The problem with Bill Clinton centrism. His intellect obscures core issue.

[Armstead]

After being involved a couple of the pro-and-con Bill Clinton threads, and listening to him on Meet the Press, I finally figured out what really bothers me about Bill Clinton and the whole Democratic centrist movement he epitomizes.

First of all let me say clearly, that I think Clinton is great on many levels. I admire him for all the reasons others do.

But, in some respects, his greatest strength is also the reason I think he has taken the Democratic party down the wrong path.

The "centrists" refer to a "Third Way" in politics, which is supposed to be an advance from traditional liberalism. The theory is that by fusing conservative and liberal values and principals, we can better solve problems and Democrats can win elections by broadening the base into the "center" of the spectrum.

I agree with that in theory. We have needed to rethink liberalism, and take it beyond the old mold (and perception) of Big Government Bureaucracy as the answer to problems.

However the centrists have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. By doing so, they have obscured the First Principles of liberalism, and replaced it with an amorphous nothing....Instead of moving the right closer to the left, they have forced the left further to the right. Meanwhile, the right wing and the corporate oligarchs are not budging. So they are winning.

More important, centrism ignores the real core issue that seprates consrvatives from liberals: Wealth and Power. Most other issues flow from that -- poverty, democracy, economic opportunity, etc.

Listening to Clinton, one can not disagree with much of what he says. His analysis is astute, and his ideas are positive. The coalitions and the ideas like public-private partnerships to solve specific problems are good ones.

BUT -- and this is the big but -- what is lacking is the core simple recognition of the issue of Wealth and Power. It's fine to press corporate titans to be more socially responsible on individual initiatives. BUT, they should not have so much wealth and power that they are the only ones who can make a difference and drive policies. That's the real problem.

THAT's the problem. It's less what Bill (and other centrists) actually say. It's what they DON'T say. They ignore the systemic imbalance between the elite and the rest of us. That's Bill and "centrists" tacitly perpetuate, with these summits of the elite like the World Economic Forum, where the oligarchs gather to seek enlightened solutions to issues and problems

It is just the newest form of the old concept of "noblisse oblige." That is, they look for solutions from the beneficiaries of a system that creates the very problems they claim to be trying to solve. Their "enlightenment" and good intentions are fine. However, the extent of the elite's power and wealth must be challenged. We should not be in a position of having a benevolent aristocracy deciding what is good for the rest of us.

That's where good old-fashioned ornery liberalism and progressives come in. It is necessary to simplify the complexities that gloss over the core issues of Weath and Power. It is necessary to put government into the hands of the majority, not just the elites. Most importrant, it is necessary to challenge the systemic problems that result from excessive concentrations of Wealth and Power.

That's what we need to return to. Promoting the core awareness of restoring some balance to the equation, so that that we are truly able to advance outselves, rather than rely on hand-outs from the oligarchs.

In short, Clinton's message and his efforts to solve problems is positive and worthwhile, in terms of implementing specific ideas. However, that can't contiunue to be a distraction from the larger need to make it LESS NECESSARY for an increasing percentage of the population to rely on crumbs from those who are using the system to steal their lunch.

Charity is fine. But what's more important is to reduce the need for charity.

[HereSince1628]

1. Yes, the DLC _is_ elitist, but, fyi,they don't intend to change

[Totally Committed]

3. That is why they must be resisted, and marginalized,

until their influence is minimal, imo. We need a "Third Way" like a fish needs a bicycle.

TC

[HereSince1628]

8. Maybe even less than a fish needs a bicycle

[Totally Committed]

2. Armstead, awesome post!

The whole post rocks, but this is my favorite sentence:

Charity is fine. But what's more important is to reduce the need for charity.

TC

[Armstead]

5. Thanks. I've been storing that line up for years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. That's the problem with wealthy liberals.

They have forgotten that the balance between the right and the left is a balance between the wealth of the right and the numbers of the left. Moving toward the right to create a 'center' just moves them away from their power base, thus weakening their own position.

Just as the middle class is created by empowering the poor and limiting the rich, the political center is created by empowering the left and limiting the right. The only thing that the right fears is the possibility of a mass uprising of the poor, and uprising that will burn their mansions and seize their wealth.

We are returning to that dichotomy - the center destroyed, the left, and the poor, disenfranchised and the wealth concentrated more and more on the right. Without the center as a buffer between them, the only possible result will be the inevitable uprising. Unless these criminals are brought to justice soon, we are in for some terrible times.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. So explain Jon Corzine

He's pretty loaded and I would hardly say that he endorses moving to the center.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. It's a generalization. There are always exceptions to the rule. nt

[Seabiscuit]

69. I'm a "wealthy liberal" and to the left of progressive. I reject the DLC.

There are a lot of "wealthy liberals" in my neighborhood and none of us fit the stereotype described in this thread.

You're using the wrong model. There are millions of progressive/liberal people with wealth in this country. The difference is we earned it ourselves through honest work. We never had the Rethug "robber baron"/"privileged" mentality.

My values and principles were honed through years of poverty and years of hard, honest work.

What you're really talking about is wealthy politicians who are democrats in name only (DINO's) like Lieberman, et. al. I could name a lot of others but it would surely anger some here who are staunch defenders of same because every now and then they give lip service to our principles.

[DURHAM D]

6. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker it is not a winning strategy. eom

[BootinUp]

7. In the end its all about winning

I think its up to each politician to form a successful strategy. Bill did his part. If there were more successful liberal politicians to support him he could have done more.

[HereSince1628]

10. That DLC meme is wrong. It's actually all about _serving_

The DLC's pushing of the idea that winning is everything is what has completely undone the ideals of the party.

In the place of party ideals, the DLC offerred up the stupid campaining concept of triangulation.

Winning is not the end, it is the means to the end. Serving and serving well is really what it is all about.

[Armstead]

11. I disagree with that dichotomy. There are many ways to "win"

I agree that Clinton was good at winning, as an individual politician.

But the ability to win is not the issue. That's a false dichotomy. It is a matter of both ideology and strategy. It's a matter of how it is executed too. The fact that Clinton could embrace centrism and win, while the Democratic Establisment embraced centrism and lost, only proves the point that winning is not limited to one ideological approach.

There are many ways to win, and taking a strong and clear liberal stand on the side of the middle class and poor over the interests of the elite is one of them.

[primavera]

13. He was pretty good at losing, too

Conceding the battle and allowing a "fuck the poor" approach to welfare reform to prevail is not "winning," even if it did win for him personally another term in office. Likewise, going to a rabid, anti-immigrant, right-wing activist organition like FAIR and allowing them to draft his immigration reform policy is not a "victory." Fine, it stole a little Republican thunder for a bit, denied them a weapon to be used against him, but that "victory" came at the cost of defeats for the poorest and least able to defend themselves in our society.

Personally, I think the primary miscalculation in centrism is its fundamental misunderstanding of the adversarial nature of democracy. It's like they're bought into the myth that democracy is somehow about truth and justice and liberty when, in fact, it's about the nonviolent resolution of diverse conflicting interests. The system is therefore - heart, body, and soul - adversarial. It relies upon each interest articulating and zealously defending its priorities for it to function. If one side folds, the system collapses and it becomes a vessel for one party dominance.

Centrists seem to think that, if they moderate their views to some Caspar Milquetoast position, the other side will be terribly impressed by how reasonable they're being and will surely follow their example. But it doesn't work that way, it never has; the other side simply exploits your weakness and drags the political spectrum that much farther to their idealized vision of what the world should look like. With the spectrum thus shifted, a new center establishes itself, and yesterday's centrists have to reallign themselves lest they appear to left-leaning within the new context. And the process repeats.

What centrists fail to grasp is that their target center position is one which will continuously shift unless someone is holding the opposite pole and preventing the political norm from shifting. So they're reduced to constantly chasing after a continuously moving middle ground, reacting to the other side's agenda instead of proactively articulating their own. Every battle is thus lost before it even has a chance to begin and the spectrum keeps moving inexoribly towards the extreme right.

[BootinUp]

23. I agree with this one phrase "continuously shift"

In fact I wrote a post yesterday where I acknowledged something similar. In my view there is no way Bill Clinton or anyone else can prevent those shifts, they can have some effect by use of their campaigning skills, but in the end the electorate chooses the direction the country will go.

What amazes with all this "centrist" bashing is that so many here seem to have a poor understanding of the last couple hundred years of our political and economic history, and are unable to apply any of it to the future apparently. Instead there is this bitching and blaming our problems on one of the most successful politicians of our time.

How many more house seats, senate seats and Presidential races would we have lost if there was no change to the party platform. The 70's and 80's saw a major shift in the fundamental political environment here. It was because the electorate demanded changes.

[Armstead]

26. It's chicken and egg problem

There was a general desire for change after the turmoil of the 60's and the mortass of the 1970's.

And one of the problems was perceived (perhaps rightfully so) is that what had been liberal policies had become entrenched and stifling bureaucracies that seemed both oppressive and ineffective to many people.

So perhaps a consewrvative shift was inevitable.

However two points:

1)That does not mean Democrats should have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Rethinking the ways to make liberalism more effective did not have to require that we give up the principles and goals. And it especially should not have meant embracing the views of the otehr side that arepatently wrong, like the notion that allowing monopolies to form is necessary to preserve competition. Or that screwing workers is good for the economy.

2)How long should we have wallowed in defeatism and fatalism after 1980? Surely after 25 years we should be ready to try more than keep replaying the factors that have made the shift to the right more embedded and intractable.

When people are not given real alternatives, they are not going to feel that there is any point in demanding the changes that they really want. That's where leadership is important. A leader can't force people to want something, but s/he should articulate what they want and make it seem possible through unified action.

[BootinUp]

28. I think you're asking good questions

I don't believe we gave up our principles only shifted our positions as necessary to remain competitive.

The length and severity of the shift in my opinion have been made worse due to the continuing changes in the global economy which is increasing the pressure on our manufacturing base with no end yet in sight...

AND the RW mastery of the media for spreading lies and outright distortions of the truth.

That is another thing that Bill did very well was to defend himself against that smear machine.

[primavera]

30. It all depends upon how you define "successful"

If by "successful" you mean adept at staying in office, then I agree completely, Bill Clinton was consumately "successful." My definition of "success" however extends to include not only remaining in office, but the collective good achieved by that individual remaining in office. And I stick by my guns: by lending the credibility of his party to his compromise positions, Bill Clinton did more than any Republican could ever have done to shift the balance of power in this country towards the right. A Republican stands up and says welfare recipients are undeserving and the US electorate hears that with a grain of salt, knowing that this is precisely the sort of thing a Republican would say. They will reserve judgement until they've heard the other side of the story (which they will also take with a grain of salt) and will arrive at the conclusion that the truth lies somewhere in between. When Democrats join their voices with those of Republicans in declaring poor people to be undeserving, the electorate will conclude that this is apparently one of those rare instances where there aren't two sides to the story, huh, go figure, guess there's no point in arguing about this issue anymore since now both sides are in complete agreement on the subject. A new norm is established in which poor people are now universally acknowledged as undeserving bums and everyone lives happily ever after... except, of course, the poor people. But they're just bums, as both parties agree, so there's really no need to lose sleep on their account, is there?

[BootinUp]

34. Well, this might be an unpopular post...

But I happened to agree that there were problems with the welfare system in the 70's. So when Clinton ran on reforms, I thought he did the right thing. See he perceived that the electorate had already decided that.

Something else about Clinton. He is known as a policy wonk. That means he is highly informed on the issues. When he made judgments about the welfare system, taxes, education, etc, it was not just for political expediency. Becuase he was so knowledgable, it helped him gain trust during the difficult economic period oof the early nineties.

Ok, not sure I have much more to say on this subject so its back to being quiet, reading and trying to learn more. Take care.

[Armstead]

46. Believe it or not, I agree with that

For whatever combination of reasons, liberalism had reached an impasse in the 1970's. We often forget how stuck and hopeless many things seemed in the 1970's, and how futile and gummed up the bureaucracy seemed.

But now, we have a similar morass, except it is a corporate "free market" one. That's why I believe the pendulum is ready to take a swing in our direction again -- if we are smart enough to give it a push.

[primavera]

55. Well, I don't

I have no illusions that the welfare system was perfect, anymore than the immigration system was perfect, and I was agreeable to reforming it. Please note, however: burning it to the ground and leaving nothing in its place does not count as "reform." If that is the only "reform" one has in mind, then I for one would rather live with the flawed existing system until such time, in the hopefully not too distant future, when one can come up with a better system. "Futile and gummed up" the system may well have been; it still saved a whole lot of people from winding up homeless and on the streets. Scrapping the whole thing without the slightest regard for the people who, for better or for worse, depended upon it will never be anything but unconscionable to my way of thinking. Fine, gutting it deprived the Republicans, who have proven themselves to be the ultimate in big, expensive government, of the chance to lambast Dems for taxing and spending. I wonder if the poor people living in cardboard boxes now as a result of that deal would consider it all that great a bargain.

[Armstead]

63. I am not supporting "burning it down either"

The harsh nature of welfare reform pissed me off too. It threw too many people off support systems with no jobs capable of supporting them on any decent level.

But there was much need for reform, even if it was only to reduce the bureaucracy and paperwork involved. The one time I had to get food stamps in the 70's, the process was so frustrating and humiliating that the food almost wasn't worth it.

It is like environmentalism. One can support the goal of environmental regulation, while also recognizing that it should not have to be necessary to fill out five forms in triplicate just to paint a house.

As I said in my original post, I believe we liberals should stick to our guns, and not water down our beliefs. But Liberals should not be afraid to re-think our ideas or listen to valid concerns of conservatives, libertarians or average peopel in the middle either.

[primavera]

65. Agreed, no argument there n/t

[primavera]

56. You have a lot to learn about policy wonks

Believe me, I work as a policy wonk. And yes, one does get to spend a lot of ones time reading up on issues and it's generally a brighter than average professional community. But it's also a community of players, the vast majority of whom have grown so accustomed to the gulf that exists between what makes for good policy and what is politically possible, they've almost completely lost sight of the fact that they were originally supposed to be trying to figure out what would be a responsible policy. Even in the institute where I work, which is almost entirely staffed by Dems, time and again bad policies will be endorsed for the sake of preserving the organization's standing with both parties. It's actually really kind of sleazy.

Being a player in DC means you've sold out everything that ever meant anything to you in order to have your seat at the table where the powerful and influential make decisions. And you're quite right: Bill Clinton fits that description to a "T," but it's not a compliment.

[Armstead]

64. That's one reason we have to open up beyond DC

I'm a big believer in grass-roots progressivism. I see what can be done on a community level to advance liberal principles every day by average people and groups on the ground.

IMO national liberalism can and should provide a larger support system for ther local people in the trenches who deal with the reality of policies on the receiving end everyday.

[BootinUp]

70. Oh come on

The definition I implied is the correct one. Your definition is distorted by your years of being one. ;)


http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/wonk

wonk:

a person who works or studies too much, especially someone who learns and knows all the details about something:

[primavera]

77. You're probably right, but I think my definition best fits Clinton

I have family who used to work in government in Arkansas while Clinton was governor and actually worked with him personally on various projects and got to know him a bit and they've always been firm in their conviction that he's always been a player - brilliant, but far more adept at doing whatever it takes to preserve power than coming up with the policies that are best for his constituents. It's also the definition of "wonk" which is most widely applied to him here in DC, by both supporters and opponents. All respect his incredible political shrewdness, but few respect the integrity of his positions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Right, by the criterion of staying in office, General Francisco Franco

was one of the most "successful" politicians of all time. But he kept Spain at a nearly nineteenth century level throughout his more than 40-year tenure.

[Q]

81. It's ironic that...

...this is exactly why the Democratic party has become the minority party. They seem to stand for nothing EXCEPT winning.

People want leadership...not triangulation and going along with criminals in order to keep a seat at the table of power.

There are no 'successful' liberal politicians because there are two forces working against them. Both the Right and the 'New Democrats' spend most of their time demonizing liberals/true progressives instead of each other.

Liberals are not welcome because they represent exactly what the Neocons and Neodems are trying to eliminate in American politics: a government of, by and for the people.

[BootinUp]

88. This argument is little more than emotional tripe.

Its always someone elses fault that so and so politician couldn't win. Look as I have said in other posts in the thread, there were changes in the electorate that caused much of the dems losses. So adjust to it, and win again thats all. Stop looking for a scapegoat.

[madaboutharry]

9. This is my problem with Clinton:

I believe he is a decent man who truly believes that government showld serve the people. His problem is that he somehow fails to embrace the understanding that the right does not see this as the role of government. It is a projection issue.

[Armstead]

12. I must admit I'm guilty of that too

That optimistic belief about politics is something I do like about Clinton. Despite everything, I still find it hard to believe that those in power in a democracy can have neferious motives...Gets me into trouble on DU sometimes. LOL

I guess it's a constant battle between that naive faith and cynicism/realism.

[primavera]

16. It's not cynical to be realistic

Is one cynical if one understands that courtrooms are adversarial places? Why? Conflicts do come up in the real world and resolving them without drawing blood in the process is no meagre achievement, indeed it is a thing to be celebrated. That our form of government is one which allows interests as diverse as Halliburton and the NAACP to be represented and aired without anyone killing each other in the process is likewise a significant accomplishment, not to be undervalued. It should not make one cynical to acknowledge that entities like Halliburton are among the interests represented, that's only to be expected. What is worrisome is when the interests of entities like Halliburton become the only ones represented to the expense of all others, then the system is too one-sided and is ceasing to fulfil its primary function.

[Armstead]

18. I agree -- The lack of balanced representation is an issue

But looking around it is also easy to get cynical sometimes.

[renie408]

15. Aren't comments like this as bad as...

the generalizations that 'they' make about 'us'?

Does EVERYBODY to the right not believe that government should serve the people? What do they think it is for, then?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. To repress those who disagree with them

As Barbara Ehrenreich noted in a long-ago newspaper column, the right wing has torn down all the benevolent aspects of government while building up the repressive aspects (military, War on Drugs, police).

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Clinton's too smart to be that naive

I think that at this point, he's just trying to be a statesman. And as Leo McGarry puts it "Statesmanship is compromise".

[nini]

14. To get something done these days you have to play both sides of the fence

That's what I see in him.

Considering the state of this country today, it is about the only way we'll get anything accomplished.


Do I wish it was different? Absolutely! But the reality says different and I'll take anything until we can turn the tide back our way.

[primavera]

17. How do you expect the tide to turn...

...if, in order to make your policies palatable to your political opponents, you sell out your party's values and vision, undermine your credibility, and dilute your message to the point where is has nothing to offer anyone? Who then is going to be impressed by your "alternative" vision for the country's future and want to support you over your opponent? Or do you simply hope that the other side will self-destruct without us having to articulate an alternative vision and run the risk of alienating some voters? I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

[nini]

20. Do you really think a FAR left agenda will fly right now?

Seriously, this country is so polarized things aren't going to go left again over night. We have been so vilified as 'Liberals' that we have to pick stuff apart and win some battles before winning the war.

[primavera]

29. Probably not

But it would at least establish a record of more left-leaning alternatives which were rejected which could be looked to as it became increasingly obvious that the right-wing policies were catastrophic failures. Voters could look at what their options had been versus what they chose, appreciate a clear distinction between the two, observe first hand the costs associated with what they chose, and re-think their positions. As it is, the only politician atriculating an alternative to the Patriot Act, just as an example, is Russ Feingold. When voters find themselves dragged off to Gitmo in the dead of night for jaywalking, they will know something has gone seriously wrong, but what alternative did they ever have? After all, Republicans AND Democrats alike supported Patriot Act in overwhelming numbers, how was a voter ever to have known there was any serious cause for concern if everyone was in such chummy accord on what a great policy the Patriot Act was? To whom will the voter turn for relief from the excesses of these years? The Republicans who supported these fascist measures, or the Democrats who... um... supported the very same fascist measures?

[Armstead]

36. Please define a "far left" agenda

That term gets thrown around way too often these days. It's like a boogeyman that makes us afraid to say or do anything.

If advocating for complete socialism and the abolition of private property is what you call a far left agenda, I'll agree with you.

Howevwer, if you think that such goals as strong government intervention to ensure that every American has access to affordable health care is too "far left" then I must strongly disagree.

Likewise if you believe that clear opposition to this misguided adventure in Iraq is "far left" I must also disagree. Opposition to the war is becoming more dominant every day.

[mestup]

51. Agree! Also, we need some MSM coverage of a Socialist Candidate

...so Americans can see how far to the right the whole country has shifted. It would make it easier to see the "centrism" of a single payer health care system.

[primavera]

57. Second that! n/t

[Armstead]

19. I think it's more a matter of bargaining from a fixed position

IMO the only way to make progress is to stand our ground, while accepting the inevitability of compromise down the line.

For example, healthcare. We should start from a position for universal coverage that's as good as we can dream up, and push for that....Inevitably, it may have to go through bargaining and compromise, but we'll get kore if we start with a pure position.

That's the problem today. The Corporate sector and right-wing GOP start with a fixed position, while our side starts with a compromise. The results is that when it comes times for bargaining, they already have the advantage and we lose.

[nini]

21. Makes sense...

I'm for anything that will chip away at their power and policy.

[rman]

93. Then why are Repubs not playing both sides of the fence?

And just look at what they get done: all things that serve themselves and their own, which Neo Liberalism seem to try to emulate.

[StudentOfDarrow]

22. The thing is that Bill Clinton was extrodinary enough to fuse

conventional liberalism and the centrism and make it work. The problem is that almost no one else can pull that off, and that when it fails, as with Biden and Bayh, it screws the party and the country.

[Disturbed]

27. Ah, the myth.

"...the myth that democracy is somehow about truth and justice and liberty when, in fact, it's about the nonviolent resolution of diverse conflicting interests." KevinJ

Amerika has always been an Oligarchy. Now it is a Corporatist Oligarchy with the Corp. Media being complicit. The Dem Party has lost the support of most labor and the Middle Class by compromising so much that the RW political machine has stolen the majority of the power and Dems for the most part are treading water.

[BL611]

31. I agree mostly with your critique of neoliberalism

But I don't believe Clinton falls as neatly into that mold as you might be insinuating. I too a few years ago had the gag reflex to some aspects of Clinton's presidency but when you really take a look at the realties.

We all know Health Care was a screw up, but it certainly wasn't because of a capitulation to corporate interests.The original Clinton conception of welfare reform included massive resources for job training and day care and was really a great bill that could have really helped the poor, again it failed because of a lack of political capital not out of deference to the wealthy. Clinton was certainly the most environmentally friendly President in a while. Clinton also did quite a job reforming many federal agencies and making them more responsive ( FEMA is the most obvious one at the moment, but by no means the only) these types of things don't get headlines, but as can be plainly seen now can save countless lives. Even certain mistakes such as NAFTA and the telecommunications act had a certain logic (and inevitability)at the time beyond the kowtowing to corporate interests. Ultimately Clinton had to work against the grain during an age of RW ascendancy, that his Presidency was only a half fulfilled vision has more to do with forces that were (mostly) beyond his control then a philosophy of corporate whoring.

[Armstead]

35. The assumption of inevitability is our problem

That's where I differ. Our side has bought into the myth of "inevitability" too heavily.

Apart from certain biological and physical factors, nothing manmade is inevitable. It only becomes inevitable if we decide it is.

For example, international trade is a good thing. But there is nothing inevitable about how it will be carried out,or how a nation will participate. However, if we are told endlessly that the neo-liberal "free trade" version of it is inevitable, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

IMO the whole basis of liberalism is that we can determine our fate,and are not subject to the forces of uncontrollable "markets." That's what sets us apart from conservatives, who believe that processes are inevitable, and that all we can do is capitalize on them individually.

I realize that holding back what seem to be inevitable tides is often easier said than done, but it's both possible and necessary. Our side needs to stand our ground to ptotect what should be protected, advance poilicies that should be advanced and steer social and economic and political forces in a more enlightened and benevolent direction.

[BL611]

37. The neoliberal vision of free trade is not inevitable

however structural changes to the economy are, the days of fordism are over that doesn't mean it has to be replaced by the neoliberal "golden straight jacket". Again Clinton tried to mobilize resources for massive retraining for low skilled workers and those all together out of the job market, Clinton tried to lessen the health care burden on the private sector therefore making it more appealing to hire Americans (ironically it was the idiot corporations who fought vehemently against something that would have been a huge help to them). There is a difference between trying to eliminate the welfare state a trying to adapt it to different world. Change is inevitable, how we adapt to it is not.

[Armstead]

39. Flux is the only constant

I agree with much of what you said you said, up to a point. But we have to recognize that the economy is always in flux and undergoing changes. In order to deal with that, we need to stick to a fixed set of principles.

What you called Fordism was actually a dramatic social and economic change while it was occurring too. It ended up enlarging the middle class largely because liberalism pushed to make industrialization as humane as possible. Without liberals fighting back against the conservative forces, any transition is going to descend to the worst, instead of rising tides lifting all boats.

I fear that if process of Fordism were going on today, it would have merely perpetuated the bleak harshness of the earlier industrial revolution, and Democrats would have accepted that as inevitable.

[BL611]

41. Yes, but it took the Great depression

and one of the greatest leaders in our history to institute those reforms, and they were NEW reforms to adapt to that flux, the response was the new deal, not the cross of gold....

[Armstead]

43. Well, something similar occurred before that

Earlier in the 20th Century, in the flux and progresive response in the decades before the Great Depression. That action/reaction is always going on in one form or another, unless one side capitulates.

An exhausting thought I realize, but many on our side has been resting for 30 years, so we should be ready to start a new round. :)

[BL611]

44. Agreed

However I think Clinton's vision had(has) many elements of the beginning of that new round.

[BootinUp]

38. Not inevitable, unpredictable.

I have no problem with continuing the fight in the spirit you suggest.

[barb162]

33. His intellect and stellar personality obscured a lot.

And he never had COngress, really, to implement his programs; he was always being attacked and on guard.

[bluedawg12]

40. What is your solution?

It is necessary to simplify the complexities that gloss over the core issues of Wealth and Power.

OK, simplify, how, what?

It is necessary to put government into the hands of the majority, not just the elites.

Sure, how?

Most important, it is necessary to challenge the systemic problems that result from excessive concentrations of Wealth and Power

Challenge the systemic problems that result from excess concentrations of wealth...or to challenge the systemic problem of the excessive concentrations of Wealth and Power?

This sounds like rhetoric. A diatribe against the power elite with out any indication of what a true liberal would do, having now identified the problems.

[Armstead]

42. I addressed some of it in the posts above

You can readthose to get my opinion and ideas in somewhat more specific terms.

But on a broader level, my answer is to simplify and solidify the core beliefs of liberals and progressives in Big terms and ideal goals, and work outward from that. If you start with clear goals, solutions to specifics can come from that.

That's how the conservatives/Republicans gained power. Reagan had a very simple message at base, and the specifics flowed from that.

The problem with our side these days is that we too often focus on micros and forget the macros. So we scurry around without any real guiding principles.

Example of what I would suggest is that the role of government is to ensure that every American has access to healthcare that is affordable to everyone. From that, many possible spoecific plans can arise.

But if we simply look for little ways to gnaw at the edges, we get nothing, and thus enable the continuing victory of conservatives and the corporate status quo by default.

Katrina is anotehr good example. Bashing Bush for incompetance is okay....But it not do us much good if we ignore the core reasons behind the incompetance, and the fallacy of the right-wing plans for how it will be done.


On the otehr hand, John Edwards seems to have the right idea by pushing for the rebuilding process to be a public-works project that will actually benefit the people who have been displaced....That is a clear ideological liberal alternative to the GOP plan to privatize and use the rebuilding to siphon taxpayer money into the corporate coffers.

[bluedawg12]

45. Good, I got it and along these lines

here is some info. I just found as I try to educate myself on these major political issues, so bear with me.

But, along the line of our core message, some good news that we are not left of the mainstream on many issues:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t143.html

Lakoff's central idea is that conservatives see the world through a
>"strict father" frame emphasizing discipline, self-reliance, forceful
>defense, while progressives see the world through a "nurturant parent"
>frame-supportive, nourishing, emphasizing mutual responsibility. Lakoff
>claims that thirty-five to 40 percent of Americans fall into each camp,
>although most are some sort of mix.

So, it's easy to see why progressives are rallying around Lakoff's call
>to arms. Since polls show majorities actually agree with the progressive
>agenda on many key issues, including corporate power, the environment
>and abortion, focusing on "framing" issues in ways that Americans can
>understand them seems like the answer they've been praying for.

....

Polls show that majorities agree with progressive ideas including corporate power, abortion and the environment.

Also, the Edwards message about a public works programs to provide jobs for the displaced Americans- work means independence, self respect, repatriation back to Louisiana (for example)--instead the asswipe gives more bloated budget contracts to no bid multinationalho's where is the hue and cry over this outrage?

It's the message, it's how we project it, and getting used to how the enemy operates; on smears, lies, and the politics of personal destruction.

One thing about Clinton, he is, I think treating softly and getting back into the public forum, but as he talks and smiles and seems optimistic, he still quietly blasts the powers that be for screwing up fema, for the negligence of global warming and melting ice caps, and for neglect of the poor. He got air time, and he got the beginning of a listen-able message across.

Peace.

[primavera]

58. May I ask you a question, Armstead?

You touch on something which keeps me awake at nights and I confess I'm stumped. You talk about having a simple message and I readily agree, it is plainly the strength of the Republicnas that they are able to articulate so clearly their goals in easily comprehended terms. On the flip side, though, the devil is in the details and many of the goals we would set for ourselves are ones we would likely share with the Repukes, such as national security, for instance. Who here wants an insecure America wide open to terrorists to come and go as they please? Let's have a show of hands, please! See? Nobody raised their hand, we all agree. It's when you break that down to what exactly are we willing to do to achieve national security that it gets thornier. Are we willing to shoot on sight anyone who has dark skin? Don't laugh, I was reading a post in GD the other day about a young woman working for a North Carolina paper who was advocating pretty much that. She and her oft-quoted idol Ann Coulter were evidently in total agreeement on that point.

Or consider my specialization, namely, immigration. The easy, clear cut message is that illegal aliens are law breakers who steal jobs from Americans. See how easy that was? Scapegoating is always much easier than getting at the truth. To describe to you why it's not that simple, we'd have to get into a several hour discussion about challenges in worksite and border enforcement, economic growth and commodities pricing, international trade balances, inadequacies in existing policies which contribute to the problem, the diminishing quality of our underfunded educational system, tax incentives for companies to fire US workers and move their businesses offshore, hell, we could be at it all night. But that's the reality. It's a complex issues which defies ready compartmentalization.

A part of me thinks that we ought to focus our attention on educating people so they can understand the nuances which make the Repukes' childishly oversimplified, black and white policies as dangerous as they are. Then a part of me thinks, that's absurb: I've been studying this stuff for 20 years and frankly I'm none too sure I get it. So my question is: in your vision of a simplified, clear cut message for Dems, how do you tackle things which are legitimately complex and/or counterintuitive?

[Armstead]

66. The framework can be simple, even when the issues are complex

To be perfectly honest, I believe one reason we have crippled ourselves is that we have let the complexity of issues overwhelm our basic instincts.

I also believe that's why we don't connect with people as well as we should.

The GOP message is simple. But when it gets to the details, they are just as complicated as we are. What they have succeeded at -- and where we have failed -- is to build a framework of basic principles that accomodate all of the internal paradoxes and contradictions iof issues.

Most people -- political junkies included -- can only assimilate so much information. Everybody has selective areas of interest. For example, I have my own "hot button" issues that I am passionate about and have a good understanding of. But there are also many other issues that I care about genrally, but don't want to deal with the details about.

I believe there are certain core principles and values that define liberalism. If we can define and express those clearly, then we don't have to be overwhelmed by the complexities of individual issues.

That doesn't make those issues any less complicated and puzzling. But it can create a framnework to work on them with basic goals in mind, and gain public support for those goals. If people trust and support what you are doing basically, that allows the specialists to deal with the devils in the details.

A long, somewhat complicated answer to your question :) I realize. The short answer is -- to use your example -- is that I'll trust you to grapple with immigration if I believe you're on the same page in terms of basic values and social goals that I am. I think that's the same thing people want from political leaders.

[primavera]

67. Good answer, thanks

A pleasure reading your posts, Armstead. Have yourself a good night! :hi:

[meow2u3]

47. Clinton's intellect obscures the problem with neoliberalism

Neoliberals use conservative means (make the rich richer, unfettered trade, anti-labor policies, punitive welfare "reforms") to try to attain liberal ends. One can't do that without betraying who should be the Democrats' base: labor and the working poor.

[Pepperbelly]

48. okay ... I read your entire post carefully ...

and do not understand what you propose to repair this descrepency in income/wealth. I mean ... shit ... I'm all for it being pretty damned poor myself but what is it that you think should be done?

And how is that going to affect the Waltons up in Bentonville and me down in Sherwood?

[bluedawg12]

49. The majority are well off- and the

poor want to be upwardly mobile.

So, it's got to be a message of hope for a better life for all.

Something lik a position that says:

Double the well being instead of cutting it in half.

What do poor kids aspire to- MTV kribs or das kapital?

[Pepperbelly]

50. I'm not talking about spin or solgans ...

I mean what can be done ... really, realistically done to accomplish the leveling of the economic playing fields?

I am absolutely uncertain but open for suggestions.

[Armstead]

52. For starters look at what was done in the 20th Century

We haven't really had liberalism much in the last 30 years. But before that, liberals did a great deal to enlarge the middle class, keep the corporate sector in line and provide a safety net.

I'd suggest we look at that tradition, and bring it back into the political dialogue, and apply it to modern realities.

It's a long list of possibilities, and would be the potential subject for many individual threads and discussions on DU and elsewhere. But basically we have to start thinking in terms of what we CAN do in a positive sense, rather than limiting it and restricting what we can't do because of some perceived resistance in the population at large.

I'd also suggest on a personal level that you look closely at what YOU want, and what social and economic conditions you believe would make that more attainable.

A good job? Economic policies that would use some combinations o0f carrots and sticks to start expecting corporations to treat their workforce with the respect and wages and benefits they deserve.

Healthcare? What type of system would shift the priorities from making a boatload of money for insurers and big medical corporations, and treat the public health as a public goal.

I realize I'm not being super specific. As I say, the details would be (and have been) the subject of many discussions here. But if you consider a framework of thinking what is possble and desirable for yourself and society as a whole, that's a good start.

[Pepperbelly]

53. The problem is one of distribution ...

of wealth. As noted in the OP ... it is the age-old problem of the poor continuing to get poorer and the rich ... well you know the rest.

So it is too much and too little at the same time.

One of the solution ... if you recall ... when as populists, the progressive income tax was introduced, by 1960, the rates at the top end approached or exceeded 90%.

It was under THAT system that we so flourished for so long. Perhaps the 90% were excessive or maybe not. But 28% is not going to transfer much wealth anywhere, particularly when they can tweak that 28% even more and get out of most of that.

Just some thoughts...

[Armstead]

54. The disparity of Income distribution has become obscene

being a semi-old fart of 53, I can remember the days before this distorted set of economic principles came into vogue. Some of the realities that are condoned today would have seemed ridiculous back then.

We've always had a wealthy class. But extent to which the upper minority have become excessivbely wealthy at the expense of everyone else has gone way over the line.

Like the ratio of CEO pay to the average line worker was, I think, something like 8 to 1 in the 1960's. Today ceos are making several hundred times the income of the average line worker. And that gap keep widening.

There are a combination of values and policies that have caused that, including the rollback of progressive taxation and wage policies that rewarda few excessively while driving down the income of thye average and lower class majority.

But the plain truth is that most people (crazy deluded freepers aside) find that instinctively bad and contrary to their own self-interest and the interests of society.

Politically, it's a matter of appealing to the common sense side of peope. That means making it clear trhat peopel who want something better do not have to settle for the right wing conventional wisdom anymore, because the Democrats are on their side and will represent and fight for their interests in basic and tangible ways again.

[Pepperbelly]

60. But you still haven't suggested any solution to it.

I agree. The problem sucks. It is a veritable black hole of suckiness. You don't have to make that case.

But what in the world COULD be done to rectify it? Do you have any notions?

I think that substantially raising the taxes on those Bush helped in his earlier cuts, put their asses back up to the 50 or 60% range and then balance the budget. If there is anything left, buy back Bush's debt at an accelerated rate.

Take away the repeal of the Estate Tax. Pay for economic development in our poorer regions. And a safety-net health provision for people.

Put us on a pay-go basis.

Those are some of my ideas. Fuck, I don't know.

on edit, you old bastard. I am a spry 52. :D

[bluedawg12]

61. Tax corporations first and hardest and stop obscene

CEO salaries that rival the GDP of some emerging nations.

Didn't Eisner once get a $250 million stock option payed to himself- while Disney stock actually fell? Douche bad.

[Armstead]

62. What you suggested plus....

My first answer is almost non-political. We as a nation -- especially we as liberals and Democrats have to change our attitudes and start promoting vetter values for economic activity.

If you're a sprightly 52 :P you saw how the relationship between economics and business have deteriorated into a morass of greed and celebration of selfishness. For example, the notion of being a healthy company making reasonable profits was replaced by the notion that it was necessary to kill the competition and generate immense and obscene profits....The results of that "kill or be killed" mentality ultimately drove ouit all other factors, such as responsibility to workers and communities.

So we liberals at the grass roots -- and Democratic leaders -- have to start becoming advocates for a return to more humanistic and reasonable business values again. We have to stop enabling those destructive conservative values.

I believe that is necessary and possible. Nobody wants to support econoimic values that are screwing them. If Democrats become moral leaders again, that will also bring our side political power, and cultivate the ground of public opinion for real meaningful reform.

Other ideas:

Start virgorsouly enforcing anti-trust actions, especially when companies thatr are already way too big want to get even bigger.
That is NOT an anti-business proposal either. What it would do -- smong otehr things -- is to protect a truly free and competative market for smaller and mid-sized companies.

I'd also suggest fighting for a minimum wage that keeps up with the cost of living again. It used to do that, and it should do it again. It's not the be-all and end-all, but it would help those on the bottom, and also establish a clear signal that Demnocrats are back in the business of protecting workers' rights.

Also, democrats should stop buying into the neo-liberal "free trade" con job, and instead negotiate trade agreements with countries on a more case-by-case basis on a democratic (small d) basis. Recognize that a certain degree of protectionism is necessary to protect American workers and companies from unfair competition. Use provisions that protect us from foreign dumping. Also tie in trade agreements with requirements that other nations that want to trade with us have to guarantee their own workers fair pay and conditions....Also use strategies that make it more difficult for US corporations to ship operations overseas.

Restore the idea of media diversity, and regulations to require more accountability to the public interest from the media. That's not economic, but it is important.

Those are a few ideas.

[bluedawg12]

71. Those are out standing!

The minimum age has got to be upped.

Agree with anti-trust.

Media diversity- You know, Raygun did this. he got them to drop fairness in broadcasting practices, so you did not have to put two opposing political sides on the air for balance. That opened the way for the explosion of RW talk-hate radio and then FCC Powell dropped the anti-trust laws- allowing big companies to buy small stations etc.

BTW- the father of conservative economics is Milton Friedman, he pioneered the idea that the only obligation companies have is to make profits for their shareholders.

He is to corporations and cons what Grover Nordquist is to tax cuts and cons.

Them you have neocons and their view of the world- and lo':

You have the shrub WH.

[rman]

94. "majority is well off"? i doubt that very much

Certainly a tiny minority is in fact rich (or more wealthy still then just rich..) - 50% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population, or thereabouts.
The middle class is living one month's salary away from backrupcy - that's hardly "well off". And the (working) poor (of which there are many) are just that: poor - and working. The unemployed who no longer get unemployment benefits *aren't even counted as being unemployed*.

[Mr_Spock]

76. I had the same thought

Can all wrongs be corrected simply by taking a different tact? And what are the suggested solutions?

[bluedawg12]

59. Jobs, education, upward mobility, tax corporations fairly

There was a time when a kid from a blue collar neighborhood could grow up and work the mills and have a good union job, with a good salary, benefits and a pension plan.

That is gone. The mills are owned by overseas people, the steel mill in Gary is owned by a man from India who owns steel mills all over the world. Pensions are lost and workers-men and women in their 50's work 4 twelve hour shifts, and then rotate from days to nights destroying their bodies.

The son of one of the poorest families in my neighborhood, the dad was a mechanic, a hunter, the house was a mess, a pool table in the dining room and beagles running all over the house- I ran into him 10 years later on a hospital elevator- he was a 5th year star resident in surgery.


The American middle class was strong, and it actually was mainly blue collar.

Kids could rise by their own brains and drive. Public education was decent, private schools ( the kid and his sister went to catholic schools- the family could afford it--with out faith based voucher crappola)were affordable for blue collar families- esp. Irish, Italian, and Polish 1st and second generations.

Now, the gap is wider because the middle class is being destroyed, and the middle class was the link--the working class,really- was the link for kids to upward mobility.

Now, public education seems to be failing, my teacher friends are very displeased.

Blue collar jobs have been turned to slave labor--the middle aged factory workers are hit hard, feel uncertain, and are disposable to management.

The machine for re-distribution of wealth was the steady rise of immigrants from poor- to working middle class-which was a decent level of good life- and a few could even rise to wealth.

Now, there are 2 million dollar homes in places where they were $75,000 twenty years ago, Yuppies driving $60,000 SUV's--no one is going to rise from poverty to that crazy and obscene level of consumerism and wealth with out jobs- nor should they, that is crazy and greedy- but, the gap is widening between the very poor and very wealthy like in 3rd world countries- we need to rebuild and strengthen our middle class.

Stop Corporate welfare- they msut pay their fair share of taxes.
We don't need to tax the fruits of our labor, i.e. wages, we need to tax multinatonal companies that evade taxes with off shore fake head quarters and fancy accouting tricks.

Stop the payroll tax.

Outlaw the ability of US corproations to set up dummy head quarters in tax havens.

Stop/out law outsourcing manufacturing and industry, and tech jobs, stop exporting factories whole sale to cheap labor markets.

Stop the unregulated influx of cheap foreign labor to our country to be exploited by greedy business owners.

The laws are stacked in favor of the corporate elite.

[valerief]

68. The rich don't share…ever. Ever. Never ever.

You have to con it out of them.

[understandinglife]

74. Arianna Huffington: "Bill Clinton's Muddled Attempt to Own the Middle"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bill-clintons-muddled-at_b_7586.html


Peace.

[bvar22]

75. Democratic "Centrists"!

[Armstead]

82. Ha,ha

Funny but true....(Or is it sad but true?)

Jim Hightowerr was right then and he's still right.

[Nothing Without Hope]

78. Recommended.

:kick:

[Stockholm]

79. Interesting and very well written!

nominated!

[Q]

80. There are a million ways to say it...

...but it all comes down to this: the Democratic party has failed the American people. It has failed to serve as the only opposition available in a two-party system. And this is exactly why we're screwed: no third or independent parties and the winner takes all mentality that drives our politics.

We seem to spend a lot of time intellectualizing about the rich getting richer and the poor getting nothing. This great experiment called democracy has failed and we haven't quite come to believe it yet. We don't want to believe it. It's too difficult to think about 200 years of struggle for equality coming down to greed winning in the end.

What can we do about it? Nothing. Nothing until we recognize that our party's leadership is part of the problem. It's not just that they're too 'centrist'. It's that they've joined the other side in maintaining the illusion and the Big Lie. I'd love to be able to say that they did it for some greater purpose or grand vision. But it's not that complicated. They did it out of greed and self-interest.

Nothing changes until we realize this and find a new leadership that will work for the people.

[Time for change]

83. Very well said

It's refreshing to hear a critique of Clinton that refrains from bashing him at the same time.

I couldn't agree with you more about the central issue being that of too much power in the hands of the elites. Most importantly, they have the money, they now have control of the news media, and worst of all, they have control of the vote counting.

But having said all that, what is a politician such as Clinton supposed to do? We're trapped between wanting to say what we know is right (which I believe Clinton and others want to do) and being afraid that if we go too far we will be marginalized by attacks from the MSM. So, the way that I look at Clinton is that he wants to be a part of the progressive effort, but he also wants to maintain an effective voice in national affairs.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you. It's just that I have a lot more questions than I have answers.

[Armstead]

85. Thanks.However, I don't there's a danger of going too far

Well, we'd go too far if we got really radical and nasty. :)

However, I think that what the majority of liberals and progressives believe is not out of the mainstream at all. More and more people are waking up to those realities, especially as they start to hit home.

We won't marginalized if Democrats and liberals started speaking what they really believe en masse. In that sense we should take a lesson from Howard Dean (his smarter side) and turn the tables on those media weasals and GOP spinmeisters who blow up what he says and take it out of context.

Instead of always apologizing and retracting and undercutting each other, Democratic leaders and otehr liberals with access to the mikes should take stands for what we all know is right. I believe we'd be surprised at how many in "the center" and even some on the right actually agree with us.

[Time for change]

86. Yes, it would be wonderful to turn the tables on the media weasels and GOP

spinmeisters.

That's awfully hard to do though when they're the ones with the microphones.

But you're right -- that's what we need to do.

What I meant by "going too far" is that all it takes is for a progressive politician to say something that scares our MSM, and then he or she becomes a target. Next thing you know, they take everything out of context and make that person out to be some kind of loon.

They did it to McGovern when they were a lot less powerful than they are now, and thus his landslide loss. They did it to Clinton in spite of consistently high approval ratings (just think how popular he'd be with reasonably fair media coverage). They did it to Dean simply by spinning the "Dean scream" into an unusual event. They did it to Wesley Clark by associating him with Michael Moore. Trying to espouse progressive ideas and avoid being targeted and destroyed by the MSM at the same time is like walking on egg shells.

[Armstead]

87. However the MSM didn;t'beat Clinton....or Dean in the long run

One of both the blessings, as well as the curses of the hyper-media environment is short attention spans. And, the long term, people aren't as malleable as it sometimes seems. I think the media aremore toothless than we think, and the GOP spinners only work their dark magic with freepers in the long run.

Clinton retained very high approval ratings (in the 60's I believe) even at the height of the Monicagate attacks of the GOP and media against him. And he never really lost that popularity, and today, he's probably more repespected and popular than Bush.

Dean got beat in the primaries, but he came back, and is steadily rehabilitating his image. Partly because he was willing to publicly laugh at his own screaming behavior. But he also is doing it by not backing down or allowing the GOP or media spinmeisters to get away with their attempts to paint him as a wildman. He remains outpoken and blunt, but fewer and fewer people buy into the phony image of him as a radical crazyman.

Likewise with Clark. I doubt anyone other than freepers even remember the whole Michael Moore episode.

The media and GOP may try to put Scarlet Letters on the backs of publkic figures, but ultimately people make up their own minds.

[Time for change]

90. Well, I wish and hope to God that you're right about that

But I have a very hard time seeing it that way.

Sure, Clark and Dean, and even Clinton and McGovern have been "rehabilitated", by virtue of no serious adverse media coverage for quite a while. Clinton, because he's no longer President, and the other three because they are no longer candidates who have an immediate and reasonably very good chance of unseating a Republican President.

But surely if Clark or Dean had obtained the nomination there would have been a tremendous amount of pressure and adverse coverage. They would have been "swift-boated" just like Kerry, but by other means. In Dean's case they probably would have re-played his infamous "scream" scene several thousand more times.

[Time for change]

91. Dupe

[bluedawg12]

84. Most DU'ers are light years ahead of the people

What we take for granted as accepted ideas are news to the average person.

They don't know about the corporate elite, about coporatocracy, about the demise of democracy because a few control news, voting machines, and policy.

There may be something to be learned from Big Dog's centerist approach- you have to bring people along and make your case with out scaring them off.

The problem may be with us in not preparing the nation about the awful dawning truth?

Great thread.

[Geek_Girl]

89. I think you hit the nail on the head

But I do think that Bill Clinton recognizes the issue of Wealth and Power vs Poverty. I just think that Clinton tries to use the current schema to do positive things and gradual change as opposed to direct confrontation.

I'm not saying his approach is right and I do believe some of this tacking has lead to the current administration coming into power.

But it would be refreshing to see a strong democratic political figure go head to head on these issues and take a confrontational approach.

[Armstead]

95. You succinctly summarized my point

"But it would be refreshing to see a strong democratic political figure go head to head on these issues and take a confrontational approach."

Ditto.

[Time for change]

96. Yes, that would be very refreshing indeed --

Even if they lost it would still be refreshing.

I think that Boxer, Clark, or Edwards would be the most likely to do that, and that's why I wish I could vote for all three of them.

[ulysses]

92. the ignorance and hubris of the wealthy

is almost unbelievable at times. Thank you for this, my friend. Very, very well said.

[KoKo]

97. Kick.....

:kick: