10-26-2016, 03:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2016, 04:03 PM by Eric the Green.)
(10-26-2016, 01:34 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(10-26-2016, 06:32 AM)Odin Wrote:(10-24-2016, 05:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The article is an exaggeration of the Democratic Party's contribution to trickle-down, pro-corporate/finance politics in the last 40 years. The principle honor in that transformation goes to Ronald Reagan, with the Bush's as top co-conspirators. It was they and their supporters in congress and in campaigns who led deregulation of the banks and the "free market" ideology that has caused as much tolerance for monopoly and free trade as for different races, genders, etc. Democrats have led such opposition as there has been.
There was no way that Patman could be acceptable to any genuine liberals, with his support for the War in Vietnam and segregation. Those were deal-breakers. The Bill Clinton/Democratic Leadership Council late 1980s/90s Democrats were not the product of the young liberal lawmakers from Nov.1974; they were the product of Reagan's success and Democrats' pragmatic (but unfortunate) decision to adapt to his popularity.
It's not at all an exaggeration. You are incapable of comprehending this article exactly because you are the type of college-educated big-city middle class progressive this article is talking about, who came of age during that period and is contemptuous of us "backward hicks" in Middle America. It shows in every condescending post about how you "enlightened" people on the coasts know better than us and that we should just follow the lead of our "betters". Folks like you replaced the egalitarian community-centered populism of the New Deal with a new hierarchy based on the top-down centralized rule of an intellectual elite.
The Dems could have had some highly effective wedge issues during the late 3T, if only they had not been so tone deaf to the non elite whites and other native born individuals. For example, back in 2000, I very, very reluctantly voted for Bush. I knew he'd be a disaster in the realms of trade and geopolitics. But over on the Dem side there was nothing compelling. Had there been a "Scoop Jackson" Dem (well ... the early 21st Century equivalent) I might have crossed over. Imagine if there had been a pro-defense, anti-free-trade, pro-middle-class Dem, back in 2000. He or she would have won in a landslide.
Al Gore certainly met the traits of a pro-defense and pro-middle class Democrat.
Myself, I wasn't quite sure what Bush was going to do, but I saw it as the arrival of a horseman of the apocalypse. Within a year it was clear where we were headed. And electing Gore would have headed off much of climate change. It was a tragedy, not the less for the cheating. And now the Republicans themselves have adopted the Democratic line and think all elections are rigged. 2000 definitely hurt our democracy, perhaps beyond repair. However, I am somewhat consoled by the fact that the New Moon before election showed a close race, probably no matter who the candidates were. There was a certain destiny in what happened. As a candidate, Bush was almost invincible, given his horoscope candidate score of 18-3. He was the just the kind of dude that 'mericans like. No-one but Bill Clinton or Barack Obama in these times could have defeated him.