How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul

[Dan '82]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ul/504710/

Quote:It was January 1975, and the Watergate Babies had arrived in Washington looking for blood. The Watergate Babies—as the recently elected Democratic congressmen were known—were young, idealistic liberals who had been swept into office on a promise to clean up government, end the war in Vietnam, and rid the nation’s capital of the kind of corruption and dirty politics the Nixon White House had wrought. Richard Nixon himself had resigned just a few months earlier in August. But the Watergate Babies didn’t just campaign against Nixon; they took on the Democratic establishment, too. Newly elected Representative George Miller of California, then just 29 years old, announced, “We came here to take the Bastille.”

One of their first targets was an old man from Texarkana: a former cotton tenant farmer named Wright Patman who had served in Congress since 1929. He was also the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Banking and Currency and had been for more than a decade. Antiwar liberal reformers realized that the key to power in Congress was through the committee system; being the chairman of a powerful committee meant having control over the flow of legislation. The problem was: Chairmen were selected based on their length of service. So liberal reformers already in office, buttressed by the Watergate Babies’ votes, demanded that the committee chairmen be picked by a full Democratic-caucus vote instead...



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ul/504710/

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-24-2016, 03:56 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I have a personal anecdote to share on this topic. This was a very late example of the anti-monopoly credo in action but a potent one. What I'm referring to is the break up of AT&T. This led to the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBoCs) plus several completely new communication companies. Within the tech industry, it led to all sorts of new start ups. The technology underpinning the wireless / mobile networks was suddenly on steroids. I personally increased my income at a rapid rate, ultimately tripling it, within a less-than 10 year span. What's not to like?

I remember that as well.   So I'd add

X_4AD_84\s sig Wrote:#ProsecuteTreason
#HUAC2.0
#NeverTrump
#IndyWhoMayNeverVoteGOPAgain
#NaziPunksFOff

#ProsecuteMonopolies@Trusts
#TimeForRICOToBigBanks

[Eric the Green]

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.

[Odin]

(10-24-2016, 12:42 PM)Dan Wrote: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ul/504710/

Quote:It was January 1975, and the Watergate Babies had arrived in Washington looking for blood. The Watergate Babies—as the recently elected Democratic congressmen were known—were young, idealistic liberals who had been swept into office on a promise to clean up government, end the war in Vietnam, and rid the nation’s capital of the kind of corruption and dirty politics the Nixon White House had wrought. Richard Nixon himself had resigned just a few months earlier in August. But the Watergate Babies didn’t just campaign against Nixon; they took on the Democratic establishment, too. Newly elected Representative George Miller of California, then just 29 years old, announced, “We came here to take the Bastille.”

One of their first targets was an old man from Texarkana: a former cotton tenant farmer named Wright Patman who had served in Congress since 1929. He was also the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Banking and Currency and had been for more than a decade. Antiwar liberal reformers realized that the key to power in Congress was through the committee system; being the chairman of a powerful committee meant having control over the flow of legislation. The problem was: Chairmen were selected based on their length of service. So liberal reformers already in office, buttressed by the Watergate Babies’ votes, demanded that the committee chairmen be picked by a full Democratic-caucus vote instead...



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ul/504710/

This says it all, I think:

Quote:The 1975 class included people like Peter Stark, the Watergate Baby who put a peace sign on his bank.

[Odin]

This fits in exactly with what I have always ranted about with the Democratic Party coming to be dominated by highly-educated technocrats that can only comprehend society in "big picture" terms of numbers and impersonal forces rather than small-scale human terms. Giant super-corporations have come to be seen as OK as long as they can be taxed to support the social safety net, all the while people have come to feel increasingly helpless and powerless, their only voice being in elections and in protests, their communities and daily lives increasingly dominated by monopolistic giant corporations (which local governments are too terrified to offend). As the article said, the economy has been "de-politicized" so the Masters of The Universe can do what they want without "the stupid, ignorant masses" interfering with their Randian genius.

This is exactly how you get Fascism, when ordinary people feel that they are at the mercy of distant forces outside of their control and people look for a charismatic savior to save them from those forces.

[Mikebert]

I learned a bit from that article. I always saw the beginning of the anti-populist move in the Democratic party with JFK's call for tax cuts, which were implemented by Johnson in 1964. But Johnson pretty much on board with the New Deal and Humphrey was a New Dealer. I always knew that part of the shift was the civil rights/anti-war Democrats who wanted to put social issues front and center. But this article shows another generation divide between Lost and GI's. The old-school populist who was ousted was a Lost, one of the original New Dealers. The people who took over were GI's.

[Odin]

(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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-25-2016, 11:29 AM)Mikebert Wrote: I learned a bit from that article.  I always saw the beginning of the anti-populist move in the Democratic party with JFK's call for tax cuts, which were implemented by Johnson in 1964. But Johnson pretty much on board with the New Deal and Humphrey was a New Dealer.  I always knew that part of the shift was the civil rights/anti-war Democrats who wanted to put social issues front and center. But this article shows another generation divide between Lost and GI's.  The old-school populist who was ousted was a Lost, one of the original New Dealers. The people who took over were GI's.

You can view it as a shift in priorities as the greatest problems in the culture changed.  The New Deal originally focused on economics.  [understatement] That was important in the 1930s, [/understatement] a key focus, shouldn't be forgotten, and basic.  However, come the 1960s, it wasn't the primary reason not to trust people over 30.

I can acknowledge the shift in emphasis from economics to social issues without framing things in terms of evil triumphing over good or people losing their souls.  The New Deal led to the economic boom time that lasted for decades.  The emphasis and focus on the policies that achieved the boom may have faded as early as the 60s, but it was Reagan that really messed it up, redistributing the wealth from Main Street to Wall Street.

And the old seniority system was flawed.  If one couldn't trust people over 30 back then, people over 60 were right out.  The times, they were a changing.  Weakening the grip of the old dudes seemed like a good idea.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't take a good long look at the economic policies of the original New Dealers.  Now isn't then.  Too much has changed to try to recreate the economy of the time America was Great.  Still, some attitude and base principles might be worthy of review.

[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.

[Warren Dew]

(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.

And yet it appears from your signature that you're voting for Clinton.

[gabrielle]

I think this article is pretty fair, actually. It is not blaming Watergate Baby Democrats for leading the dismantling of New Deal protective policies, but for allowing it to happen.  This paragraph pretty much sums it up:

Quote:When Reagan came into office, one of his most extreme acts was to eliminate the New Deal anti-monopoly framework. He continued Carter’s deregulation of finance, but Reagan also stopped a major antitrust case against IBM and adopted Bork’s view of antitrust as policy. The result was a massive merger boom and massive concentration in the private sector. The success of the Watergate Baby worldview over the old populists can be seen in what did not happen in response to this quiet yet extraordinarily radical revolution: There was no fight to block Reagan’s antitrust restructuring. He reversed the single most important New Deal policy to constrain concentrations of economic and political power, and… nothing. Antitrust was forgotten, because no one was left to fight for it.

Oh, and I've always hated the phrase "Don't trust anyone over 30."  The ultimate Boomer stupidity.  If that's the case, why should Millennials trust you guys?

[Eric the Green]

Now, it's not trust anyone UNDER 50! You haven't seen the revised T-shirts?

".....The success of the Watergate Baby worldview over the old populists can be seen in what did not happen in response to this quiet yet extraordinarily radical revolution: There was no fight to block Reagan’s antitrust restructuring......."

The problem with this idea is first, no-one is really a "populist" if they favored the Vietnam War and segregation, whatever else they favor. Illegal war and segregation were not "policies for the people." The original populist leader and candidate W.J. Bryan was ardently anti-war and anti-imperialist.

Second, in the Reagan era the Watergate Democrats' power was severely reduced; Democrats still controlled the House, but the Senate was Republican through his first six years. Those Democrats who supported Reagan's trickle-down tax plan in 1981 were probably the older ones. But I'm not sure. But a majority of Democrats voted against it. The point is that Reagan was too popular, and some Democrats buckled under and didn't resist his doctrines and slogans.

That didn't happen because of Democrats' opposition to war, corruption and segregation in the 60s and 70s. Democrats continued to speak out loudly against Reagan and his policies during his term. If the Reagan administration did not pursue anti-trust actions, what could congress have done about it anyway? They couldn't "block" it. Anti-trust cases are prosecuted by the administration, or not. All they could do was speak out, which some of them did. But it was futile; they had no power to block him. But people like me; we did speak out. I hate mergers and I always hated mergers. It goes against the Green ideal big time.

Trickle-down economics has a racist undertone. It means those whites who don't want to spend their tax money to help poor and non-white people. It was the southern strategy. Being against segregation, is not to be in favor of racist trickle-down economics or its anti-government, self-reliance slogans.

It was not because of Watergate Democrats that Reagan beat Mondale in a landslide in 1984. Reagan was just a better candidate (though not a good president). 19-5, versus 10-13. The horoscope score says plenty. With Reagan winning all but 1 state and DC in 1984, it was not as popular then to resist his policies. Blame Reagan, and those who voted for him; not Watergate Democrats. Trickle-down economics militates against anti-trust actions. That's interference in the market, it says. It was the pervading ideology, and you can't blame Watergate Democrats for that. Blame Reagan and his followers for that!

[Eric the Green]

(10-26-2016, 07:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Actually, prior to turning against the war when it clearly became a phony war that we would not try to win, many "Silent Majority" GI gen people were very much in favor of it. The salt of the earth approved, and therefore, up until the late 1960s, being pro-war was populist. Only people in coastal urban bubbles were anti war, early on.

I just remind people that real "populist" does not refer to what's "popular," but what's best for the people. And no, the people don't always know. But if they take some trouble and inform themselves, or others help inform them, then they can and they do know. No matter what class they are supposedly in. And certainly, the War in Vietnam was not of any advantage to the people; nor was segregation, nor corruption and abuse of power by the president. And it wasn't because we didn't "try to win the war" that it was bad for the people, clearly. And clearly, the US tried to win, dropping more bombs than in all of WWII, and killing proportionally many more people than in Europe. It was bad for the people because many American soldiers died in it, fighting for nothing, and killed many more for nothing in the name of America. Same as what Bush did to us in Iraq, though on a smaller scale in a smaller country. Same as what the USA did in the Phillippines that Bryan opposed in 1900. No, anti-war can be populist, if the war is not good for the people. Policies that benefit the people are populist, even if they are unpopular. And policies that are popular, but don't benefit the people, are not populist.

Reagan's policies were popular too, in the 3T. They were not good for the people. If some people are well-informed and educated enough to know what policies are good for them, then they should be congratulated and listened to, just as I listened to those who knew what the Vietnam War was, and then I turned against it; not called "elitist" just because they know more than those who are uninformed or deceived. In America, unfortunately, that happens a lot. Or maybe Bush would never have been elected, and Trump would not be so "popular" and have so many followers for his phony "populism," which consists mostly of policies that would not benefit them. And no-one has any excuse for not being informed about what policies benefit them. No-one.

[Odin]

(10-26-2016, 03:26 PM)Warren Dew 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.

And yet it appears from your signature that you're voting for Clinton.

Because for all her flaws she's sane and highly qualified to rule the country. Trump is a dangerous lunatic who is fanning the flames of Fascism in this country.

[Einzige]

(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.

I think you're wrong about that.

Eric there is a hippie. The hippies, the New Left, etc. aren't the same as the DLC/Third Wayers; the only way I think you can confuse them is if you lump all of the "Blue Boomers" into a single whole.

The only time the New Left exerted power in the Democratic Party was in 1972, with obvious results. Carter was a New South governor, Mondale a New Deal throwback, Dukakis a centrist technocrat, and the Clintons are basically struck from the Tsongas/Dukakis centrist mold.

If you want to blame a demographic for the "elitization" of the Democratic Party, blame the yuppies. I mean, sure, some of the hippie concern for alternative lifestyles and the like bled over into that mindset, but the hippies were earnest about being populists.

Really, the Democratic Party became "elitist" in an attempt to compete with Reagan for the white upper-middle-class suburban vote. That's not at all the same thing as accepting EtG's worldview.

[Warren Dew]

(10-27-2016, 06:57 AM)Odin Wrote:

(10-26-2016, 03:26 PM)Warren Dew 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.

And yet it appears from your signature that you're voting for Clinton.

Because for all her flaws she's sane and highly qualified to rule the country. Trump is a dangerous lunatic who is fanning the flames of Fascism in this country.

Your willingness to believe their political propaganda is precisely why they can continue to condescend and still take your vote for granted.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2016, 11:28 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-27-2016, 12:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-26-2016, 07:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Actually, prior to turning against the war when it clearly became a phony war that we would not try to win, many "Silent Majority" GI gen people were very much in favor of it. The salt of the earth approved, and therefore, up until the late 1960s, being pro-war was populist. Only people in coastal urban bubbles were anti war, early on.

I just remind people that real "populist" does not refer to what's "popular," but what's best for the people. And no, the people don't always know. But if they take some trouble and inform themselves, or others help inform them, then they can and they do know. No matter what class they are supposedly in. And certainly, the War in Vietnam was not of any advantage to the people; nor was segregation, nor corruption and abuse of power by the president. And it wasn't because we didn't "try to win the war" that it was bad for the people, clearly. And clearly, the US tried to win, dropping more bombs than in all of WWII, and killing proportionally many more people than in Europe. It was bad for the people because many American soldiers died in it, fighting for nothing, and killed many more for nothing in the name of America. Same as what Bush did to us in Iraq, though on a smaller scale in a smaller country. Same as what the USA did in the Phillippines that Bryan opposed in 1900. No, anti-war can be populist, if the war is not good for the people. Policies that benefit the people are populist, even if they are unpopular. And policies that are popular, but don't benefit the people, are not populist.

Reagan's policies were popular too, in the 3T. They were not good for the people. If some people are well-informed and educated enough to know what policies are good for them, then they should be congratulated and listened to, just as I listened to those who knew what the Vietnam War was, and then I turned against it; not called "elitist" just because they know more than those who are uninformed or deceived. In America, unfortunately, that happens a lot. Or maybe Bush would never have been elected, and Trump would not be so "popular" and have so many followers for his phony "populism," which consists mostly of policies that would not benefit them. And no-one has any excuse for not being informed about what policies benefit them. No-one.

We didn't try to win it Eric. It was always scoped as a limited war. To win it we would have had to invade North Vietnam, take over Hanoi, depose the Soviet stooges, de-Sovietize the system, etc. But we were shit scared the USSR would respond by going nuclear or perhaps launching an invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap. We lacked the courage to win.

Did we have any right to invade North Vietnam? And wasn't it correct that it might have gone nuclear if we did? Sometimes "courage" is foolishness, and discretion is the better part of valour. But the USA made up for it by bombing Vietnam into the stone age and destroying villages in order to save them. To quote one soldier or general, we kicked the ass of the enemy in Vietnam. We smothered them. They won anyway, because we could not invade and occupy another country and get away with it, just like we couldn't do in Iraq. Same deal; even worse outcome for the USA in Vietnam. But, in Vietnam, the communist victory didn't turn out to be such a bad thing. They have been virtually our allies in every problem or conflict there since.

[Odin]

(10-27-2016, 07:54 AM)Einzige Wrote: I think you're wrong about that.

Eric there is a hippie. The hippies, the New Left, etc. aren't the same as the DLC/Third Wayers; the only way I think you can confuse them is if you lump all of the "Blue Boomers" into a single whole.

The only time the New Left exerted power in the Democratic Party was in 1972, with obvious results. Carter was a New South governor, Mondale a New Deal throwback, Dukakis a centrist technocrat, and the Clintons are basically struck from the Tsongas/Dukakis centrist mold.

If you want to blame a demographic for the "elitization" of the Democratic Party, blame the yuppies. I mean, sure, some of the hippie concern for alternative lifestyles and the like bled over into that mindset, but the hippies were earnest about being populists.

Really, the Democratic Party became "elitist" in an attempt to compete with Reagan for the white upper-middle-class suburban vote. That's not at all the same thing as accepting EtG's worldview.

A lot of the "New Left" is from the same demographic as the neo-liberal technocrats, and it shows. Look at Eric's own posts about how he sees all us folks out here in "flyover country".

[Mikebert]

(10-27-2016, 11:28 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: To win it we would have had to invade North Vietnam, take over Hanoi, depose the Soviet stooges, de-Sovietize the system, etc. But we were shit scared the USSR would respond by going nuclear or perhaps launching an invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap. We lacked the courage to win.

So you are saying To win it we would have had to invade Iraq, take over Baghdad, depose Saddam's stooges (recall the card deck), de-Baathisze the system.

So according to you we won in Iraq then?

[Einzige]

(10-28-2016, 07:00 AM)Odin Wrote:

(10-27-2016, 07:54 AM)Einzige Wrote: I think you're wrong about that.

Eric there is a hippie. The hippies, the New Left, etc. aren't the same as the DLC/Third Wayers; the only way I think you can confuse them is if you lump all of the "Blue Boomers" into a single whole.

The only time the New Left exerted power in the Democratic Party was in 1972, with obvious results. Carter was a New South governor, Mondale a New Deal throwback, Dukakis a centrist technocrat, and the Clintons are basically struck from the Tsongas/Dukakis centrist mold.

If you want to blame a demographic for the "elitization" of the Democratic Party, blame the yuppies. I mean, sure, some of the hippie concern for alternative lifestyles and the like bled over into that mindset, but the hippies were earnest about being populists.

Really, the Democratic Party became "elitist" in an attempt to compete with Reagan for the white upper-middle-class suburban vote. That's not at all the same thing as accepting EtG's worldview.

A lot of the "New Left" is from the same demographic as the neo-liberal technocrats, and it shows. Look at Eric's own posts about how he sees all us folks out here in "flyover country".

I'm from flyover country - I live in a trailer in the rural St. Louis metropolitan area - and I largely agree with his views. The majority of my neighbors are, generally speaking, worthless.