
And they used that power to entrench the rightward-leaning status quo, not change it; both parties are corrupt and serve a greedy elite that functions behind the scenes.
upvote x 10
And it’s precisely because the Democrats didn’t use that majority to enact their campaign promises that they lost that majority.
If Clinton had won there’d also be plenty of naked corporatism and crony capitalism for at least 4 years. Voting conspiracies are less a threat than both parties conspiring with corporations, arms manufacturers, and prisons against citizens.
I used to belong to the Democratic Party, but your article clearly highlights why I left it several years ago. As an independent, I am frustrated that the Democrats can’t see the clear writing on the wall. I guess that the lure of $$$ can really blind people. Since there are no viable party alternatives right now, I will have to continue to be independent and keep a hopeful eye on the future.
Brilliant article, Glenn. You nailed it.
I just wanted to add that the dysfunction at the top of the DNC goes back before Debbie Wasserman-Schultz; after riding DNC Chair Howard Dean’s 50-State Strategy to unquestioned electoral success in 2006 and 2008, the succeeding DNC Chair focused instead on cashing in, regulatory capture, and placating the billionaires & banksters.
At the same time, the GOP invested heavily in taking back Congress AND state legislatures back in the 2010 elections, knowing that if they were successful, they would be in the driver’s seat for the 2010 redistricting process, and could gerrymander themselves to their Permanent Republican Majority. The DNC Chair either didn’t see what was happening, or didn’t think it was important, or… whatever. The GOP won *big*, the Dems lost, and the Dems have been playing a half-hearted game of catch-up ever since. In fact, as Thom Hartmann points out, 2/3 of the counties in the U.S. currently have no organized Democratic Party presence!
Who was that DNC Chairman who dropped the ball, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Tim Kaine.
It’s way past time to get the perennial election-losers and excuse-makers out of the way.
Keith Ellison for DNC Chair, all the way.
Perez leaves the bubble and gets an earful…
Rural Americans felt abandoned by Democrats in 2016, so they abandoned them back. Can the party fix it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/rural-americans-felt-abandoned-by-democrats-in-2016-so-they-abandoned-them-back-can-the-party-fix-it/2017/02/08/76a96074-ee16-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1
Thank you for elegantly synthisizing the elements that created the dnc mess. I appreciate this level of clarity that is so lacking in most media and journalism today which is perhaps due to being corporately owned, I surmise.
I share all of your pieces on social media and do hope they gain traction…in an attempt to elevate the discourse…god knows the internet needs a little bar raising which the intercept does. So, thank you Glenn for your insight and integrity.and too…for making this complex world a better place.
Zinger. Although do not agree that the popular vote has no relevant meaning.
I worked my ass for Obama in 2008. At least 500 hours in Dayton, Columbus, Cinci Ohio as well as in Denver and Boulder Colorado. I was a believer. As soon as he selected HRC as his Secretary of State the air came out of my balloon. A serious and proven war hawk. WTF.
Was at the Pepsi Stadium in Denver (had my credentials for every event) and made it up to the top and down to the main floor close to speakers. People were on fire moved by the “hope and change” that Obama had carved out in his campaign. People were stomping on the stadium seats so hard I thought the whole place would be levitated over the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and into the stars. I’m telling you it was transcendental the hope people were feeling and oh so wanting to feel. It really did seem that after Obama decidedly won he and his team did not make much effort to harness that incredible enthusiasm and energy. Hell I had worked in campaign offices and knocked on doors with Republicans who were fed up.
How many seats did the Dems lose across the nation while Obama was in office. Somewhere close to 1000 seats. How many Governors went to Republicans during those 8 years. The Dems did not harness that energy
Was a total Sanders supporter at 64. So sick of the msm saying that all Sanders supporters were young. Just could not support a proven war hawk like HRC. Iraq, Libya, Syria (arming unknown rebels) Obama and Clinton could not bring themselves to listen to experts who were right before the invasion like Hillary Mann and Flynt Leverett. Damn I miss their “Going To Tehran” website. No Obama had to listen to war hawk Hillary and her neocon comrades. Death and destruction seem to follow wherever they set their bloody eyes on.
At the Denver rally for Sanders there were 20,000 in line and inside. I walked the line outside and talked with close to a hundred people and asked them their reasons for supporting Sanders (some day I will learn to record with fancy dancy equipment) Articulate and so inspired people talked about Sanders “core beliefs” of realistic humanitarian values. His voting record to back up most of what he had to say. Damn again people were as inspired or more so than for Obama because of Sanders voting record. His lack of a massive ego, his sincerity. Hell the msm missed these massive rallies. They made fun of Sanders at first..actually for months. Then of course we find out all of our suspicions were true that the DNC was actively undermining him.
Schumer, Pelosi, Sanchez have no idea what those Sanders supporters ideals are about. They have no idea how to harness those values. Not even Senator Warren does (she refused to support Bernie we know) Only Bernie, Keith, Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard (she is on her way to the top) Nina too.
You are spot on Glenn if the establishment does not really try to understand what the most important values are of the Sanders supporters (my 88 year old mother supported Sanders but voted for Hillary) the Dems will keep losing.
Sanders
Below, Craig Nelsen challenges DocBollywood:
Does this seem like and example of racism, folks?
Or this, in response to rrheard?
Maybe Trump’s DOJ will prosecute, just as soon as they are through punishing Bush’s torture team.
When she first appeared in the campaign, like a lot of people, I thought…not having a soul must be a freeing experience. To be able to tell lies!, sell toxic waste to orphans!, the sky’s the limit! And I understand Conway’s company is doing well. If you can sell a sexist, racist, unethical buffoon, to the people who desperately need the opposite, you can sell anything.
This was the best column in a very long time. Others were good but this is great, long overdue. I personally think that Trump is not and never should have been elected President. He’s incapable of doing the job and his picks will surely make everything worst in this country. Not that the mad bomber has not put this country on a very steep road to ruin. Clinton and her follows have now gone off the reservation not giving one damn that our immigration system stinks that our good old computer companies will lose that CHEAP labor, keeps it money over seas so that it does not have to pay it fair share. Our universities are in line because they want those full payers from abroad. Maybe Clinton’s loss has kept us from the final war on the planet but I think Trump will take care of that. Instead of going via the bomb it will be slow death by a thousand cuts.
“One can spend all of one’s time and energy denouncing Donald Trump. But until the systemic causes that gave rise to him are addressed and resolved, those denunciations will do little other than generate social media benefits and flattering applause from those already devoted to opposing him. Focusing on and attempting to counter the fundamental flaws of the Democratic Party is not a distraction from #TheResistance; it is a central priority, a prerequisite for any kind of success.”
It’s like the logic and reasoning just bounces right off of you.
The Deep State doesn’t want an effective adversary to corporatism, militarism, imperialism or support of Zionist Israel, et cetera. It doesn’t want either major Party to oppose the systemic corruption or global Full Spectrum Dominance.
It simply will not be permitted. So it must initially occur without permission, away from the system’s ability to co-opt or crush. As Edward Snowden said ““If we want a better world, we can’t hope for an Obama and we should not fear a Donald Trump, rather we should build it ourselves.” Anti-establishment movements can no more expect the establishment to help them than a frog can expect an alligator to carry it across a river on its nose.
An anti-establishment movement could bring millions of libertarians and progressives together, for both oppose corporatism, militarism (inclusive of Robocop police and the surveillance state), imperialism and undue foreign influences. But shhh… don’t tell the Deep State! The establishment must be sidelined to develop such a thing, or the endemic corruption by elite interests will curtail the movement by offering another Obama or Trump, who merely pretend to oppose the system.
deepstate will achieve global full spectrum dominance .. unless we call on wolverine, Iron Man, and the rest of the Justice League for program support and community partnering
Well, Captain Trump waddling about impersonating a big grumpy toad certainly isn’t helping.
If only the Deep State was fictional, and Full Spectrum Dominance not being exacted right now… then perhaps your grim attempt at humor would have landed somewhere.
another non-fictional, unfunny thing is Rat Piece (1976), a performance artwork by Kim Jones
in the piece, Mr. Jones covers himself with mud and sets three live rats on fire with lighter fluid … to the horror of the audience (who did nothing to stop his actions during the performance)
Rat Piece was performed only once
California State University at Los Angeles fired their gallery director, Frank Brown … Jones, on a plea of no contest, was later convicted of cruelty to animals
That’s horrible.
Well Glenn, you should be exceedingly happy about all of this. For years you’ve argued the only way to make the democrat more liberal, is for people to withhold their votes. Cause them to lose an election. So you got your wish, the democrats have lost big. Now we will see if your hypothesis was correct. Will the democratic party become more liberal? Only time will tell. Of course you don’t live in this country anymore, so you won’t bear the burden of republican rule like the rest of us. You aren’t going to lose your health care like me and millions of other Americans will, if the ACA is repealed. Your won’t have to drink polluted water and breath polluted air, when the EPA basically ceases to exist. It’s all just academic for you. Must be nice. And what happens if your hypothesis turns out to be wrong? Will you express a mea culpa? Again it’s not going to be any skin off your nose. It amazes me how people like you always criticize democrats, but never republicans. Why is that? It really makes me wonder about your true motivations.
air pollution under obama was simply exported to china
and the ACA just enrolled people and then fleeced the mandated contribution from them … people are not actually getting more health care (except for people covered under medicaid expansion, which will probably be retained by the republicans)
your thinking, like your party, is bankrupt
The GOP agenda is pretty clear for those keeping score while the Democrats pretend to be something they aren’t. HRC and her merry band of hacks were/are big believers in crap like fracking. Did you forget that? TPP? She wasn’t going to make things better, she was designed to make things acceptable to people like you.
And evidently you don’t read Glenn very much as he is very critical of Republicans…perhaps you should look into his books if you don’t believe me.
That’s silly. Greenwald has criticized both Democrats and Republicans for their corruption and unconstitutional behavior. His book “A Tragic Legacy” is all about Bush’s awfulness, for example. He often points out what others miss, however, which is why he made sure to show the corruption beneath Obama’s dazzling charisma and Hillary Clinton’s policy-wonk demeanor even as he warned against Trump.
I considered responding to “Alvin Miller” pretty closely to how you responded to “Alvin Miller,” except I wouldn’t have given “Alvin” the benefit of the doubt about being sincerely that ignorant. But that’s not what I’m replying to you about. I’m replying to you about your comment because I’m curious about the fact that virtually everything “Alvin Miller” wrote about Glenn in that comment was false, and I think you probably know that “Alvin Miller’s” comment was filled completely with falsehoods, and I suspect that you probably know that “Alvin Miller” knows it too.
So, if that is so, and only if that is so, what I’m especially wondering about is my second “probably” to you. What is your guess or theory or belief or whatever about why an “Alvin Miller,” and other people who post similar muddled comments filled with similar falsehoods about someone who has written a thousand articles and five or six books? Generally speaking, why, in your opinion, does an “Alvin Miller” get everything wrong — either on purpose or out of ignorance — when the evidence that their comments are completely incorrect is archived and easy to find and dates back for over at least a decade?
I think such people just put everyone they perceive as “leftist” together in one basket, because they want to say pretty much the same thing to all of them without putting any thought into the process whatever.
Um.. excuse me, that made no sense at all!
I’d confused his comment with another – it’s hard to scroll about on the phone (that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it!) I think such commenters’ hatred for leftist criticism of establishment Democrats makes them put all such critics together in one basket, because they want to say pretty much the same thing to all of them without putting any thought into the process whatever.
Ahem.
“when the evidence that their comments are completely incorrect is archived and easy to find and dates back for over at least a decade?”
It’s called internet bowling; set’em up and knock’em down for a strike.
The moral outrage and denunciation, across the board, (as you note) is something we’ve seen a lot of.
I don’t even read most of the crap posted these days unless I know the handle is not a puppet.
You’re intentionally dense. Glenn and others on the left didn’t have to convince anyone to not vote since the two corrupt parties in this country decided to nominate the two most unpopular major party nominees in history. So, these corrupt parties, both of which now have the loyalty of less than 30% of the public, decided to run the most disliked candidates ever. Is it any shock that voter turnout was the lowest it has been in 20 years, and this following an election in 2014 with the lowest turnout of the post-WWII era? As far as all the horrible stuff Trump is doing, know what they happened? It happened because you nominated a horrible candidate, someone that managed to lose to someone with an approval rating under 40% as of the election, despite the fact that she outspent him two to one. You seem to think you can back those type of candidates, election after election, with no end in sight, and if the victims of the policies people like Clinton have supported don’t vote for a further reduction in their living standards, it is their fault and not yours for asking this of them for decades now. The bottom 50% of the income distribution hasn’t seen an increase in their real wages since 1980, and you seem to think they should continue to vote for you despite the fact that you and your neoliberal party have utterly screwed them. You nominate another hack like Booker in 2020, and if you lose as a result (nominating someone like him at the very least makes losing more likely), then it is on YOU. Get that into your head. You had a chance to change course and like the primaries, you chose to mock the left and to go on with a strategy that has led to your party’s collapse.
“It really makes me wonder about your true motivations.”
His motivation is to try and talk sense to people like yourself, to have an appreciation of objective reality and to take some responsibility for the 2016 disaster and your party’s utter collapse nationally. I am starting to wonder if that is just a waste of time.
That’s pretty funny. Yeah, if there’s one thing Glenn Greenwald has done, it’s lobbied hard for Democrats to be more liberal. (Phil Ochs did a song for folks like you some 50 years ago.)
But now the not funny: Listen jerk, Glenn Greenwald is an American citizen with friends and family here. To say he doesn’t care about us is outrageous. Moreover, that the Democratic Party is a “smoking pile of rubble” at all levels — federal, state and municipal — is that party’s fault. Greenwald and others have been telling you for a long time about the problem; you simply have not listened.
This sick, out-of-touch party nominated a woman so deeply unpopular she could not beat Donald fucking Trump. Do you get that? She lost to DONALD TRUMP.
“This sick, out-of-touch party …”
yes, you’ve demonstrated Glenn is great … how dare someone attack Glenn … mona’s going to set that straight!!!
she’ll see something on fire and ride in on a hose truck …
mona apologized profusely for jumping in the gutter on a really nice story … over and over and over … through-out the day, and pleaded for the moderators to “move things”.
now we have profuse adulation of Glenn as a result of new handles who claim to have known Glenn forever.
huh
corny, even
Virtually everything you post to or about me is irrational, false, or both.
You disrupt this place as you did on the adoption piece.
You carried on with the disgusting meme after you apologized for giving it wheels. You started with your handle so you could douse it. That is why you apologized; because it really upset Glenn and that made you feel bad. (We all felt bad)
Now you trot out a brief hagiography of Glenn every-time a new random comment appears; conveniently and regularly.
This is why it is so disruptive to have you puppeteering.
You aren’t telling us anything new and Glenn doesn’t care about ‘drive-by’ critiques.
You prattle on about ignoring certain posters 95% of the time; how about stopping the ‘drive-by’s 95% of the time?
That is all false. None of that happened, certainly not as you describe. You’ve been told, by Glenn, that I do not use multiple accounts, and here you are, still insisting I am “puppeteering.”
The one other person who is fixated on the same nonsense claim — which you’ve been TWICE told not to post — have you heard from him lately? How many polite requests do you think you’ll receive?
quod erat demonstrandum
Humanae vitae tradendae munus gravissimum, ex quo coniuges liberam et consciam Deo Creatori tribuunt operam, magnis semper ipsos affecit gaudiis, quae tamen aliquando non paucae difficultates et angustiae sunt secutae.
Quod munus sustinere si omni tempore coniugum conscientiae arduas facessivit quaestiones, at recens humanae societatis cursus eiusmodi mutationes invexit, ut novae quaestiones sint exortae, quas Ecclesiae ignorare non liceat, utpote quae cum rebus conectantur, tantopere ad hominum vitam et felicitatem pertinentibus.
Stop complaining. Why don’t some of you step up your game, learn to articulate your worldview? If you have a sound philosophy and an excellent grasp of policy or history, there should be very little problem debating Mona. I predict many of you will start asking Glenn to ban Mona shortly because it’s hard to debate her.
The fact that she easily demolishes many of you is not her fault. When you’re telegraphing your posts, all she has to do is dip, step in quickly, deliver an uppercut or body shot, easily block and counter with a combination, or duck, step to the side and deliver a overhand right, which usually knocks most of you out. The few who have thick skulls are unaware of how it looks to the audience, which is fine by me. Stay standing, unfortunately, it’s hard for many of us to look away.
Parroting someone else’s ideas is not thinking or debating. Mona’s internet activism, I think, is meant to expose people with prepackaged ideas, which they have been conditioned to repeat with very little push back. Since it has become an information war, when stupid ideas are demolished by people like Mona, it forces those who intend to spew propaganda back into their bubble, rather than be exposed for the phonies that they are.
I think discourse at this level has become much more important than traditional media because the interaction is direct. People like Mona can be more powerful in the comment section than any op-ed or blog, in my opinion.
As The Intercept becomes more popular, I hope it attracts good writers like Mona, which will intimidate boring trolls or create an atmosphere that will force people to truly study policy and history if they intend to debate. I would be upset if this site devolved into a YouTube comment section.
That said, I hope most of you continue to contribute, even the weak trolls. As long as the balance remains informative and interesting, that’s all that matters. The Intercept staff does their part.
You’re lying. I’ve never argued this.
Except for the 3 books I wrote bashing Republicans, along with the thousands of articles, speeches and interviews – including 2 articles last week about Trump’s travel ban and Yemen raid. Other than that, good point.
As for the bit about not living on sacred US soil: aside from the fact that I’m a US citizen who pays taxes to the US Government, thus rendering your attempt to diminish my right to speak about it quite ugly: my work is in the US, my family and friends are in the US, and – as you might have heard – what the US Government as the sole super-power does affects people all over the world, including those on dirty non-American soil.
Ruh Roh Alvin…evidence
DSA! DSA! http://dsausa.org
Corporations are shrewd and voters are gullible. Therefore, Democrat policies in _substance_ are designed for the super-rich but in _appearance_ are made to be palatable to the public. It’s just a matter of finding the right spin.
The assumption that voters don’t really matter is fine until suddenly they stop voting for you. Even gullible people eventually realise they’re being dicked around. The really sad thing is, they’re still gullible: so they go and vote for Trump, don’t they?
Thank you Glenn. We have been begging for this coverage.
The corporate, Neocon wing is arrogant and full of hubris. They truly believe their stupid formulas and talking points will work. They strike me as people who have disdain for the common man and only care about protecting finances ?around the Political Industrial Complex.
I’ve been repeating this often; the corporate, Neocon wing of Democrats are more dangerous than Trump. They will use the blind partisanship of many Dems to influence support for conflicts with Russia, Iran and funding many multinational deals historically hated by liberals. They want the energy of liberals but don’t want them close to power.
I’m glad Hillary failed. She would have only solidified a cancer that would have totally destroyed the party beyond repair.
In other news, Syria tortures people, according to Amnesty international:
This will come as no shock to the American government, that has sent prisoners to Syria for that very reason:
Arar, still, all these years later, hasn’t received justice in American courts. As many other visitors to America are learning this week. At US airports, visitors have no rights.
Jordan [email protected] 1h1 hour ago
Interviewing @ggreenwald on the trainwreck that is the corporate Democratic establishment–stay tuned for interview on @TYTPolitics [The Young Turks] later
Nice. I loved Glenn’s recent appearance on Jimmy Dore’s show.
Again an excellent article Glenn. I have been arguing the Democrats nom longer represent the working Americans and have not for decades. Now only foused on entitlement and minority ( In any cases 0 unpopular viewpoints. the Republicans are now faced with the reality voters dislike them as financially owned as well. Thus we now faced with a Clinton had NO CHOICE than elect someone NOT owned by the Special Interest Groups now in control of BOTH Political Parties. So we rolled the dice on the Donald! time will tell!
Having difficulty with the “Reply” function, replying to Charles Pluckhahn, in this post.
Charles,
You and millions more gave up on the Democratic Party, as I did, and I also foolishly supported Obama twice, financially as well, and waited 8 long years for the “change”, part of the “Hope and Change”, lie, which never materialized.
And then they had the gall to foist eternally corrupt Hillary on us, essentially telling us we were deaf, dumb, blind, and incredibly stupid.
I don’t know how 8 years of Trump and a Republican controlled Congress will change things, for the average American family, but if after 8 years, there is real quantifiable improvement, the Democratic Party may never again amount to anything.
Great article, there may be hope with young people reading this and finding it convincing. As for older Clinton supporters, I found that none of them has given an inch. There’s no anger that their candidate, despite her big emphasis on the crucial importance of a Dem victory in the election (Supreme court! Climate change!), clearly did not give her best to make herself appealing to voters. she apparently was unwilling to forgo the lavish speaking fees, in the end hiding away in the Hamptons with her donors at the height of the campaign season instead of trying to connect with voters. No one seems angry about the gamble they took by promoting Trump as her opponent, figuring that he would be the perfect foil for her although in reality she was the perfect foil for him. I have seen no indication of anger or regret by any of her supporters, just indignation about the Electoral College, the Comey letter, the Russian hackers, and of course Bernie Sanders for making her look bad.
then there’s the blatant dishonesty. here’s from one of the vilest Washington Post journalists a year ago:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-democratic-establishment-fears-bernie-sanders/2016/02/19/2323482e-d70c-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html
a few months later the whole argument was totally debunked but never any recognition of that. instead new pieces of drivel from this man in the WapO, week after week.
>>> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191
On a lighter note, has everybody read this, the story of how the “Munich Post” fought until the end against the normalization of Hitler.
Glen,
Thank you for having the chutzpah to tell the truth about our utterly useless Democratic Party, and stating the indisputable and only reason they lost to Trump.
I supported Bernie Sanders from the moment I understood that here was a man, an honorable man, standing out in front of the big avaricious corporate maw, which had consumed our entire government, and now owned essentially every member of Congress, and was simply waiting to have Hillary sworn in, ready on day one to seal the fate of the long ignored suffering populace.
She, her corporate owners, her well-heeled coastal liberal elites, and her rabid acolytes, saw only a golden throne in front of them, a throne from where she would continue her long in-place service to Goldman Sachs, and all her other corporate masters, salivating at the prospect of having their “man”, at the helm of the nation, willing to do their bidding.
Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump in a landslide, no doubt about it. His platform was a clear unequivocal statement which told the electorate that here was the long awaited redemption, a redemption which was anathema to our corporate owned government and its forthcoming President, and so the wholly corrupt Hillary, the DNC, and her corporate backers went to work, and destroyed Bernie, aided by the NY Times, Washington Post, and several other mainstream liberal media outlets.
The people saw this sabotage occur, and gravitated to Trump, in desperation, seeing similarities to Bernies’ promises, knowing that if the status quo was to be changed, it was now or never.
And now every opportunity for the Democratic Party to heal its self-inflicted mortal wounds, is being ignored, and these imbeciles in their stupidity, fixate on trying to keep attention on anything and everything, including Trumps actions, presuming the people will forget and forgive.
Four years will pass quickly, and if he continues for two terms, and succeeds in improving living standards for most Americans, the Democrats may be on the outside, looking in, for the next 16 years.
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
Mel, I have been felt left behind by the Democrats for years, but I don’t expect to see anything good come out of the Cheetoh administration because he’s an even bigger buddy to the Goldman Sachses of the world.
Thank you Glen for your clear vision and your integrity. On this note, and in appreciation as well for the interesting and thoughtful comments your article has engendered, I ask to what extent the problems within the Democratic Party are not practically inevitable within the framework of our ‘two-party system’. By logic, it would seem that they must move ever-closer to each other as they vie for the same votes. And you are absolutely right in pointing out that from an ‘anything goes’, lumped-together ‘resistance’, no coherent alternative can emerge. More than trying to somehow bring about significant and lasting reform to the Democratic Party, we must push for a discussion of the ‘two’ versus multi-party system, the merits of which include a clear demarcation between existing political options and a broader, as well as more in-depth, public debate.
Pete Buttigieg, Democratic mayor of South Bend Indiana. He should be the head of the DNC
Amen. I love that Glenn can remain rational and persuasive whilst covering this stuff.
I’d be more colourful – the Dem party is riddled with a cancerous growth, progressively (hah!) converting healthy tissue into slime. That disease has subsequently infected a large part of what used to be known as the “left”, desensitising them to traditional causes like war, poverty and financial chicanery for a tribal focus on “opposition” to the Republicans and Trump. WTF is that worth, when Dem policies and candidates are practically indistiguishable from Trump’s? Behind all the howling that Trump is “beyond the pale” is an unwillingness by most (not Glenn) to acknowledge that Obama was a very slick veneer over the the same nasty tumour.
Andrew- Obama will be fine- He has now officially joined the plutocracy- witness Barack frolicking with Sir Branson in the waters near Branson’s private island. That is a fitting and shining example of what he wanted to achieve by being POTUS. He worshipped the rich- now he is one of them.
All that is certainly true and the article very well written but as the old song says, “If you waste your time a talkin, to the people who don’t listen to the things that you are sayin, who do you thinks gonna hear.”
The democratic party will follow the money until the bitter end (e.g. when it runs out). The next three elections are the republican’s to lose. If they actually create jobs and change some things they will be in power for at least eight more years however repugnant their social policies. “Give us bread and then ask for virtue” is the banner that the electorate has been marching under for several thousands of years now. It’s not going to change and neither are Chucky Schummer and Nancy Pelosi.
Socio-economic reprisal as a control mechanism…
Who knew that a household name with financial independence could say what they perceived as the truth, challenge every form of dissent toward their views and plug into the Peoples yearning to be heard without fear of economic reprisal?? :) Luv yas!
I will do something rare and comment under my real name even though I’m going to take a ton of abuse for what follows. It won’t help that a simple Google search can confirm that I donated a fair amount of money (for a small-timer) to the Ds in he ’00s, and supported Obama in ’08 with money and words. Now I’m going to tell you what you don’t want to hear, so I’ll be a traitor.
In ’16, I cast a write-in vote for Vermin Supreme, the performance artist. My 11th presidential election and first not-D presidential vote. It was more than dissatisfaction with the tterrible choice; it was also my declaration of political independence from the D Party that I called home for 40 years.
The article here takes the standard “progressive” view that the Ds became too corporatist, and suggests that they should’ve gone with Sanders, the socialist, and Ellison, the Muslim. Like all good errors, there are some grains of truth involved. They’re in the article already, so I see no need to repeat them.
But I don’t think the article deals with the elephant in the room: the 40% of the electorate that consists of white working class people. The Ds bought into a highly divisive vision centered on a “majority minority” future, and in doing so pretty much went out of their way to not simply ignore white workers, but to actively disparage them as people.
Vox did an excellent take-down on last year. “The Smug Style in American Liberalism” should be required reading for every snotty progressive in every big city. Too many of you think you are smarter and better than everyone else. It oozes from every pore, and it’s irritating as hell.
Guess what? There are 15 million or so adult Democrats who own guns, and another 5 million adult Democrats who live with them. There are 185 million cars, mini-vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks registered in the United States, and less than 0.5% of them are electric.
A Tesla costs $100,000. It’s out of reach for the 99%, but you sure talk about it a lot. Buy local, you say, promoting those farmer’s markets where a tomato goes for $5 a pound — and the grower goes broke providing it because of how inefficient the distribution chain is. Solar power? 0.7% of the total. More renewables, you chant, brushing off the reality of what that’ll do to electric bills.
The working class that you’ve forgotten about might stand behind the counter at Whole Foods, but can’t afford to shop there. They get their groceries at Albertson’s, and often have a second job at Home Depot. Shooting is a hobby, and so is hunting. And there’s a handgun at home for protection. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of armed self-defense every year, by the most conservative estimates.
If the white working class lives in Boston, or San Francisco, or Seattle, it’s out in the cheaper suburbs, far from the software programmers and financial managers. More likely, they are in cities and towns that most people reading my comment have never heard of, or are happy to have escaped. Dinner out is at TGI Friday’s or Olive Garden, and the server is in the working class too.
Progressives tell them that they are “ammosexuals” for owning guns; mouth-breathing sadists for hunting; and losers for earning $55,000 a year from one spouse’s two jobs and the other spouse’s single job. They are the beneficiaries of “white privilege,” and are racist for raising an eyebrow at this riot or that report of illegal immigration. It goes on.
My D Party stood first for the common worker, then for the rest. Today’s D Party is culturally and increasingly financially disconnected with the common worker, who sees government focused on benefits for people who do not work, and with little or no accountability attached. Oh, and about that 100,000 Syrian refugees that you want to bring here. Who’s paying?
This isn’t an argument for the Rs. We know where they’re focused. I’m saying something different: Amid all the histrionics — some justified, most not — about Trump’s victory, has anyone bothered to ask just why so many people who ordinarily would’ve scoffed at Trump wound up voting for him? This is only a guess, but maybe the lectures are backfiring.
Progressives, could it be something about yourselves at play? Nah, couldn’t be. Them idiots just don’t know what’s good for ’em. Just wait. Them idiots will come crawlin’ back to us. Well, I can’t tell you what to believe, but I can say this much: Don’t be so sure of yourselves on the crawlin’ back theory.
Because you got your feelings hurt from pretentious and elitism liberals, you shot a lot of working class people through the heart? Economically disadvantaged people will suffer the most from Cheetoh’s policies, not the liberals you gave a symbolic finger to. You don’t like being called dumb, but that wasn’t too smart.
Conservatives want a future where a teeming horde of WASP herrenvolk Morlocks are forced to spend their short lives toiling for the Eloi; liberals want a future where both the Morlocks and Eloi have different skin colors, though they can deal with it if the Eloi aren’t as ethnically diverse as the Morlocks.
Of course, liberals are much more insufferable and self-righteous about their hellish vision of the future. Either because they can’t see how their abandonment of every Enlightenment principle except for nationalism and especially capitalism will lead to this end state, or more likely, they really think that their fake-multiculturalism (and it’s fake, because of the whole imperialism and capitalism worship) makes up for economic deprivation.
The orthodox liberals in the Democratic Party has been quite clear on the latter point. 15 dollar minimum wage is not worth abandoning identity politics. And if you point out that even their favorite Judas goat Coates says that economic deprivation and categorical oppression are one and indivisible? Prepare for an unprecedented case of amnesia, followed by a block chain.
You mean that the people whose wages haven’t grown since Reagan was elected (the bottom 50% of the income distribution), the people that have seen their debt load explode, the ones that live in a country in which wealth inequality has exploded, will START to suffer? My gosh, how will they deal with being harmed by these two parties, ignored, left behind and talked down to? Do you think that NAFTA, the WTO, the gutting of New Deal financial regulations, gutting social programs the poor depended on, privatizing prisons, committing to austerity, pushing for harsh sentencing laws, pushing to privatize schools, had anything to do with that? Clinton was working on privatizing Social Security too, then the Lewinsky affair broke. I mean, her husband supported that stuff, and she proudly attached herself to his policies. Even during the campaign she said she would put him in charge of economic recovery, and you want to pretend to care about poor and working people? Trump and Clinton were leading us in the same direction on many issues, he is just going to speed up the process and speed up the collapse, and I say that as someone that is going to be harmed by his policies. If we had an actual opposition party worth a damn, which we don’t, they would have already critically self-reflected, cleared house and turned their backs on corporate cash and big money donors. I am not going down with that sinking ship and I will do my best to fight for long overdue structural changes by other means. I have no choice, since your party is beyond repair. Don’t blame the damn actual left for this crumbling country, since it hasn’t been people like Sanders running this government in the last few decades. It’s been people like Clinton and Obama, and those to their right, and their policies are disasters. Blame those with power and money, since they’ve been the ones manning the damn ship. It isn’t the fault of the victims of their policies for not supporting their own destruction.
If you actually think I shifted because I got my feelings hurt, all I can tell you is that you can find the nearest idiot in the mirror.
Marilyn might want to prove your point, but you’ll get no argument from me. That Vox piece by Emmet Rensin resonated for me as much as it might have for you. It was an insightful piece and another writer, @Chris_arnade, is taking a ton of heat on twitter for advancing similar arguments with his front row vs back row characterization. I have argued for some time that, although I personally believe the Electoral College maybe ought to be scrapped for one-person-one-vote, its presence in this election brought something to the fore that had been on permanent-ignore/terminal-hold. There would be no national conversations about the effects of trade in the Rust Belt were it not for this election. And, I sense that until the Democratic Party advances the concerns of *workers* (inclusive) it will wander in the wilderness for some time… and, probably deserves to.
Emmet Rensin’s article on liberal smugness is vapid nonsense.
Liberals being characterized as smug (whether deserved or not, and I think it’s deserved lately) has been a standard conservative bromide for decades — even during the height of the labor-liberal alliance he pines for.
Rensin’s article completely fails to grasp the possibility that the perception of liberal smugness isn’t warranted, as least so long as the ressentiment is coming from the folks who say in all sincerity that rural living makes them superior and that health care isn’t a right. That’d require him to think outside of the liberal memeplex (a central tenet being that there should be a meritocracy and people inside the meritocracy should be materially rewarded) and realize that the perception of smugness may be more of a emergent property of a lopsided power relation (which liberal elites fail to acknowledge) rather than manners.
Ah, yes, Ressentiment. I assume by the use of the specific you’re referring to something like this: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/ressentiment-revisited/
But, I’m not sure that’s what I found as I read Charles Pluckhahn’s contribution. I can find elements of ressentiment in those discussions in which the aggrieved compare high-deductible Obamacare to Medicaid, but I’m not sure I see it in Pluckhahn. and, I don’t think I see it in what Emmet Rensin’s referring to, either.
I was thinking more this usage:
http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/04/leftists-have-good-critique-of-emmett_23.html
I vote for Milton Wiltmellow.
For DNC chair, or chief apologist?
For clear thinker and devil’s advocate extraordinaire. Milton adds a lot to the comments section on this website and you lot give him nothing but grief.
Well, that’s true.
Yikes!
One of the best compliments I’ve ever heard of myself. I’m sort of speechless. Thank you!
yes
Second the motion. And I have found his platform, from an old issue of Salon:
Madam Chairman, the great state of California, where the swimming pools sparkle in the sun and the traffic jams are world-class, casts all 53 votes for Milton Wiltmellow!!
I’m in California too. I think we’ve got a movement started….
Where did THAT Milton go?
I think our milton stole his brain.
Last known address was Salon.
That’s simple.
Nowhere.
Three principles:
1. Don’t make enemies of your allies.
2. Don’t make allies of your enemies.
3. Listen carefully so that you know the difference. You learn more from disagreement than agreement.
I’m delighted to see your posts again Coram.
I’m reminded of Casablanca:
Thank you.
So with the Democrat Party hemorrhaging votes from working Americans, who do they run for party chair but the guy who was Obama’s labor secretary whose record in office was not pathetic enough that he had to cap it off by supporting labor arbitrage and forfeiting sovereignty with the TPP.
The Democrats are ringers, their job is to run interference against demands from below and to the left.
Well, yes. The goal of the Democratic Party has been to suck all the air out of the room to prevent an *actual* left-wing party from forming, since at least the days of FDR. The New Deal was *explicitly* sold as a way to keep Americans from starting some kind of Communist or quasi-Communist revolt, and FDR wasn’t shy about it. (The idea of Americans going for Communism in large numbers may seem laughable today, but during the 1920s and particularly during the Depression self-identification as Communist or other far-left movements reached up to, IIRC, around 30% of the voting population — if 30% of the voting population voted for *anything* in 2016, they would have beaten both Clinton and Trump, who both got around 25% of the vote.)
The real problem is twofold:
1. People mistake the Democratic Party, which exists to produce the minimum amount of concession by the rich to the public at large to avoid massive revolt, for a party which exists to serve the public at large, which it is not. (It is conceivable that if the true nature of the party were widely recognized and the public made any sort of serious effort, “the minimum amount of concession” could be forced to a much higher level than it ever has. Thus not recognizing the nature of the party is a problem.)
2. Ever since the New Deal, the Democratic Party’s operatives have basically been out there checking to see whether the amount of concession currently in place is actually necessary. At first they were able to break off large hunks without causing problems; in recent years, they have to measure the amount of betrayal possible with a micrometer and do careful calculation to decide whether they can make up for it by being Not Republicans. The defeat of Hilary Clinton came about because they presumed too much about how far they could go.
I understand the angle from which Greenwald is coming in his thought that the popular vote is meaningless. In this case, though, I think there is much to be gleaned from a situation in which the party that won the popular vote still insists that Russian meddling put the other candidate in the White House.
This means the Dems believe that Putin and the Russians were able to fine tune the election to the point where they could deliver a three million vote popular victory for Clinton, while still ensuring that Trump would win the electoral college. Now, that’s some impressive meddling by those tricky, ol’ Ruskies.
Gravity-defying acrobatics of logic and common sense like these would make Nik Wallenda proud, but even circus performers know that bragging up a popular vote victory while blowing the electoral college serves only to make Clinton, Podesta, Perez and the rest of their privileged class look even more inept, self-serving and out of touch.
Unsurprisingly, they aren’t smart enough to see this, and Perez’s continued mentioning of the popular vote this far along is kind of wistfully poetic. It shows they still have nothing, and apparently don’t care that they still have nothing. It also explains his mealy-mouthed comments and refusal to speak to Jilani: Perez doesn’t want to look like an even bigger asshole than he already is. But the only way for him to do that is to avoid talking to real journalists who ask real questions. It’s rock meets hard place for the values-challenged.
But, maybe I’ve been unfair. I’ve been so quick to blame Perez’s haughty arrogance and dismissive attitude on his inherent creative superiority and cultural eliteness, that I never stopped to consider that he may have wished only to shield an innocent public from his ignorance, child-like approach to crises and utter fucking stupidity.
Of course, believing that would require being in a Democratic Party-level of denial and ignorance, and that’s simply a bridge too far for me. I’m proud to report that I was not one of the Demo dinosaurs stuck in the last presidential election tar pit, watching the deadly meteor hurtling towards earth, thank you.
I would like to close by asking to please see a show of hands by those who feel their vote may have been influenced by Russian meddling.
Yep, that’s what I thought…
Stepping outside the confines of US party politics. I don’t see much reason to doubt that the Russians are investing in extra skullduggery, to bring about Brexit, break up the EU, help Trum win etc.
From the American democracy perspective though, many factors influence individual voters, including influences coming from outside parties, the Norwegian government, KLM airlines, Petrobras, Greenpeace etc.
If the Norwegian embassador says something that influences people, changes the outcome of the election…how do you determine that? Do you have a do-over election? Best two out of three? Of course not. Infinite events influence the millions of voters as they live their lives. There is no escaping that.
All you can do is be aware of what is going on. TV adverts are trying to sell cars, Clinton is trying to get elected, Mexico wants you to visit their beaches etc.
Is Putin a nasty packet? Yes, but I’d suggest more Americans are likely to die because of actions their own government is taking now, than because of anything the leaders of Norway or Russia do.
That Russian meddling helped Trump win is not my contention, but Clinton’s and the Democrat’s. I’ve no doubt that Russia attempts to influence situations globally as much as the Americans and everyone else do. Why wouldn’t they?
But, what I have yet to hear is precisely how they influenced the outcome, and how any such influence could possibly be calculated as to its effect on voter behavior.
In fact, there has been no stated concern by anyone that the Russians physically manipulated voting machines or anything having to do with tallying the actual vote count. This limits their supposed meddling to generating leaks from amateurishly protected email servers and attempting to alter voter’s perceptions by making Clinton look bad, as if she needed the slightest bit of help doing that, considering the contents of the emails and, well, everything else, of course.
If the emails had been hacked by a disgruntled DNC staffer who supported Sanders, would the corruption relieved be any less or any more relieving about the deep flaws that lie at the heart of Clinton’s character?
Hillary lost because she epitomizes, more than any other human on this planet, the corruption in the US government.
I think in your first sentence you meant revealing and not relieving, didn’t you? Either way, the answer is no. Why would it? And I agree with your second sentence. The tone of your comment sounds like you have a beef with what I wrote, but maybe I’m misunderstanding it.
Depends on what you mean. The Russians really do spend a lot of money on online propaganda, but most of that goes towards the type of site which conspiracy theory believers post links to on Facebook. Most of these sites disappear after a while, but some of them stick around. It would not be surprising if Alex Jones was getting Russian money. The thing is, though, that that sort of article isn’t really going to influence people very much.
The things which *did* influence the election are things like the leaked e-mails which revealed that the DNC was in the bag for Hillary and doing everything it could to put its thumb on the scales in her favor, and then DWS actively bragged about it, or the way Clinton tried to tamper with the evidence in the FBI’s investigation of her e-mail server by deleting messages before they could impound the machine (and then lied about that, albeit not under oath), or the time she collapsed in public where they came out with 3 different — and false — explanations before finally admitting that yes, she had walking pneumonia. (There are more incidents, but those are the big three.) All of those were factual things, and there is no particular suggestion that we found out about them because of Russia. But the DNC would like us to conflate true-but-unflattering stories with propaganda. (Much the same way Clinton supporters would like us to conflate the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists, which even Bernie Sanders voted for, with the 2003 AUMF Against Iraq, which Clinton voted for even though a majority of her constituency no longer supported military action by that time, and which Sanders voted against.)
Not only were these things factual, but they were unnecessary and suggestive of incompetence. If, as Clinton supporters claim, Clinton was going to win the primary anyway, then permitting the DNC to even try to cheat in her favor merely created the impression that she was a cheater. If, as Clinton supporters claim, there was nothing incriminating in Clinton’s server, then deleting e-mails from it before the FBI could look at it merely created the impression that something was being covered up. If, as Clinton supporters claim, the lies about her collapse were trying to avoid a media blowup about her health, then telling those lies merely added a second blowup about how her campaign was lying. Even from the start, Clinton’s big weakness is that she was seen as untrustworthy, and yet she and her campaign simply couldn’t help but reinforce that impression by telling lies, which they insist were needless anyway.
In the same way, the DNC’s big problem is that they are seen as out of touch with Americans, and yet they keep pushing to avoid representing even their own party membership.
Amen.
Great article. I hope it means you understand that fixing the Democratic Party is essential, since there is no other way that we are going to move forward and break the present troglodyte stranglehold on power.
It remains to be seen whether the resistance by the Democrat elites to changing the party will take more effort to overcome than building a new party from scratch.
The Demopublicans have ensured their electoral monopoly by rigging state election codes to raise the bars to any challengers. Whether those bars are higher than the closed shop of the DNC and party elites remains to be seen.
That there is even a question exposes the gravity of the task before us.
did you have a hand in picking Trump’s cabinet?
“[Bernie] Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jesse Jackson [and] also party stalwarts such as Walter Mondale, John Lewis and even Schumer himself” are NOT progressives. They support the agenda of war and imperialism. Sanders and Warren just voted for “Mad Dog” Mattis, for heaven’s sake!
Very true, Noam Chomsky pointed this out.
yes indeed.
And then there’s “Liberal” darling Ellison, who alas, apparently couldn’t manage to muster up enough pro-Israel bona fides in time to have himself installed:
“Ellison is part of the pro-war Left, whose primary mission is make self-described liberals and leftists comfortable supporting imperial wars.”
“Ellison has been advocating a no-fly zone for Syria for at least a year. Last May, he told U.S. News and World Report that so-called “safe zones” should be set up by the U.S. and its allies around the borders of Syria. Ellison made it quite clear that he sees such zones as a prelude to regime change. “I think the Libyan action was a good example of that,” he said.”
“As Ellison, the phony progressive, puts it, “I don’t think the world’s greatest superpower, the United States, can stand by and do nothing” – which is, essentially, John McCain’s position.”
from:
http://blackagendareport.com/content/rep-keith-ellison-personification-phony-pro-war-“progressive”
Why are Democrats listening to Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Donna Brazile or any of the people in charge of the DNC when it lost 1000 seats in state governments, 36 Governorships, the House the Senate and finally the WH? Tom Perez is another member of the Democratic hierarchy. Why didn’t the actual National Committee stand up, speak out when it witnessed the cancer spreading through the Party?
I’ve had it with all of them. I am #DemExit and I think the only way to bring back the REAL Democratic Party is to dump this group in the Potomac, then fumigate their HQ. Tragic part is they are as delusional as Donald Trump. The alarm was set back during the primaries but they pushed the snooze button and have yet to wake up. Now, it is too late.
“dump this group in the Potomac, then fumigate their HQ”
Perfectly sums up my feelings about the democratic party. Rather than look in the mirror regarding their terrible loss to the most unqualified candidate to ever run, the DNC continue to be arrogant and ignorant, spouting bullshit to their dwindling supporters and counting on their mainstream media mouthpieces to parrot their frames and talking points.
After years of losing elections around the country, even this latest, greatest humiliation has not spawned any self-reflection. It is abundantly clear that despite their throwing out progressive sounding platitudes, Democratic elites are interested only their own near-term benefit. Thinking we can work with them, cooperate and make progress is as naive as Obama thinking he could find middle ground with the Republicans.
The story of the Democratic party since the end of World War I has been one of support for aggressive imperialism aimed at any and every country on the planet that dares to be presumptuous enough to challenge U.S. domination. Of course, that is the goal of the Republican party, as well, but with religious fundamentalism and superstition as well.
I already left a comment! Were is it????
If there is more than one link in it, it will take a while.
And if it his first, a human has to let it out of the filter. That’s how they screen out commercial spam. Also, it can be necessary to refresh the page a few times, and wait a few minutes.
This is a lot of interesting conjecture but political theory and evidence both suggest that it’s very difficult for either party to win a third term. Polling digested that Hillary would win, but they focused on the popular vote, which she did. But that created expectations that somehow she SHOULD win, and when she didn’t everyone scrambled to explain the “failure.” You think Perez would have won but for some strategic criticism? As if Hillary faced no criticism of her own (she was accused of being complicit of murder for crying out loud!)? She won the primary, and handily, and if instead of challenging Hillary’s credentials as a liberal (hint: she is a progressive one, deal with it) they at the very least depicted her honestly it probably would have helped. If you want to see how a party is doing you need to look comparatively: democrats are as cohesive as ever, Republicans are all over the place. I have to go teach a course on American Politics now or I’d say much more.
“…and if instead of challenging Hillary’s credentials as a liberal (hint: she is a progressive one, deal with it)…”
On Hillary Clinton’s progressive credentials…
Hillary Clinton’s Not-So-Strange Right-Wing Bedfellows
http://www.paulstreet.org/?p=1801
PS It takes a special sort of petulant arrogance to conclude a post with, “I have to go teach a course on American Politics now or I’d say much more.” Massive eye-roll. My heart goes out to the poor students that are compelled to endure your partisan spew.
Clinton II had the entirety of the DNC establishment behind her, 99%+ of Democrats elected in partisan races and yet the socialist upstart insurgent messenger from the 1960s held her to 55/45.
By no measure is that winning handily.
the mark of every true progressive is falling in love with Kissinger and voting with McCain
Brilliant, thanks for covering Tom Perez. I googled him, and it was like googling Hillary Clinton back in June 2015. All accolades. $ doesn’t win elections anymore. How did our legislative branch become a bunch of millionaires?! Maybe a new law forcing liquidation of all investment be mandatory in order to serve in the Senate & H.O.R.’s. If they hit the million dollar mark, they can waive salary & still serve. This is about as likely as Keith Ellison & Bernie Sanders leading the Democratic Party. Oh well, Rome is burning, pass the popcorn….
Perceptive article, Glenn. Here’s a tip: watch not just the DNC chair contest but what happens in state Democratic parties. DNC tends to be insiders but the state conventions may draw more down-to-earth people. And especially watch what happens with the race for state party chair in California. The convention is in May.
Yup.
Let’s just say it may be an augury. The assembly-district caucuses in January elected a number of Bernie or progressive grassroots slates. If the usual hacks can still prevail at the Sacramento convention in May it will suggest that if the country’s biggest Democratic state party can’t clean itself off, then what Glenn is denouncing isn’t going to change.
What a Joke!
Do you mean the same devious state of California democrats who
were in on the “Hillary Victory Fund” scheme (along with more than
30 other states) in which they were able to take in huge amounts of
corporate funding
under the pretense of it going to the states
and then turning around and sending approximately 99% of the
money to the DNC coffers?
All of them did it as a way of exceeding campaign “donations”
for their Wall Street Madame.
Yeah, Right.
The states party memberships are just regular folks in the same way
that Hillary Clinton and George Clooney are innocent bystanders.
Rubbish.
Were you at the party caucuses in January?
If your premise is that the CDP is run by well-heeled hacks, that has been true going back to the Clinton presidency. It still is. My question is whether it turns around in May, and the party gets a much-needed fumigation. If not, then Glenn’s premise is right and the Democratic Party is a lost cause.
I am not a democrat.
I did identify as a democrat decades ago, but when
they became more blatantly Reaganistic, I realized what a
stupid fool I had been.
I have repeatedly supported the Green Party candidates,
but I have no illusions about the fact that in the faking U$A
there is no candidate who I can wholeheartedly support
or who the corporate owned state will allow to really challenge
their state religion of monetary domination through lies.
When approximately 98% of the voters are willing to
support corporate party fakers, I have no reason to believe
that things will change for the better, BUT I will
continue to support some candidates who at least seem to be
working AGAINST the established corruption of the
democrats and republicans. This notion of changing the
machine from within however is willful ignorance and it only
continues
to make things worse.
Maybe when all Hell breaks loose, people will take off their blinders.
As it is, the first MANDATORY step is to tell the democrats and
republicans to go to Hell. Anything short of that is just stupid.
They will not change as long as they know they have suckers
willing to wear their “d” or “r” blinders and invest their time,
energy, and money in their religion.
Sadly the California state Democratic party is one of the worst.
Everything about the convention is rigged a year in advance.
Superficial dissent is allowed but nothing substantive can occur without approval from Wall Street’s DNC.
Yes. And given that California is heavily Democratic, its state party affects how the national does business. It’s run by the rich and by hacks, and its platform is a pot of bland mayonnaise. My advice to Glenn was to watch what happens in the runup to the Sacramento convention and its results. If nothing changes, then it’s game over, and not just in California. At that point we will need a new party.
I understand your meaning now and yes that is a good thought.
Superb article by Glenn Greenwald (“Why the Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention”). Thank you.
Heads up: The racists, xenophobes and haters are flooding the comments below the Devereaux piece on deportations.
Mr Thomas Frank wrote a series of articles in The Guardian before, during and after the last election…… worth reading…. specially,
“The Republicans and Democrats failed blue-collar America. The left behind are now having their say ” and “The intolerance of the left: Trump’s win as seen from Walt Disney’s hometown “.
Wonder, if any democrat in power read any of the articles he wrote!! He/she may want to then reflect on what he/she did wrong and what can be done NOW!
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/thomas-frank
“Listen Liberal”–relatively new book out by Frank.
Yes, hoping to read it.
We can believe the primaries were rigged and also believed that Hillary Clinton won legitimately. This position would be predicated on the belief that she would have won anyway in spite of primary rigging and on the belief that monopolizing party support before the primaries even began is legitimate.
But the russians attempted to influence our democracy …
oh, my pearls
Clear indeed that they’re unwilling to meaningfully change their ways:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/some-democrats-push-for-an-economic-message-that-goes-beyond-trashing-trump/2017/02/08/8fb9dc5a-ee0d-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.73d5b302a9fb
We need another option, I do not like either of these!
Yeah; bullies. Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism, and the Romantic American West. It might be in our DNA. But I find the appeal to Americans’ sociology (sociopathy?), about as useful as the economist I know, returning from Russia having worked with the IMF, asserting that what Russians needed more was not capitalism but Religion (religion writ large).
I sense that even given the relative nearness of Ellison and Perez, the Democrats are utterly terrified of letting presumed Sanders’ supporters win anything. Seriously, if they are genuinely so close, why the competition? Some Democratic operative, somewhere, surely has to be arguing, Why not let them win this one? If they can be appeased by a DNC chair – which really isn’t all that big a deal – why not let ’em have it? That, even this, can’t be countenanced tells me just how insecure the Democrats really are.
Given the ironclad nature of our two party system, I’m a lot more interested in this piece by Seth Ackerman. And, I would be a whole lot more interested in Milton Wiltmellow‘s thoughts about that then his/her fantasy jump into planet H’ trae.
As a result of being willing to give up my 35 year Unaffiliated/Independent voter registration so I could caucus for Sanders, and being willing to push some paper for my assigned voter precinct (absent any other volunteers), I, subsequently, discovered that I was a duly “elected” Democratic Precinct Committee Person. Attended my first county level Democratic Party meeting last weekend, and am obliged to attend the one next weekend. Let me count the ways I am not enthused…. but I am nothing if not subversive; Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner recruited me to that framework a very, very long time ago. I’ve begun to introduce the KnockEveryDoor.org’s project into the discussion. In this precinct’s (and, county’s) territory of rural farmer’s (of an Evangelical orientation) Democrats need all the allies they can get. And, some of those allies will be found in the progressive, but unaffiliated, (non)voters who don’t party declare, but do/might vote. It’s worth a non-partisan approach to those folks to identify them and their principal concerns, before the party begins to push candidates at them. Or, at least that’s my thought, hedging mightily against much optimism.
As for bullies, Milton, let me tell you that my personal experience with Hillary’s supporters at the caucus took bullying to its essentials. The spittle flying, body space invading, in-your-fucking-face, denouncing all *empirical* (read: polls) arguments at 90dB… these women intended to be as intimidating as they could possibly be. Well, congratulations to ’em, eh? They “won.”
This bears highlighting:
.
Many of us here, as you know, can tell essentially that same story, about both meat space and online experiences with the Hillarycrats. Then, after spending a year communicating to us in every way possible that we should go fuck ourselves, they have gall to complain not enough of Bernie’s people turned out for her to stop Trump.
Jesus, they lack even a 12-year-old’s understanding of human nature.
Many of us here, as you know, can tell essentially that same story, about both meat space and online experiences with the Hillarycrats.
[Waving my tiny fyslexic dingers as high and fast as I can!!!]
Yeah the irony of them saying for months and months “fine we don’t need you, fuck you”, and us saying “watch out you most certainly do need us and it would be very easy to appease us if you’d do X, Y, and Z” (all goals you nominally claim to support as “liberals”, or should), and then to blame us when we didn’t show up to support the Establishment Queen.
They just don’t get it. I personally don’t think they mind not being in the majority. That takes work, and establishment Dems they are the most fucking lazy craven cocktail weenie swallowing self-absorbed self-satisfied narcissists you’ll ever meet. Just like their GOP counterparts except they don’t hate gays, lesbians, trans, and bi folks, the right to an abortion, or brown folks on principle.
But if you looked at the composition across the entirety of the House and Senate seats, and their “race” of their staff, you’d see that their commitment to their supposed “base” is a mile wide rhetorically and a millimeter deep, at least as a function of their hiring for staff positions. I don’t have time to re-link the data on the latter assertion, but it’s a fact. I’ll find it later.
Oh wait here is one:
http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/Racial%20Diversity%20Among%20Top%20Senate%20Staff%2012-2-15%20140%20pm%20(2).pdf
Although not the one I was looking for.
But neither will they defend these things on principle. It’s all about sticking the finger in the air to determine what segments of the electorate they think they need to win any particular election.
Even with regard to abortion, Hillary chose Tim Kaine as her running mate. What sense did that make if she gave one single shit about progressives? (And her gender-tribalist supporters tap-danced around it and defended the Kaine pick.)
These Hillarycrats are unprincipled and rotted to their collective core.
I live in the same county (though not the same precinct) and had the same experience at my presidential caucus. Those of us caucusing for Sanders were told in no uncertain terms that Hillary was a wonderful, intelligent woman, a great statesman, and we were fools for backing Sanders. I can’t help but think of that every time I pass the woman’s house who told us all how foolish we were. Of course, our county nominated Sanders…
For all the screaming Me,Me,Me,Me’s here let me reiterate. Clinton supporters didn’t elect Trump. Trump supporters elected Trump.
Since I made this very simple observation after GG’s first “toldyaso losers” article the day after the election, I’ve been viciously and relentlessly attacked as a Clinton lover, a Clintonbot, a Clinton stooge and many other names I can’t recall. In response to these attacks, I made special effort to point out I caucused for Sanders and voted Clinton in the election.
The degree of viciousness on this board eclipses anything I encountered in caucus. Indeed, in a crowded high school classroom, we — the group of us — decided the Sanders people would go to the east side of the room and the Clinton supporters would go to the west side of the room. No fistfights, no bickering, no accusations, not even any speeches. Like adults we moved ourselves. No big deal. The proctor counted Clinton 23, Sanders 25 and that was it. Afterwards we selected delegates and then went home.
My experience — here, on this board — suggests the anti-Clintonistas are, by far, the most vocal, most obnoxious and most ferocious … all despite the fact that I haven’t argued for Clinton with any particular interest. (If anyone wants to check, there’s a record here. There’s also a record last summer at the Guardian — same name, easy to obtain.)
Who says this? A Breitbarter? A Russian troll? A Republican? A white nationalist? A Trump supporter?
To quote a famous philosopher:
That’s quite literally preposterous, and to pretend to believe it you have to ignore the experiences of many of us — so well captured by TallyHo.
Moreover, when I write: “These Hillarycrats are unprincipled and rotted to their collective core,” you ignore that that is my conclusion after I also wrote this:
That is all true. Your intransigent resistance to this reality has, indeed, been infuriating for those of us who have endured the rancid antics of these unprincipled party hacks.
Trump supporters elected Trump.
And, they were white women.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/white-women-helped-elect-donald-trump.html?_r=0
How nice that your system allowed your group to split. Not us. We had to roll up our sleeves and put on our persuade-for-your-candidate hats on. Hillary’s Ladies were not interested in persuasion; not the poll data, not the tenuousness of electability args, nada. Sanders’ supporters were civil to a fault. Why not be? We had the best of the args. Maybe that was the problem. The precinct split and the numbers for my part of the county went to Sanders.
In any event, my sympathies for the bruising you feel you’ve taken in these threads. Haven’t been around enough to see it all in action. Mostly what I’ve caught are people challenging your premises… but, clearly you see it differently. I grant I’m a highly selective reader.
In the final analysis, I have lost my “fondness” for our system of government, and little to no respect for the greater part of the Democratic Party or Democratic politicians. I have a sincerely grudging respect for the GOP. As someone, somewhere, observed: Republicans get elected to do things, Democrats get elected to be things.
I’m out to try and subvert my little corner of the world. The original point of my $0.02 was wondering what you thought of the Ackerman piece, but maybe you’ve decided that it doesn’t matter what direction the Democrats take from here.
I don’t mean to ignore you. I trust you sufficiently to exclude you from the knife wielders to whom I alluded. If you have something to say, you’re pretty straightforward and intelligent about saying it.
I read the Ackerman piece once, then tried a second time. It was erudite, needlessly detailed, and enormously irrelevant outside a poli-sci graduate seminar. It sounded like Homer Simpson explaining the nuclear plant works.
Yes the two-party system is a monstrosity — an ancient galley so full of holes that some employees must patch its hull while others bail and still others organize the patchers and bailers and ladle the pitch from huge barrels. Their collective weight combines to keep the ship plowing through the waves like a barge. Meanwhile the rowers have little choice but to row along with everyone else. Only the principles above deck (and their retinue) seem untroubled by the perpetually impending disaster.
This year, disaster.
I reject the notion that Sanders would have won had Clinton stepped aside. The enemy yachts could have aimed at him as easily as they did at Clinton. “Jewish, part of the system, too old, a lefty socialist …” The script almost writes itself. Dodd Frank destroys businesses, favors Goldman Sachs etc. Out of touch except with the liberal Jacobins.
I don’t understand why, after decades of this shit, people think Republican “policy” is anything but tactical — a barrage of custom fired shitballs designed to sink any galley within range. ACA? Republican policy. Trade agreements. Republican policy. Tax reform? Republican policy. Immigration reform? Republican policy.
The problem isn’t a two-party system designed (or evolved) to exclude dissident voices. The problem is concentrated, dynastic wealth protecting itself and exploiting everyone else. That’s why the politicians of both parties (though primarily Republican) can operate without significant opposition.
The parable of Merrick displays this dynamic. A bigoted, self-righteous political operative — Scalia — dies. The Republicans immediately refuse to accept any replacement. Obama nominates a modest corporatist (let’s not offend them) and still the Republicans refuse to allow Garland’s placement on the SC. Trump wins and these agents for the wealthy can replace the mephitic Scalia with someone equally foul — and then receive their reward in the next national dispute. Belligerence becomes them.
Blaming Clinton for Trump terribly misleads and dangerously trivializes the depth and breadth of the political corruption.
The State is rotted through.
Republicans blame the Democrats. The Democrats respond by blaming themselves?
This is fucking crazy.
That “grudging respect” is simply Stockholm Syndrome.
At best.
“I reject the notion that Sanders would have won had Clinton stepped aside. The enemy yachts could have aimed at him
At one time I’d have thought the same. But with Sanders we had, finally, one candidate that had a “stealth mode” – he had no baggage anywhere approaching what Hillary had. Also, unlike Obama, who had not much political baggage at all, really, Bernie’s baggage was all about saying what he means and meaning what he says – and most important – backing up that talk with legislation to the extent that a singular, independent Senator can.
Combine that with the fact that Bernie’s message connected with millions of Democrats, former Democrats, and newly minted millennial voters and pulled them out of their slumber, to the tune of almost a quarter of a billion dollars in small donations independent of any DNC machinery, all done in order to vote for progressive policies – and I still think that he and we would have done more than enough to defeat Trump.
I agree. I’m pretty convinced Sanders would have handily beat Trump if, for no other reason, many voters who were disgusted with the choice between C & T and therefore didn’t bother to vote, would indeed have come out to vote for Sanders. And, Sanders, unlike Clinton, would not have ignored those Rust Belt voters who were seeking anything but the status quo, embodied by Clinton. Sanders also almost certainly would not have based his whole campaign on ‘vote for me because he’s so much worse’…
I assume you meant to reply to me rather than avelna2001. And, somewhere in the queue I replied… but it could be the case that not only is there a moderator-flag to the number of hyperlinks in one comment, but the number of hyperlinks offered by a single commenter. Anyhoo… TallyHo!
I think liberals are funny enough to excuse their cognitive dissonance and acute epistemic closure. I never would have thought that liberals would be lionizing the CIA as the fountainhead of truth; nor did I imagine they would get bent out of shape just by the suggestion that America is not so perfect. Who would have thought liberals would be clamoring for regime change against Syria and demonizing Putin as they push for confrontation with nuclear Russia.
I think Obama was the pied piper that lead liberals to the right of conservatives. He lead them down such a dark path that liberals tolerate or ignore his support of Nazi battalions in the Ukraine:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-06-12/ukraine-s-neo-nazis-won-t-get-u-s-money
They also tolerated the blatant imperialist act when Obama placed Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son on the largest gas company in the Ukraine:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/?utm_term=.51b8c7d4d469
Imagine what liberals would do if Trump armed Nazi groups and placed Ivanka on the board of the largest gas company. This is why they are so funny now ranting about nepotism, fascism and Russian connections. The Russia thing is particular funny considering Hillary took millions from Russian interests to approve the Uranium One deal:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
I mean liberals are so hypocritical now and confused … this is great entertainment. If it wasn’t for the media that enforces this double standard and infantile need for tantrums, liberals would be laughed out of the United States.
As a moderate who leans conservative, I was appalled when Donald Trump became the Republican nominee. However, I was also appalled by the only other viable choice on the ballot, Hillary Clinton.
I believe the core problem with the Democratic Party (and with politics in general today) was neatly summarized in Obama’s quote, “We won. You lost. Deal with it.”
This seemingly innocuous quip on his part turned out to express the genuine lack of concern for the opinions, desires, and needs of half of the American voting public. It is not hyperbole to say that for the eight years of Obama’s presidency, I did not have a president (or a government) that was looking out for my interests in the least. They felt free to force whatever policies they wanted down my throat, without any compromise at all.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and Donald Trump is marginalizing the other half of the American voting public, I’m not here to crow. I’m here to tell you that I regret what you are experiencing, and that I understand your frustration.
The only way that I see this nation healing is when the media stops turning politics into a reality show by churning up dissent and arguments for their advertising dollars… and when government officials remember that they don’t only represent the side that voted them into office.
The President, Senators, and Representatives should act on behalf of ALL of their constituents, not just 51% of them. When Republicans and Democrats start offering the public more moderate choices for election, and the media reports on “compromises”, rather than “sell-outs”, we might just get back to a functional representative government.
But, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that.
“for the eight years of Obama’s presidency, I did not have a president (or a government) that was looking out for my interests in the least. They felt free to force whatever policies they wanted down my throat, without any compromise at all.”
I am genuinely interested. What were the policies Obama rammed down your throat without compromise? What were your interests what were not being looked out for in the least? Thanks.
“What were the policies Obama rammed down your throat without compromise? ”
For starters:
– infinite war for empire
– executive mass murder, and creation of the machinery of executive murder on a staggering scale
– “legalized” executive murder of US civilians and children
– corporate welfare in the guise of a “healthcare plan”, forcibly extorting money from the populace, for garbage
– multi-trillion dollar bailouts to a Wall Street criminal class that had already robbed us of $multi-trillions, and complete excusing of their crimes
– a hyper surveillance state, with retroactive pardons for extraordinary illegal abuses
– fanatical persecution of whistle blowers
– more deportations than under the collection of all previous presidents
– a multi-trillion dollar “modernization” and “upgrade” of the US nuclear aresenal
– support for regime change and heinous regimes throughout the world, leading to failed states, and massive recruitment of terrorists.
– giving Libya to ISIS, and Ukraine to Nazis, the latter in an attempt to foment a staggeringly dangerous war with Russia
– attempts to ram utterly appalling “free trade” agreements down the throats of Americans, agreements bent solely on maximizing corporate extraction of profit from peoples and nations, and extreme exploitation of those same peoples and resources
– attempts to dismantle Social Security
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/nancy-pelosi-social-security_n_2333285.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/obamas-long-battle-cut-social-security-benefits.html
– etc. etc. ad nauseam
I know all that. I wasn’t asking you. I was asking @Mitchell Hein who describes himself as “a moderate who leans conservative”. He says “They felt free to force whatever policies they wanted down my throat, without any compromise at all.” Really?
If an ideology causes people to lose their jobs, their homes, their savings, die for lack of treatment, what good is the ideology?
right now, in America, the small minority of people with life threatening diseases either pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each…
…or they die.
The solution is to spread the cost over the entire population of 300 million citizens. With progressive taxation, most people would either pay nothing (if they are dirt poor), or they would pay much less (than they currently do for inadequate private insurance).
Wasting your time. He’s too wedded to his ideology. Doesn’t seem to register that there is no example anywhere in the world where health care delivery functions the way he thinks it can in theory. But he’s happy to use his fellow citizens as an experiment to see if it could–which logically and economically it can’t without having the very problems we have in America on an industrial scale.
He’s not disturbed that far too many die of preventable illness or treatable disease, or go bankrupt trying, or that “charity” should, could or would pick up the slack so those three things don’t happen.
Human beings are just economic widgets to him, and “markets” are the solution to every problem. I mean even saying that should sound absurd to anybody with a high school education, but sadly it doesn’t. Not to mention that there is no such thing as a “market” or a “free” one, outside “political” decisions that create the frameworks for them (from contract law, to zoning, safety regulations or lack thereof, to pollution regulations to lack thereof), and the mechanisms to enforce them.
Just wasting your time. Better to try and get him as an ally (even if for wrong reasons) on something like no wars except in self-defense.
I think we’re dead even on this one, rrheard. Right back at ya!
I would say the same to you. Tied, 2-2.
That’s not true, and it’s just ad hominem. Maybe you can just pretend that it is possible to have my position and not be some comic book villain.
The next paragraph attributes to me some mystical belief in markets populated by automatons and unburdened by real-life jurisprudence and legislation. I’ve taken pains on many occasions to dispel your false beliefs about my beliefs, obviously to no avail.
The position you describe is “free market anarchism.” I am not a free market anarchist. I am a “minarchist” and think the government rightfully exists to provide justice and protection from violence. There is no such thing as (what we mean by) a “free market” without a court system and police to enforce contracts and other property rights. But for some reason you think I don’t know that — despite saying it to you before.
You also find many ways to call me stupid in that section. I don’t know why — certainly it isn’t news that you think my position is “absurd to anybody with a high school education,” and I don’t know what you get out of it argumentatively. I think it just ends up reflecting poorly on you, making you look like some schoolyard wannabe bully whose scrawniness confines him to name-calling.
Look, we were getting along fine. If you think I’m calling you stupid again, I’m not. You’re misguided. You simply are believing in a fantasy that can never work, exists nowhere on the planet and never has, has never worked anywhere on the planet in human history, will never work as a logical matter, is immoral, and yet you don’t like to be referred to as a “comic book villain”. You aren’t. You’re misguided. You’re likely smart enough to understand the reality of your libertarian worldview, yet you refuse to accept it. It fundamentally reflects not on your capacity for reason (although it does do that) it reflects on your morality.
And just to be frank, and as we’ve discussed and agreed in the past, I type under my own name and occupation. I don’t hide my viewpoints or occupation behind a pseudonym, that’s you–the purported academic.
If you believe so strongly in your arguments, scholarship (should it exist), worldview, and its rightness and morality — why not post openly under your own name? I know very view scholars or college professors who have something to say, who hide behind anonymity to say it.
And what I get out of it argumentatively, is that I think your positions are absurd and blinkered. And I don’t know what college or university you purportedly teach at, but that you come here and try and have us take them seriously without being willing to stand behind them openly–for an academic–it isn’t just cowardly, it demonstrates that you don’t actually believe in your theories enough to defend them openly against all comers. I do. That’s why I do my best to address your arguments on the merits, but I’m never going to respect someone like you. Just isn’t going to happen–you haven’t earned it.
I always laugh at your amateur manipulative tactics to get me to reveal myself. It might work — keep trying!
I don’t want your respect. I want the contempt of the contemptible.
I’m the contemptible one? Coming from a former banker/financial grafter. Okay if you say so, my guess is your opinion is in the extreme minority again in that respect.
But for the record, I’m not trying to manipulate you, you’re too far gone into your morally untenable bankrupt ideology to even defend it under your own name. That’s all anyone needs to know. And I’d be willing to wager that I’m convincing more folks to my point of view here than you ever will to yours. So it begs the question, why do what you’re doing here? It is genuinely interesting to me, that a purported academic doesn’t want people to read or grapple with his “scholarship” or ideas, assuming it/they exist. I post under my real name because I believe, and believe I can defend on the merits, my worldview.
I suspect, that at base, like all propertarian/libertarians, you believe in world divorced from human reality. And you know it deep down. You believe your “property rights” are a function of your “individual” efforts–they aren’t. They are contingent. So your entire ideology is a grift.
I’ve spent a lot of years in higher education and have personally known a ton of academics, and you would be the first I’ve ever encountered that hides behind anonymity. Maybe it’s just something “economics” professors do, and it wouldn’t actually surprise me why you do it as a libertarian given what libertarian and classical economics professors are peddling. It’s failing on its own terms before everyone’s eyes. Your paycheck is tied up in “believing” and I can’t imagine the moments you have of moral clarity where you realize that your life means absolutely nothing morally or intellectually except to those willing to buy into the grift. Actually makes me kind of sad for people like you.
I don’t worry about people like you any more than I worry about navel or dryer lint. You’re just an annoying minor inconvenience of life.
I read the first and last paragraphs just to test whether you’re still stuck on modus redundo. Surpise! You are. Dryer lint — an oldie but goodie!
I’m not going to read the next one at all. Or anything you ever write again. Bye.
hey macroman, I just drove through SODO district of Seattle. I lost count of the number of tents set up under overpasses, parking medians, etc. There are mountains of trash surrounding many of the tent groups, too.
I get it though, about cars being so much cheaper, relatively, than they used to be.
My girl-friend’s kid lost his epi-pen, again, so no new clothes this spring. He can make do.
Mom and Dad cut their pills in half now so they last twice as long.
go thing the banks are going strong.
Could be worse, no epipens or tents at all. Or you guys could go ahead and move to Cuba or wherever they do things your way. Then you guys will have better spring clothes, I bet.
If the lack of perfection was an argument against anything, nothing would be right.
We’re not going to agree, but I’d appreciate a modicum of civility insofar as you refrain from implying that I hold my position because I want “people to lose their jobs, their homes, their savings, [and] die for lack of treatment.” In fact, I would contend that the jobs, homes, healthcare, and savings you’re concerned about only exist in the first place because of free enterprise. I also think forced, involuntary, universal health “insurance” (really, redistribution under ACA) hurts the prospects of the poors’ access to healthcare — i.e. your position hurts the poor. Now, should I automatically conclude you’re evil, or do I show basic human respect and presume you’re just mistaken?
Right, so just draw from the bottomless pot of “other people’s money,” then say nice words like “free” and “universal.” Then we’ll all skip merrily down the lane together, all healthy and happy. This way, none of us will ever die.
I’ve been a libertarian so I do grasp your premises that make you think that what you advocate is ultimately best for everyone. It was difficult for me to accept how wrong those premises are, but little did that more than seeing, in real life, corporate ownership of the legal process in NYC. At some point, reality finally totally intruded.
But I do understand that your positions can be held in good faith. (And I still get pissed when I see lefties dismiss all libertarians as being “conservatives who want to smoke dope.”)
Thank you, and I would just add that I do not adhere to a naive belief in the general incorruptibility of private enterprise, I just think the way to limit it is to limit the power for sale in Washington rather than continuously concentrating more power and wealth in D.C. (or Albany) and pretending like it won’t be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Dodd-Frank is the perfect example — let’s “regulate” the banks by letting them write themselves more power and influence. Every time we create a new agency with new powers, we are simply creating more rents to seek. Let frauds go to jail — that’s “regulation” in my book.
“conservatives who want to smoke dope”
Of course that’s not true of all libertarians. Some of them are conservatives trying to get laid.
When trying to get to get laid, it is better to say, “I’m broke, can you pay?” than it is to say “I’m a libertarian.”
The thing is Gator, as cute as that is, it’s not accurate about, e.g., Radley Balko or Julian Sanchez.
I have little interest in trying to help you see the obvious, but I have to point out that you are assuming that universal health care won’t eliminate the very, very, very highest current cost of health care now, which is insurance corporations. Without their cut, health care would cost a fraction of what it does now with them skimming off the top, the middle and bottom of the money flow.
I hope you’re sitting down, but I basically agree. Where we differ is in the story we accept of how those “insurance corporations” achieved their present position. This things are more complicated than “markets vs. states,” but for our present purposes it may suffice to characterize our difference as revolving on the weight of blame we attribute to the corporations that amalgamated all this power versus the government that set out all those goodies for sale on K Street.
Okay, but there is now plenty of data in this respect. Demonstrate that “the poor’s access to healthcare” was “better”, more widely accessible, or cheaper before the advent of the ACA.
And that is not to say I am a proponent of the ACA. I’m a proponent of no private sector health insurance (except supplemental coverage for super rich if they want it), and instead direct tax payer subsidized universal health care, on the model of Medicare.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
Seriously, you may not be acting in bad faith, and you may honestly believe what you believe, but all the real world examples contradict your beliefs, as does the data.
It really is interesting how someone who teaches macroeconomics doesn’t understand the fundamentals, or implications of a nation controlling (assuming it actually does) the creation of its own currency and floating it, and how taxes don’t have the relationship to government expenditures the way you seem to believe it does.
At least you are never willing to discuss or demonstrate your knowledge of those counterarguments to your libertarian ideology, in that respect, that are quite well known. Or at least you don’t do so here.
Happy to provide you plenty of links from reputable economists on those ideas if you are interested. Just say the word.
That’s not a specific position I hold. My present view on it is that it did expand access for the poor but diminished access for the middle class. It is not an insurance program, it is a redistribution program because of the preexisting condition provision. To defend the policy I do advocate, which is closer to the healthcare system in the 1950s, I am somewhat hamstrung in arguing that it was “better” because basically nothing was better before the invention of the microchip (by the government, which is pretty funny in this context). My view is based on a counterfactual that I am unable (I believe) to get you to ever share — what free-market healthcare would look like in the present. As you’ve said, there is no example to point to. On this, you are right that we are wasting our time.
I strongly disagree, and we have at least four issues at stake here: the specific history of healthcare provision, the empirical data relevant to evaluating that history, the character of current healthcare regulation, and, alas, epistemology itself. I’ll cut to the chase, though: your contention that the data, in a sense, disproves (“contradict”) my position is in fact inactionable. Ignoring Godel and Lakatos for brevity’s sake, Popperian logical positivism (which is the basis of the claim that “Data disproves X.” is scientific) cannot withstand the Duhem/Quine retort, hence your contention that the “data” contradicts my position, in a sense, can’t be true or at least can’t command universal ascension. That said, if we tried my idea and the data indicated that things were getting worse, I would change my mind. We would agree in that case that the regressions we ran were correctly specified and complete because we would essentially have a controlled experiment and escape the confines of counterfactuals. Other than that, we’re just going to argue about what variables are relevant and in what sense they are until the end of time. That gives me job security but won’t give us finality.
I was mocking socialists with the “other people’s money” bit, which I suspect you know. C’mon, dude. I say “money isn’t scarce, resources are” all the time, including on the very last GG article. Seriously, rrheard, sometimes you attribute false things to me credibly mistakenly, and sometimes you attribute false things to me that no one could be gullible enough to believe you don’t know are false. You did it here to sneak in another back-door “you’re stupid.” “You don’t even understand the fundamentals of what you study for a living, you idiot!” That’s 99% of what you ever say, and it is getting tiresome. I passed a whole lot of tests to get where I am, and I never had to pass yours. GET OVER IT! As for the second clause re: taxes and expenditures, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. What is it you think I think, again?
That’s true. I’m not here to convince you or anyone else, and I’m certainly not here to work. I’m here to converse freely and enjoy myself. We have different personalities and motives, my friend. I like to argue, and I can do so uncensored here without alienating colleagues, friends, and family. I don’t need your imprimatur, and I have nothing vested in convincing you of this or that, despite your constant demands and commands that I rise (or stoop) to whatever argumentative standard you pick for me.
Italics accidental, sorry.
Ahhhhh, again proving my point. You want to argue what you truly believe, but you know it is so morally bankrupt or incoherent, you can’t/won’t speak openly about it to colleagues, friends, or family for fear of “alienating” them.
Got it. Thankfully I don’t have that problem. Not here and not in the real world. Again, that makes me feel incredibly bad for you, a man that doesn’t have the strength of his convictions, values and ideas for fear that it would alienate those he seeks approval from. Wow.
What I am hopeful about is that people will change the world for the better despite people like you. And we’ll still share the benefits of that changed world with you despite your misguided world view.
I don’t mean to be uncivil, but I must admit it’s hard to repress the sense of relief that I don’t need to depend on American private health insurance.
Are you under the impression that nations with good healthcare systems don’t have “free enterprise”?
And how exactly does the loss of jobs, homes, savings caused by the lack of any sane American health system, enhance “free enterprise”?
Wouldn’t de-coupling health insurance from one’s employment enhance the “free enterprise”? Or is tying workers to their current job for fear of losing their health insurance a good thing?
In summation, while I never implied that you wanted people to die, you concluded that I did, nevertheless. You did that perhaps in much the same way you concluded that the costly in lives, and money, current private health insurance market is the best America can do, despite the evidence to the contrary. And part of the reason you came to the wrong conclusion is your misunderstanding of healthcare, for example:
I’d posit that part of being civil is not writing drivel such as that. Countries outside the US are not an abstraction, they exist outside the Marvel Universe, you can go visit them (there is no travel ban).
No bottomless pit of money, no skipping (unless you want to), no immortality.
Just better healthcare systems.
Lost me already. Is the “don’t” supposed to be there?
It doesn’t. I’m starting to think you didn’t understand a word I wrote.
The coupling is a rational response to the income-tax exemption for health insurance, which itself was a reaction to legislated pay rise freezes during WW2. In other words, said coupling is not due to Scrooge McDuck but rather to identifiable policy — you know, people in generations before you that also thought they could legislate whatever they thought was a good idea and there would be no unintended consequences. Furthermore, in the very thread from which you pulled quotes of mine to start this conversation, I explicitly advocate ending the tax and other policies that have led to this coupling. So, yeah. Argue against me, please, and not against who you want me to be to make yourself feel better.
JLocke: “If an ideology causes people to lose their jobs, their homes, their savings, die for lack of treatment, what good is the ideology?”
Macroman: “…refrain from implying that I hold my position because I want “people to lose their jobs, their homes, their savings, [and] die for lack of treatment.”
Are you splitting hairs and trying to say that obvious references to my “ideology” have nothing to do with my “position?” If it were a fact that my position had the consequences you claim, then the obvious implication is that I want those consequences to manifest. So I’ll stand by my statement and you can backpeddle if that makes you feel better.
I live in London 4 months a year and spend 2 months a year at my lakehouse in Canada. Why don’t you tell me all about those healthcare systems? (rhetorical)
Is that supposed to be an argument? You’ve already said you are not here to convince people.
I don’t know how convincing I am, but I care about others, and I guess I enjoy trying to make things better. And If my words can do that, even in the slightest way, that’s where I get my entertainment.
No, seriously, on the first part, either the “don’t” is a mistake or you read the opposite of what I wrote. Of course it’s not an argument, it is what we call in English a “QUESTION.” Do you care to answer it or just babble bullshit? (rhetorical)
Totally cool about your noble aims and values, thanks for sharing.
Your “it’s the free market that’ll be the best for us all if only you’d give it a chance” credo is even more damaging to humanity than the racist and xenophobic bullshit being spewed on another thread by Craig Nelson.
I’m equally disgusted but more concerned by capitalism than I am by racism.
Why? Because racism affects less people. The negative effects of capitalism, on the other hand, is almost entirely inescapable. Under the guise of fairness, economic equality and access for all in the name of making our world a better place for everyone, the neoliberal/libertarian fiscal policies completely ignore the evidence all around them that “free market” economics, either as an economic philosophy or as a social policy has failed humanity miserably.
Racists policies are also failing, but at at least they don’t hide behind the ongoing refrain of “we just have to get better at making macros to put into our spreadsheets! You’ll see! It’ll work itself out!”
Racists want to ignore democracy outright in order to advance their ideology. Capitalists want to control democracy altogether; utilizing purse-strings instead of dialog to create a system that puts free-market ideology ahead of basic human rights such as universal health care and a decent standard of living for everyone.
Fuck free markets, and fuck you, Macroman. That’s as civil as I’ll get when confronting one of the biggest canards in human history, and those who continue to extol its virtues.
Do you want me to respond to this shit or are you just banging your head against the virtue-signaling wall?
Try, instead, refuting the negative effects of capitalism, explaining with real-world evidence how “if we just tweak this, or modulate that” capitalism, in whatever flavor you decide to defend, will make for a better world.
I’ll not wait. I’m doing everything I can to get rid of this corrupt ideology and ancillary ones like it, and you and yours are a part of the problem not a part of a solution. and you are in my way.
Some people look around at the world and view everything good as the result of capitalism and everything bad as the result of government. Others, like you, have the opposite view. Both are wrong. I don’t care what you you think, and I relish your self-righteous opprobrium. It makes me feel…better than you. I just remembered my old nickname for you: “sillyputtyforbrains” Nice to see you again!
I’m in your way, huh? Move me, then, you silly little…well, you can guess from there. I’m trying to be nice today.
You and rrheard sometimes talk like this thread is the be-all-end-all conversation that will determine the fate of humanity and the planet. I don’t think it will turn out to be; maybe I’m wrong.
So, instead of refuting the negative effects of capitalism, and explaining what you think with real-world evidence to support it, you come up instead with ““sillyputtyforbrains?”
Fuck you.
No one I know thinks that “everything good [is] the result of capitalism and everything bad [is] the result of government” (or vice-versa) – that is a vacuous statement.
What is tiring is constantly listening to either camp (which of course aren’t monolithic) extol virtues that refuse to acknowledge the reality of where such stances and the struggle between them have gotten us thus far – that it’s becoming much too costly in human terms to continue policies that are demonstrably failing most humans on the planet, and indeed, in the case of global warming, our ability to continue inhabiting the planet itself.
Let me make sure I understand. You’re saying it is incumbent upon me to refute the negative consequences of capitalism in toto? Else you’re right, qed?
Couldn’t I just point you to your local bookstore?
Maybe we just use the example of China, where tens of millions starved to death under socialism and now a much larger population eats under capitalism (or at least a system much closer to capitalism)? There are two choices: dictate resource allocation with force (socialism) or let people decide for themselves how they use their own property. Surely you know something about the world and understand which system gives people more food, healthcare, or whatever. Anyway, if your own experiences and reading haven’t given you a clue as to what capitalism achieves, nothing I say will. I don’t give a fuck what you think anyway; not my problem.
I made up “sillyputtyforbrains” years ago at Salon. I was hoping you’d remember — you’ve been spewing these “fuck yous” and “you bad, me good” statements at me for over five years now. Talk about “vacuous” — you are a typing defintion of the word.
“I made up “sillyputtyforbrains” years ago at Salon. I was hoping you’d remember — you’ve been spewing…”
Mona had thought I might have commented at Salon as well; I don’t recall ever having done so – nor have I commented at any other site as “Sillyputty.” I searched the Salon site and could find nothing, either. I started posting here at TI when it began.
If you do find a comment from me to you at Salon, please cite it. If I can attribute it to me, I’ll own it.
Be that as it may, your (and I’ll lump other libertarians in here, too, as the same mindset is an almost universal quality) inability and/or unwillingness to explain how your economic/social policy fails to account for either explaining (admitting) to your ideologies failings and to provide answers for them is all the answer I get.
As Bernie Sanders mentioned at the debate with Ted Cruz the other night: “Access doesn’t mean a damn thing.”
You and most other libertarians, continue to make the claim that your ideology is the best ideology for what ails the human race, yet you continue ignore and/or downplay the real world examples that contradict such claims. So until you and yours get on board with data that actually reflects reality, and acknowledge the limitations of “capitalism in the real world” I’ll continue to tell all of you to fuck off, all day long.
I’m traveling right now (I’m on my phone, which will be tough to use to search salon) but I’ll be happy to check later and until I do, assume you know better than I do and that was mistaken. Technically possible it was somebody else with the same name, but I remember the old sillyputty being just like you. Anyway, on the assumption above, I owe you an apology, which I sincerely offer.
I’m not sure if this will directly address what you’re saying, but I get the impression that you think libertarians are saying our way is “perfect” rather than our way is the “best” available or “better” than the alternatives. I am arguing the latter. You brought up global warming — you’re right, capitalism is not equipped to avoid or deal with it. But I’m not saying it is. I’m saying it’s the best option we have.
I think there was a ‘silly putty’ with a space.
‘the donger’ might remember.
That “virtue signaling” shit? As vacuous as: “libertarians are conservatives who want to smoke dope.”
Saying “virtue signaling” is vacuous is vacuous, Mona.
That’s not only not clever, it’s an unpleasant refusal to accept that you are doing that to another good faith commenter which you object to being done to yourself.
No, sillyputty was saying how great she was and how bad I was. That’s it. That’s what we call “virtue signaling” in modern American English. I made a ‘good faith” (plain definitional) statement to an hysterical idiot. You can think it’s vacuous, and you can say it, but it doesn’t make it so. I don’t need nor care about your charitable support nor your chin-in-the-air chastisement, thank you. I’ll say what I damn well please, and I don’t care what self-appointed internet comment police have to say about it, whether they can recognize vacuity or not, which you demonstrably cannot. Saying “virtue signaling” is vacuous is indeed vacuous, and if you reprimand me again about it, I’ll simply repeat it. It may not be clever, but at least it’s right.
What I objected to was not accurate statements reflecting my comments. I objected to “only evil people have macroman’s opinions” type statements. Pretty sure I didn’t say sillyputty was bad for her opinions, I made fun of her for saying exactly what I objected to from others all day. I hope that clears it up and you are no longer seeing any hypocrisy ghosts.
You are my peer, not my superior. Just a reminder.
For what it’s worth, ‘Sillyputty’ is genderless. I’m male, and have never commented anywhere as a female.
In the end, we’re all peers. Just a reminder.
Sorry. Granted.
Wow, have I been living under a rock. I first heard of Glenn in relation to Snowden but admittedly this is the first article I’ve read. This was top notch, especially your ability to say so much in relatively few words. We need way more exposure to articles like this about the failings of the DNC and the apparent corruption and disease that still remains. I’ll be following all of your writing very closely now, Glenn. Thank you!
Nice comment, and glad to see that you’ve, for whatever reason, finally found yourself reading, for the first time, one of Glenn’s articles.
But even though I agree with your “especially your ability to say so much in relatively few words,” I had to laugh because a common complaint in below the line comments for years was that Glenn’s articles are too long and he uses ‘too many words’ to say whatever it is he would be saying in a particular article. I generally saw that opinion to be rooted in either lazy attention span or possibly even just ordinary trolling by most of those who made those comments. But anyway, funny to see the opposite opinion being expressed by a new reader to Glenn Greenwald’s articles.
I can’t help but suggest that you’d enjoy and learn from reading the archives from not only his The Intercept articles but also The Guardian and Salon and also Unclaimed Territory. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
Greenwald is right: what is the use of opposing Trump so long as the alternative is as subservient to Wall Street, Big Energy, Big Medicine, and Big War as the Republicans? The Democrats needs to change their priorities and prove it by turning away donations from the four sources just named and coming out with serious policies to reverse the trajectory of increasing inequality, keep fossil fuels in the ground, medicare for all, restrict the US to using only peaceful means to influence other countries, never war except as an absolute last resort, and real steps towards global nuclear disarmament. That’s the Democratic Party we need and it has to take priority over opposing Trump if opposing Trump is to meaningful.
Are you going to try to save the republicans too?
You show that it is clear that the democrats and republicans
are in the same business, but you think that the party of liars
who call themselves democrats are worth saving.
If you “need” the democrats, then you are just asking for things
to get worse because they and the republicans are two arms
of the same corporate privatizing cyclops of capitalistic sadism.
The Democratic Party is not “broken,” it is capitalist, just as Pelosi said! Capitalism is no longer a force for progressive change in the world, and it hasn’t been since the Civil War.
Seeing someone as sharp as Greenwald arguing about how best to rescue the Democrats is pretty grim. America’s two parties of racism and war both belong in the garbage.
Absolutely beautiful, Glenn.
Glenn check out Ray Buckley, who’s also running for DNC Chair. Nobody’s heard of him, but he’s from New Hampshire and seems absolutely honest. He’s also the only openly gay candidate. Please check him out and have the intercept do some kind of comparative analysis of the candidates.
Ray Buckley 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9gzYXAKws
Ray Buckley 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SylS0YVorJs
“Absolutely honest”????
This is the same Ray Buckley who worked on electing
Joe LIEberman, is a scheming super-delegate, and who, when
introducing Hillary Clinton to New Hampshire democrats,
indicated that they should be as excited as if they were meeting
Lady Gaga.
I’d say he is a typical faker.
I have followed the ‘race’ and I like Ray myself. But I’m rooting for Keith. We must unite and follow what the people want.
Speaking of that definition of insanity:
http://veteransforpeaceindianapolis.blogspot.com/2017/02/we-can-get-rid-of-tsa-nsa-and-cia.html?m=1
Glenn you are a true democrat ……trying to help the DNC. Otherwise , you would have given some advise to the GOP as they are as sick in the same bed.
The Democrats will have to do much better than Keith Ellison if their looking for some credibility….Read this from Black Agenda Report “Keith Ellison as DNC Chair: Another High Place, Another Empty Black Face” http://blackagendareport.com/keith-ellison-dnc
Couldn’t agree with you more (as usual). But given that 55% (I’m told) support Trump’s Moslem ban, are you perhaps overestimating voters’ knowledge?
Beautiful, just beautiful.
Glenn has nailed the true character of Chuck fucking Schumer.
People yearn for a party, and leaders, that will truly represent them. For the Dems to try to create a reality where this isn’t true, they have to twist themselves around into all sorts of grotesque shapes. Look at Pelosi’s rancid answer to the student who asked her about capitalism.
A great article, as usual. If I were going to quibble, it would be with the very notion that the democrat party can be repaired. Personally, I think the corruption is too profound, too deeply embedded to be capable of being rooted out. Better that people who in the ’60s or ’70s would have called themselves liberals abandon that party. Might I suggest joining the Green Party of the US? It appears to embody all the principles that liberals of that era hold dear: human rights, egalitarianism, social responsibility, and an economy based on sustainability and environmental responsibility. In short, the very antithesis of the democrat and republican mainstream’s core values.
Cornell West when asked if the democratic party can be reformed said no, it lacked moral integrity. I agree and that your points go to that lack of integrity. But Chris Hedges said something interesting when asked about movements and elections. He said the role of movements was not to win elections, but to put such fear in leaders and into the system that they will respond to demands and make changes. Trump in an insane way might be amendable to changes as he treats the protests against him as a TV personality looks at ratings for each show.
Not while Jill Stein is running things, its a non-starter
I understand. Lots of people, including many who think of themselves as liberals in the traditional sense, find it difficult to support a Jewish woman who is not a lawyer. So perhaps you can devote your efforts to rehabilitating Hillary Clinton. I mean, if Richard Nixon could be rehabilitated, why not her?
The DNC plan appears to be to continue to lose to the Republicans at every level for at least the next eight years.
99.9% of Americans will suffer but the 0.1% who own both parties will make out like bandits.
The only real trickle-down in America is from our 0.1% overlords to their corrupt congress critters.
” … this all happened because the Democrats are perceived – with good reason – to be out-of-touch, artificial, talking-points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.”
current mainstream democrats have zero chance of changing this, because they refuse to accept it
meanwhile, many in America are drinking deeply from the well of nationalism and prejudice, and enjoying the rich, bitter flavor
Craig Nelsen
Very slightly [edited] for accuracy
Yeah, whatever. So [I] judge the worth of an argument based on the ideological [racial] purity of the person making the argument[.] Hahaha, that’s like the definition of “[racisim]”, you know, that noxious strain that enlivens all the little wannabe Stalins out there.
You enjoy your cheap virtue, there, Doc. Trump won because the voters hate political correctness. Hatred of “racism” doesn’t win elections.
Out of curiosity, cite an example of my “racism”. If you can.
go on, tell us then.
should public policy reflect racial identity or racial separatism? should the interests of particular racial groups be codified into law within the US? should foreign policy and immigration policy be informed by racial interests? should christians (white or otherwise) be given precedence over muslims or certain other ethnic or religious groups in US law?
set us all straight, Mr. Nelsen.
As it’s actions show, the primary danger to USA is an inept White House. Vet the White House, starting with tax returns.
Great piece Glenn Greenwald. But, Dems/Liberals/Progressives now have their hands full. Monitor, challenge, protest Drumpf… a frightening character with even scarier “advisers” at his side, and grassroots bottom-up repave of the Democratic Party.
Recently, I re-watched Zeitgeist: The Movie, which pert near put the brakes on my hope for any change. It’s not easy being a caring, involved, ethical, moral human being these days. G-d (?) give us strength….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbIu8Zeqp0
The biggest problem is a complete denial of the National Security State. CIA in Media is never addressed in mediated discussion so the extent of its influence and complexity of its manifestations ie faux leftism that protects CIA, is unknown. Earlier there was SOME CIA oversight by Dems . This was terminated by 1980. Dems need to use history to point out these Dems are NOT centerists . On a billionaire controlled media spectrum, centrists really means far rightists who are more efficient than their foil.
Truth, but try and convince stalwart Democratic voters of that. Blame has to be shifted elsewhere, always.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/some-democrats-push-for-an-economic-message-that-goes-beyond-trashing-trump/2017/02/08/8fb9dc5a-ee0d-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.73d5b302a9fb
Meanwhile, TPTB give lip service to the economic anxieties of the working class, while at the same time, denigrating the “liberal coastal elites”. Yada, yada, yada. They pretend to “get it”, but clearly they don’t.
The Democratic Party crash-and-burn is best viewed as separate from Trump’s POTUS victory. Glenn states that Trump and the Republicans didn’t win because there was a “massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism”. Well, maybe not a surge, but Trump’s extremism was a siren-call to the existing extremist groups of varying shades of virulence. Trump ran on the Republican ticket, but it should be obvious that he induced a crash-and-burn within the Republican Party, too. Trump defeated the Republicans AND the Democrats. I’d describe Trump as a RINO, probably a puppet for Steve Bannon at this point, and both are analogous to Jack from “Lord of the Flies”, with the Republicans acting as Jack’s consummate hunters.
Wherever the evolving and vocal resistance to Trump goes, it will go without the democratic party establishment and its Clintonista wing. In fact, the democratic party establishment will fight to channel it away from anything that remotely looks like attacking the edifice which keeps it and the elite supporters in power. A leading democrat Adam Schiff of CA said in a LATimes article recently: “The radical nature of this government is radicalizing Democrats, and that’s going to pose a real challenge to the Democratic Party…” What exactly are democrats being radicalized into that is a challenge? Stop marching on the homes of rich democrats demanding they offer up resistance? Support tuition free colleges?
Right now the democrat party establishment and its supporters are replaying the Clinton campaign themes and tactics. So we get them pushing the Russia button over and over to the point that Maxine Waters comically bashed Putin over Korea. After the Woman’s March I read that the organizers were looking at their next big march to be on April 15th demanding that Trump release his tax returns–I saw some really well posters in anticipation. Which of course was one of thee major demands of Clinton’s campaign. But really, in the face of the refugee ban, attacks on Obamacare, the ruining of our public school system, the worst cabinet selections, etc, the resistance movement is being steered into demanding Trump’s tax returns? I have a suspicion that the “Trump radicalized base” may demand more than a rehash of Clinton’s campaign.
The tax stuff is garbage. If you want to march then join the March for Science on Earth Day, April 22nd.
https://www.marchforscience.com/
What is success?
There has arguably been more upheaval among GOP leadership in winning, than there has been in their Democratic counterparts in losing. This was most apparent during the Primaries, when GOP leaders were trying to stop Trump any way they could. Had the GOP had its way, and had !JEB prevailed, they would have been much weaker in the general election, might have lost it, but GOP leadership would have been happier and more comfortable. Ironically, they’re now enjoying the fruits of their own defeat and maybe learning things aren’t so bad after all.
The Democratic Leaders, in contrast, were successful. They fought-off their disruptive challenger, ran the candidate they chose–their !JEB–and lost. They preserved (and in Shumer’s case, even advanced) their own leadership, that of the institutions they rely on, and their funding channels and methods. There was little or no cost to them personally when their party was defeated at the polls. In contrast, the disruption would have been extensive had “they” won via Sanders. The funding model would have been laid bare, there would be challenges against all congressional leaders, the ThinkTanks that fought so hard to defeat Sanders would have been severely discredited and weakened. The pitchforks would be marching, and not just against the GOP.
We generally assume that Parties want to win elections, and that winning is the measure of success. But what if that assumption is false? What if success is actually perceived as how secure individual Democratic leaders feel with their own positions of power? Is Shumer, now elevated to minority leader, really disappointed that his party lost? Does Pelosi fear anything at all from her ultra-secure district and position?
Assuming that Democratic decision makers are not actually motivated by winning elections, but rather by their own power positions w/in the party:
1. Arguments coming from the left that Dems need to change because they are losing elections at every level won’t be very effective–because that’s not how leadership defines “losing” and “winning”.
2. If above is true, Sanders’ decision to stay within the Party framework to change it from the inside seems a bad one. Sanders’ gamble is that it will be easier to change the Dem Party than to start from scratch in a third party. Again, with an entrenched leadership motivated by internal power rather than election victories, their success depends upon his failure.
This is an extremely insightful comment. Especially when you consider where the major offenders in the DNC ended up (or stayed, for that matter) and where most of the #NeverTrumpers ended up. The collective action problem is likely a huge source of cognitive dissonance among principled individuals, whereas the self-serving types that typically occupy the halls of power can probably sleep easy when collective action fails, especially when the personal cost of losing is low.
It is extremely likely that, in spite of how damaged the Democratic brand is, that it will be easier to reform the party from within than to create a viable third party.
I don’t think Sanders’ move is a gamble, per se, since the titles of the parties have remained in spite of massive policy shifts in even the last 60 years. Sanders was poised to police Clinton’s policy decisions if she were elected to keep her to the updated platform.
I think this would have been a great thing, especially seeing the posturing that many Republicans made against Trump during the run-up to the elections relative to the complacency they exhibit now.
This internal struggle within the Democratic party makes it unlikely that it will succeed give the fact that the Super-Delegate process actually prevents this.
And since it is very unlikely that this process will be replaced or modified to allow the changes needed in the part, the only real and viable option is for the Sanders delegation to actually split off and form their own part for 2018 and attempt to gain seats in the House of Representatives.
Only after something this severe is it possible that the mainstream Democratic leadership will acknowledge and concede some of their Super-Delegate powers to allow changes to occur.
Sanders and his follows should split off and attack mainstream Democrats in the very same manner as the Tea Party has done with the Republicans. It works!
part = party
Ooops. need two replacements.
I appreciate the study and logic in this article but am seeking a clarification. Do you (Glenn) believe this political change should really be top-down? That correct committee appointments will be the catalyst for a winning change? It could be true but I am a bit surprised you did not mention grassroots changes as important to the future of democracy.
That reminds me, I saw Dershowitz on CNN opining that visitors have no “property rights” to a visa.
That got me thinking…just how insane is Dershowitz?
Now I’m not an American lawyer and as far as I know, there may be a good reason based in American law to view Trump’s immigrant ban as being centred on property, rights or perhaps Dershowitz is playing devil’s advocate to entertain his audience, but allow me….
Without warning, after having spent thousands of dollars on plane tickets, after having been handcuffed, detained for hours, questioned, deported,…
for no identifiable reason beyond “the President ordered it”…
Dershowitz argues that visitors have no property rights to a visa, as if what was at issue was the physical piece of paper that their visa is printed on. Not international treaties? Not due process? Not simple compassion? No…For Dershowitz, all the terrified people, the chaos, the needless cruelty…that’s not the issue. The issue is all about “property”, that belongs to Trump’s government.
I haven’t heard the US government use this argument, but I have heard their lawyer say that visitors, immigrants, refugees at points of entry have “no rights”.
Just practically, how many times do Americans feel they need to drive home this point?
Dershowitz is Exhibit A for Max Blumenthal’s maxim that Zionism kills Palestinian bodies and destroys Jewish souls.
The government has, indeed, used the property rights question, because SCOTUS precedent has established that visa holders have no such right.
It’s the sort of argument you advance when you don’t have better ones and the other side is arguing issues arising from the 1st Amendment and a statute specifically prohibiting discrimination in immigration based upon nationality.
Dershowitz is simply despicable on questions like these and many others. This is the famous “civil libertarian” who argues that the courts should be able to issue warrants authorizing torture.
The same “civil libertarian” who debated against Greenwald in defense of the NSA’s Global Surveillance Apparatus. (And got his ass handed to him.)
This is a most unimpressive editorial for Greenwald. It starts off with the assertion that the Democratic Party is a “smoking pile of rubble” after the Obama years. Yet if just 50,000 people in the right places had not been disenfranchised by state regulations or ultra-long urban voting lines, Clinton would have won and the story would be that the Democrats were going strong. So you lost me right there. Then you come up with this insistence that Perez can’t admit the process overall was rigged without also acknowledging at the end that Clinton came up with more actual votes. I mean yeah, there’s a whole lot of crookedness out there, but how can you say the Democrats are broken without seeing a party that people have managed to make work right? It’s not the Democrats per se that are broken, but the American electoral system (by which I mean even more the lack of ranked choice voting than the Electoral College) and the American economic system (which puts huge wealth in a few hands, then pretends that the right regulations will make us all equal in the marketplace of ideas!). There is no obvious reform for the Democrats (and certainly not for the Republicans) that is going to make them a great people’s party.
“Yet if just 50,000 people in the right places had not been disenfranchised by state regulations or ultra-long urban voting lines …”
where did you find this piece of bs?
Your ability to ignore the available evidence is astounding, as good as the DNC hacks.
“Obama’s record for losses, at least through the 2014 midterms, is historically bad having overseen two horrible midterm elections for Democrats. Overall, Sabato wrote, Democrats during Obama’s presidency lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and 913 state legislative seats and 30 state legislative chambers. (Our analysis of legislative seats is off from Sabato’s by three. The small discrepancy is likely due to run-offs and recounts.)”
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
Greenwald is EXACTLY correct. Your analysis is what’s unimpressive.
that IS the problem. the Democrats couldn’t beat Donald Fucking Trump. helloooo? the fact that, but for a few electoral college votes, as you point out, they’d have been selling the same ol’ song and things would have moved along same as ever . . . and you don’t see the problem?
West Wing has completely broken the brains of Gen-X/younger Boomers/older Gen-Y. These generation of Democrats no longer care about instituitional power. They only want to have a Smart, Masculine, Woke parental unit for them to displace their diseased fantasies of relevance onto. If Hillary Clinton had somehow squeaked in, not only would they be completely content but they’d be getting off to her fighting uselessly against reactionary death cultists. “Yaaaas, Queen Khaleesi, you GIVE YOU that heartfelt speech to the GOP about why they’re wrong for blocking your SCOTUS nominee for three years in a row. HNNNGH, this is just like my Japanese animes!”
But the fact that those 50,000 votes did not show up in the right places shows an inherent problem of the democrats–their base did not show up. It wasn’t a matter that Trump suddenly won traditional democratic voters but that he lost them in smaller margins compared to Rommey. This was not just in one state. But in speaking just about the presidential election doesn’t show the entire electoral massacre of democrats down ballot and in state races. Even if Hillary won, the democrats were beaten to an electoral pulp everywhere else.
Voter suppression is a big issue. Tom Prerez had the radical idea of having a permanent DNC employee working on voter fraud and suppression issues. But this in itself shows problems with the democrats. In the 2000 election, voter suppression became an issue in Florida. And what did the democratic leadership do about it? Nothing other than blame Nader for the loss. So the question, why has the effort to counter gop shenanigans been so weak. Having worked many election inside the polling place and outside, the answer for me was obvious. Reforming the electoral system would stop the republicans from cheating, but it would also stop the democrats from very importantly, cheating other democrats in the primaries. The long lines you complain about were used to suppress Sander primary voters. The same happened in AK when Blanche Lincoln was challenged in the primary. All the voter registration problems we saw in NY that suppressed Sander voters would not be possible. And what do democrats now focus on? Voter suppression? Nope, Putin, like Nader with Gore, caused Hillary’s defeat.
ha! even Glenn screws up the stupid blockquote thing!
;-)
Hey, Glenn reads the comments. Sweet!
Brilliant. Thank you, Glenn.
Excellent piece. Too bad the Dems chose to back a criminal instead of Bernie. I see eight years of Trump coming at us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXnY_fKXwho
Manufactured, tested and repeated “talking points” as nauseam.
Yea, hear is the “real deal”, honest-as-the-day-is-long – Joe!
I want your vote. Trust Me!
SPAM.
I sent Tammy Baldwin, senator for Wisconsin, twenty-five dollars. She publicly thumbed her nose at Scott Walker and I liked that. It took spine. I live in Colorado. She will not need to spend any part of that $25 to get my attention or win my vote.
The $25 was to say ‘you got my attention by thumbing your nose at Walker, please continue to do so. Should you decide to run for national office, I already know who you are.’ It was a one time contribution. It could just as easily been $1.
Isn’t that a large part of running any campaign, just trying to get the voter’s attention, all the more so if the candidate is a newcomer running against an incumbent? A ‘Tammy Baldwin’ 3×5 card joined the stack of politicians I’ll be watching for the next two years. The stack of cards is called ‘Worth Watching’.
Sen. Baldwin happens to a Democrat, but there are Republicans on cards in the stack too. Some are in Washington, most in state offices. I’ve been wondering if the DNC matters. I don’t think it can be reformed, even if Ellison wins, but maybe there’s another way to form a party of candidates we’ve effectively selected with our attention and support, if its broad enough.
I can’t go to my grave supporting politicians I don’t want in office, or abstaining from voting altogether. Reading through the news, looking for those in office ‘doing good works’ for the people is my work around. If we all did this, saying ‘saw what you did there’, a new party would form. And if it doesn’t, at least I can rest easy in my box, six feet under.
unpaid parking tickets. from the 90’s. and they say we don’t hold these people accountable! having gotten the important stuff out of the way, maybe they can move on to war crimes and almost crashing the world economy.
First things first, let’s get resolution on those tickets.
I hear you and this conversation does need to happen. Here is what I think needs to be woven into this argument: the issues of race and gender and representation are painful, hot parts of this whole mess. So, while everything your article presents rings true, the difficulty of the sexism in the campaign needs to be integrated. The triumph of having our first black president needs a space along with the “smoking pile of rubble” characterization. The lack of Latino voices, also eschewed by Clinton, makes a different stake in the desire for Perez. We do need a world where the best person moves into such positions regardless of gender, ethnicity, race and sexual orientation, where the best person is the one who “does the work.” But I do think this rolling pain of voiceless comes from so many places that some way–whether through a new form of rainbow coalition–to handle this pain must be part of the conversation. I struggle with this every day. I would love writers and journalists in power to help find a new way to report on this part of the story.
That’s simply not so; Clintont was endorsed and strongly supported by many, many prominent LatinX people. What is so is the gender tribalism of neoliberal “feminists” such as the Hillary Clinton faction.
Many of the women commenting here spent the election cycle being told by the Hillary faction we were anti-feminists, and disparaged as “BernieBros” in substance, for finding Hillary Clinton repugnant. That shit has got to stop.
while i appreciate the significance of Obama’s presidency as a black man and what that indicates for our society, it’s difficult not to see the “progressive” aspect of a black president as window dressing given much of the policy pursued by the Democrat Party and the role of money and patronage.
similarly, if a woman has to be a good ol’ boy to get the nod from the DNC, that hardly seems like a victory for feminism against the paternalism of the Old Guard. more like the opposite, no?
that was supposed to be;
… it’s difficult not to see the “progressive” aspect of a black president as much more than window dressing ….
i’m really sucking at this posting thing today.
Why did the Demos lose? They fell away from their Obama base of appealing to real working Americans over kitchen table issues, not for internal screw-ups regarding the political elites in the party. Ignoring the middle 2/3 of the country was foolish and refuted the successful campaigns of Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama, and Hillary should have known better. There is a strong base needing to awake to the alarm of women, retired people, and the younger enthusiasm of the next generation who will stand against bigotry and racism.
Yeah, if she had just done as good a job of pretending to care about ordinary people as Bill and Barack did. . .
touche´
Let the Democrat Party have Perez.
Sanders needs to declare himself the leader of the Independent Party with Ellison as Chairman of the Independent Party.
There is no difference between democrats and republicans – they are both Corporate owned.
What in hell is Sanders waiting for? It was within reach last July and he backed off.
Well, OK, I guess. Just like Obama happened because the Republicans failed.
The huge population of voters who voted for both men, however, are never coming back to the Democratic Party, no matter how h