Who should lead the Democrats?

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-18-2017, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Any candidate who is not on the Left in a general sense is not an anti-establishment candidate. The Right always supports the establishment; the Left challenges it.

Obama inherited a Wall Street on the edge of a big time financial collapse.  He did what he had to do to keep the collapse from happening.  He did so in part by bringing in a lot of Wall Street insiders.  He did so cooperating with Wall Street, without giving the appearance of punishing Wall Street.  The CEOs and other high executives of the banks were giving each other huge bonuses, pay and benefit while their policies (and Washington's) led the country to the edge of collapse, and Obama did little or nothing to punish the guilty on Wall Street.

Economically, I believe he did the right thing in bailing out the banks, the automobile industry, and other parts of the economy that were stretched to the breaking point.  Politically, he lost a ton of good will.  He painted himself, his administration and the Democrats in congress as flunkies of the Wall Street establishment.  The Republicans amplified this impression, pushing the libertarian free enterprise ideas that organizations that fail ought to be allowed to fail.

Your statement above is broadly true most of the time.  However, as reasonably perceived by a lot of the Republican Base, as was repeated by political talk radio and other right leaning media, Obama spent billions bailing out the Establishment while doing nothing for the little people.

Again, economically, I believe Obama did the right thing in spite of the loss of popularity that resulted.  However, politically, he reversed the impression at least of your quote above.  Obama became perceived by many as pro rich establishment and unconcerned with the People.  If you are unable or unwilling to see this, you aren't going to understand where the US is at.

(01-18-2017, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ANY real populist will support policies that the right-wing considers "socialist."

Again, a lot of the Republican base perceived the Obama administration as corrupt pro Wall Street anti People establishment.  Obama did unpopular stuff.  A lot of people genuinely disliked and distrusted his economic policies.  I believe they are mistaken.  I believe Obama made tough but necessary decisions.  However, he didn't throw the Wall Street CEOs under the bus.  Therefore, he is perceived as one of them.

The above meme is true almost by assumption if one is locked into the Democratic memes.  I doubt you are able to comprehend the possibility that it might not be True.  You ought to at least consider that Obama's decisions were very unpopular, and the Tea Party grew out of the anger at economic hardship and a President who seemed to care much more about Wall Street than Main Street.  Obama did things that were greatly unpopular.  This opened the door for Republicans to play at a populist style, to propose to do what their base wanted done.

Republicans are traditionally pro business, pro corporate, pro capitalist investor class.  "What's good for General Motors is good for America" is a familiar quote reflecting the standard Republican pro corporate philosophy.  But when the time came, they were ready to throw General Motors under the bus.  It was the Democrats who decided that what was good for General Motors was good for America.  For a time, the traditional wisdom and policies of the two parties was upside down.  Simplistic statements such as those you are making became wrong.  You need to observe reality more, lock yourself into rigid patterns of thinking less.

(01-18-2017, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Libertarians are mostly on the Right, especially in libertarian economics, which is a completely establishment stance. It is the essence of the establishment. Your smoke-blowing will not change that, Mr. Dew.

Broadly true.  Progressives will generally strive to reduce the division of wealth.  Conservatives and in particular libertarians lean towards a few rules to no rules environment which results in winners winning more, losers struggling without hope, an extreme division of wealth.  However, not every progressive policy has succeeded, and conservative propaganda from talk radio and elsewhere can paint even well meant policies as harmful to the People.  I will add Clinton 42's NAFTA and Obamacare as two other programs that have allowed Democrats to be painted as pro establishment corrupt enemies of the People.  The East Coast liberals are perceived of as thinking they know what is best for the country, and forcing bad ideas town the throat of an angry populace.  This is a quite understandable perception.  The residents of flyover country are not insane or brainwashed.  They perceive themselves as much put upon and rightfully angry.  They have demonstrated a willingness and ability to kick the establishment out of power, whether it is the Republican establishment presidential candidates that were defeated by Trump, or whether it is Hillary.

What comes next?  I don't think Trump has the people skills to hold a political coalition together.  He hasn't the knowledge of government required to run the country.  I can quite understand why the Republican base rejected the Establishment.  I expect that they chose the wrong anti-establishment.

Obama came into power with tremendous popularity, but the 2010 midterms left him drifting.  Both parties tend to view narrow victories as mandates.  Both seem ready to push for extremes without a fear of the inevitable extreme backlash.  From what I've seen of Trump, he's not going to be a moderate governing from the center.  I'm kind of expecting a backlash against Trump at least comparable to that against Obama.

But I want to see less Trump talk and more Trump action.  Until then, I don't feel ready to predict what's coming.

But the Democrats, if they want to regain their traditional mantle as the populists, have to not only do what is best for the People, but do what the People want.