Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

3,051 to 3,100 of 4,260 << first < prev | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the comrades at the Democratic Socialists of America

WTF Is Neoliberalism?

Which appends a reading list. I particularly enjoyed the last one on the list, with its discussion of the Atari Democrats and Charles Peters' "The Neoliberal Manifesto" in The Washington Monthly.

Oddly, despite his manifesto against, among other things, teachers unions and Social Security, Peters has resurfaced recently, post-Trump, arguing for a return to the New Deal ethos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And, to keep up with the on-going election articles:

SEATTLE’S INDEPENDENT LEFT IS GROWING – NIKKITA OLIVER AND JON GRANT CAMPAIGNS

US: Minneapolis elections

and, finally, Ex-Comrade Who Was Published in Jacobin throws his hat in the ring for the highly competitive Petersborough, NH Library Trustee election:

Local Socialist Chris DiLoreto Makes Bid for Library Board

Well, I'm glad he's keeping busy.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

Is it your contention that the Democratic party espouses this point-of-view?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


WTF Is Neoliberalism?

See "1980's republican"


bugleyman wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

Is it your contention that the Democratic party espouses this point-of-view?

Even that article seems to lump everything from Carter to von Mises to the Koch brothers into the same bucket, which is a bit much for me. There are some things in common, I suppose, but huge differences both in degree and kind.


That article doesn't do much to spell out how neoliberalism has spread from the fringe right during the halcyon Keynsian days of yore to the Democrats (or, for that matter, the British Labour Party or the French Socialist Party, for two international examples), it's true. For how neoliberalism came to the Democrats, I recommend the piece about Charles Peters and the Atari Democrats that I mentioned above.

Upon re=reading the more recent piece on Peters, I couldn't help but notice that even in his call for a return to the halcyon Keynesian days of yore, he still takes time to signal that he still wants to go after the teachers unions.

Anyway, to answer your question, Citizen Bugley, no, it was not my contention that the Democratic Party, as a whole, espouses that philosophy. As I said, the first paragraph has stuck with me over the past year and I thought it was as good an article as any for providing a definition of "neoliberalism."

It is, however, my contention, that since the end of the post-war boom in the mid-seventies, governments of both parties have pulled from the neoliberal playbook, e.g., the bipartisan deregulation craze that we were discussing earlier, the assault on the unions. (See the exchange about the Carter years above) Furthermore, it is my contention that by the early eighties, leading voices within the Democratic Party were rallying behind neoliberalism (see Charles Peters and the Atari Democrats above) and that, by the nineties, the Democratic Leadership Council, which captured key posts in the Democratic Party and ushered in the Clinton years, did openly espouse key neoliberal tenets.

Whether or not the Democratic Party, as a whole, will espouse their watered-down version of neoliberalism (nobody is accusing them of being fans of Hayek and Friedman, for example) in the future, is, I believe, the main point of contention today between the factions in the Democratic Party and, for that matter, in this thread.


For the sake of completeness, I probably should link Peters.

A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto

Have been running around Lowell for I don't even know how long now, running into the Tsongas Arena this, the Tsongas Memorial Bike Trail that, never realized he was one of key players in the party's shift.

Sovereign Court

^--- This really exposes the differences in where people think the problems lie, and how they should be addressed. If you think that most or all of our social problems stem from class warfare then obviously you lump the Democrats and the Republicans into the same bucket of bourgeoisie-supporting plutocrats. If you think that we have issues that stem from historical and cultural roots that are distinct from class warfare then the Democrats and Republicans look very different.


That sounds fair.

Of course, I would go on to argue that those historical and cultural roots (since we're talking about the United States, I'd be happy to use racism and slavery as an example) resulted from nothing other than a previous era's class warfare, to use your term, but that's a topic I've covered at length on these boards before and might be boring to rehash again here.

Sovereign Court

It's just a very common disconnect that I see, between people saying "Democrats and Republicans are the same" and other people saying "No, they're very different" and both just whiz right by each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

The opening paragraph of this article has stuck with me since I read it last year:

Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

Yes, even loneliness apparently.


I never got around to reading that one.

Linked, for completeness.

Neoliberalism is creating loneliness. That’s what’s wrenching society apart


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which doesn't actually make an argument of causation between loneliness and neoliberalism. It's the same tired argument against cities that have been made for thousands of years in favor of rural pastoralism.

It's the "kids these days" complaint, but instead it's about big noisy cities.


Wouldn't know, I never read it.


After edit: Oh, okay so you just want to change the subject. Fair enough.


[Reads article]

Where is the anti-city pastoralism? I'm not even sure you can make an argument that he's even talking about urban life, although I only gave it the once over.

Maybe you're thinking of a different article?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Comrade:

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems characterizes Neoliberalism as follows:

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

As far as I can see, that's pretty much the Republican party line. So I'll ask again:

Is it really your contention that the Democratic party espouses this point-of-view?


And I'll answer again:

Anyway, to answer your question, Citizen Bugley, no, it was not my contention that the Democratic Party, as a whole, espouses that philosophy. As I said, the first paragraph has stuck with me over the past year and I thought it was as good an article as any for providing a definition of "neoliberalism."

It is, however, my contention, that since the end of the post-war boom in the mid-seventies, governments of both parties have pulled from the neoliberal playbook, e.g., the bipartisan deregulation craze that we were discussing earlier, the assault on the unions. (See the exchange about the Carter years above) Furthermore, it is my contention that by the early eighties, leading voices within the Democratic Party were rallying behind neoliberalism (see Charles Peters and the Atari Democrats above) and that, by the nineties, the Democratic Leadership Council, which captured key posts in the Democratic Party and ushered in the Clinton years, did openly espouse key neoliberal tenets.

Whether or not the Democratic Party, as a whole, will espouse their watered-down version of neoliberalism (nobody is accusing them of being fans of Hayek and Friedman, for example) in the future, is, I believe, the main point of contention today between the factions in the Democratic Party and, for that matter, in this thread.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And I'll answer again:

Anyway, to answer your question, Citizen Bugley, no, it was not my contention that the Democratic Party, as a whole, espouses that philosophy. As I said, the first paragraph has stuck with me over the past year and I thought it was as good an article as any for providing a definition of "neoliberalism."

It is, however, my contention, that since the end of the post-war boom in the mid-seventies, governments of both parties have pulled from the neoliberal playbook, e.g., the bipartisan deregulation craze that we were discussing earlier, the assault on the unions. (See the exchange about the Carter years above) Furthermore, it is my contention that by the early eighties, leading voices within the Democratic Party were rallying behind neoliberalism (see Charles Peters and the Atari Democrats above) and that, by the nineties, the Democratic Leadership Council, which captured key posts in the Democratic Party and ushered in the Clinton years, did openly espouse key neoliberal tenets.

Whether or not the Democratic Party, as a whole, will espouse their watered-down version of neoliberalism (nobody is accusing them of being fans of Hayek and Friedman, for example) in the future, is, I believe, the main point of contention today between the factions in the Democratic Party and, for that matter, in this thread.

Ah, sorry. I missed your original reply, as it did not quote me or start clearly addressed to me.

So the argument is that a good chunk of Democrats are DINOs? That may well be the case, but if it is, they're a product of the system. I guess where we disagree is whether we should try to fix the system, or just smash it and start over? The latter just seems completely and utterly impractical. You will literally be jailed and/or killed before that is allowed to occur.

Sovereign Court

So the new Trump/GOP tax plan is out and surprise surprise it kicks ass for Trump and sucks for the average Joe. What moves do the democrats have to compromise/block the latest trickle down travesty?

BAT dead?:
I will say I'm glad they tossed the border adjustment tax which would have crippled American retail and left a graveyard of malls from coast to coast.


@Citizen Bugley:

No problem.

I'm not sure what good it would be to call them DINOs. As others have pointed out, arguing over who's really a progressive or really a Democrat is kind of useless. But if you're interested in reading more about how neoliberalism entered the Dems, you might be interested in Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal, Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? Published before the election, before Bernie threw his hat in the ring, I believe but I might be wrong, it has the selling point (well, I imagine for you; it's a detraction for me) of arguing for reforming the Democrat party.


Pan wrote:

So the new Trump/GOP tax plan is out and surprise surprise it kicks ass for Trump and sucks for the average Joe. What moves do the democrats have to compromise/block the latest trickle down travesty?

** spoiler omitted **

None. Senate republicans will go full nuclear, pass it, and then close the floodgates behind them by requiring a 75 vote majority for more rule changes on their way out.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

@Citizen Bugley:

No problem.

I'm not sure what good it would be to call them DINOs. As others have pointed out, arguing over who's really a progressive or really a Democrat is kind of useless. But if you're interested in reading more about how neoliberalism entered the Dems, you might be interested in Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal, Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? Published before the election, before Bernie threw his hat in the ring, I believe but I might be wrong, it has the selling point (well, I imagine for you; it's a detraction for me) of arguing for reforming the Democrat party.

Well, I'd argue we need to reform more than the Democratic Party, but also things like campaign finance laws, lobbying restrictions, the legal status of corporations, etc. After all, to a certain extent the Democratic Party is a product of incentives. But even so, it seems to me the only remotely tenable way to actually do any of those things would be to act within the existing political framework. Yes, getting it done will be dauntingly, but I fail to see a practical alternative.

No offense, but hoping for an actual revolution to occur, let alone be successful, seems foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst. Even if it did occur and succeed, it's very, very hard to even know what we'd end up with wouldn't be even worse than what we have now. I mean, come on: successful communist revolutions very often end up like the North Korea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The last several dozen revolutions were NOT succesfull.

Civil war
Shays rebellion
Business plot


Pan wrote:

So the new Trump/GOP tax plan is out and surprise surprise it kicks ass for Trump and sucks for the average Joe. What moves do the democrats have to compromise/block the latest trickle down travesty?

** spoiler omitted **

The contents of your spoiler seem to be missing out on how brick-n-mortar has been getting pummeled for the past wee while.

Lower price point and size retailers are expanding while many traditional retailers are closing up shop.

Of particular interest is an article about how retail space continues to transform and evolve into an "all types of retail". Malls as we knew them are closing to be replaced by a MUD-town center environment.


Pan wrote:

So the new Trump/GOP tax plan is out and surprise surprise it kicks ass for Trump and sucks for the average Joe. What moves do the democrats have to compromise/block the latest trickle down travesty?

** spoiler omitted **

All they have to do is not vote for it. Anything that increases the deficit -- which Trump's plan clearly would -- needs 60 votes in the Senate.

At least for now...


bugleyman wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

@Citizen Bugley:

No problem.

I'm not sure what good it would be to call them DINOs. As others have pointed out, arguing over who's really a progressive or really a Democrat is kind of useless. But if you're interested in reading more about how neoliberalism entered the Dems, you might be interested in Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal, Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? Published before the election, before Bernie threw his hat in the ring, I believe but I might be wrong, it has the selling point (well, I imagine for you; it's a detraction for me) of arguing for reforming the Democrat party.

Well, I'd argue we need to reform more than the Democratic Party, but also things like campaign finance laws, lobbying restrictions, the legal status of corporations, etc. After all, to a certain extent the Democratic Party is a product of incentives. But even so, it seems to me the only remotely tenable way to actually do any of those things would be to act within the existing political framework. Yes, getting it done will be dauntingly, but I fail to see a practical alternative.

No offense, but hoping for an actual revolution to occur, let alone be successful, seems foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst. Even if it did occur and succeed, it's very, very hard to even know what we'd end up with wouldn't be even worse than what we have now. I mean, come on: successful communist revolutions very often end up like the North Korea.

I understand you think so; I disagree. But since I haven't been arguing for international proletarian socialist revolution in this thread, at most I think I've been calling for participation in May Day strikes, it seems relatively irrelevant to this discussion about neoliberalism in the Democratic Party.

Anyway, Frank would agree with your first paragraph (probably the second one, too). I figured "reforming the Democrats" would be suitable shorthand for "reforming the system."


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I understand you think so; I disagree. But since I haven't been arguing for international proletarian socialist revolution in this thread, at most I think I've been calling for participation in May Day strikes, it seems relatively irrelevant to this discussion about neoliberalism in the Democratic Party.

I suppose. It just feels odd to discuss the future of the Democratic Party with someone who clearly believe that the party -- indeed, the entire political system in which it exists -- HAS no future and should be destroyed.

But you do you, you magnificent goblin bastard. ;-)


It's why I try to leave a trail of documentation.

But thanks. You be you, too, Boogs.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You be you, too

Or, better yet, UB40.


bugleyman wrote:
Pan wrote:

So the new Trump/GOP tax plan is out and surprise surprise it kicks ass for Trump and sucks for the average Joe. What moves do the democrats have to compromise/block the latest trickle down travesty?

** spoiler omitted **

All they have to do is not vote for it. Anything that increases the deficit -- which Trump's plan clearly would -- needs 60 votes in the Senate.

At least for now...

I'm not even convinced it can get enough Republican votes to pass. There are folks in the party who worry about this new plan not being deficit neutral, or how exactly you can compensate for the massive tax cut with a nebulous hope for "job growth".


MMCJawa wrote:


I'm not even convinced it can get enough Republican votes to pass. There are folks in the party who worry about this new plan not being deficit neutral, or how exactly you can compensate for the massive tax cut with a nebulous hope for "job growth".

Deficit neutral is republican code for "spends money on poor people"


That was the problem with repealing the ACA. We know Paul Ryan can't count votes. Can the crazies and the regular rightists agree on a package?
Is every Republican in the Senate willing to kill the filibuster and commit to passing (or having to openly oppose!) whatever craziness the House sends them?


Of course any massive tax reform is going to be hard to accomplish if we end up in a war with North Korea

Senate called to special NK briefing


thejeff wrote:

That was the problem with repealing the ACA. We know Paul Ryan can't count votes. Can the crazies and the regular rightists agree on a package?

Is every Republican in the Senate willing to kill the filibuster and commit to passing (or having to openly oppose!) whatever craziness the House sends them?

The tax plan strikes me as similar to the school assignments I would get as a TA, when students suddenly realized something was due and decided to spend the lunch hour before class writing up there project report that they should have spent the last two months putting together.

Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a handful of personally pointed posts and the posts quoting/responding to them, as well as "popcorn"-style posts. Folks, if you'd like to continue to have a space to discuss politics on the paizo.com forums, please revisit the sticky thread in this subforum before posting. Sniping at each other like we've seen in the past couple pages is the kind of stuff that leads to more escalated interactions that require more moderation involvement, and will make us reconsider hosting these topics.


My bad. I really shouldn't post when I'm tired and aggravated.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Apologize to Chris for all your misdeeds Here


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
After edit: Oh, okay so you just want to change the subject. Fair enough.

I'm not a fan of Hayek or Austrian school of economics. If you'd like we can post back and forth about how much we both dislike them for a bit if that'll make you feel better.

But I also dislike how the article is trying to attribute all the world's ills to a single cause. It's silly and reductionist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd prefer to post back and forth about how neoliberalism has crept into the Democratic Party, but I dropped it when I realized you were just being bitter.

Have a good night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The last several dozen revolutions were NOT succesfull.

Civil war

It depends on who you consider the revolutionaries in the Civil War, I guess.

The Second American Revolution

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can I just reiterate that although we can disagree on things, I do come to this site because I enjoy hearing from people who are smart and reasonable. Remember when someone questions your beliefs they're not necessarily questioning you as a person, they're just wondering why you believe the things you do. They're also trying to show you their ideas, hopefully not to change your mind (because that's pretty futile), but to make you understand were they're coming from. The key thing about debates and discussions is that we're not hear to convert people. I hope we can all remember that we're looking for some mutual understanding.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It is, however, my contention, that since the end of the post-war boom in the mid-seventies, governments of both parties have pulled from the neoliberal playbook, e.g., the bipartisan deregulation craze that we were discussing earlier, the assault on the unions. (See the exchange about the Carter years above)

I see we (Comrade Fergie and I) lost the posts about the Carter years and deregulation and his advisor, Alfred Kahn, vituperating against Teamsters and auto workers.

:(

I was pretty happy with those posts and thought they pretty well illustrated Democrats implementing neoliberal policies four decades ago.

Oh well.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

...

I see we (Comrade Fergie and I) lost the posts about the Carter years and deregulation and his advisor, Alfred Kahn, vituperating against Teamsters and auto workers.

:(

I was pretty happy with those posts and thought they pretty well illustrated Democrats implementing neoliberal policies four decades ago.

Oh well.

You could just message Chris and ask for the contents of that post.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'd prefer to post back and forth about how neoliberalism has crept into the Democratic Party, but I dropped it when I realized you were just being bitter.

Have a good night.

Sounds like I'm not the only one being bitter.

I'm willing to talk.

I think there's definitely problems in the democratic party. It doesn't feel like when OTHER people throw around the word "neoliberalism" that they mean Hayek-style economics, it feels like they're implying a hodgepodge of things they don't personally agree with.

I've been meaning to pick up "Listen Liberal" as breakdown of the Democratic party's turn from labor towards the professional class, though I don't wholly agree with it. From what I've read, the author makes a lot of classic mistakes in talking about previous eras, such as ignoring the rampant racism of FDR's time as president. He has an interesting point about how the idea that education can solve people's problems is classist. I see part of how it might be true, but I also disagree with it overall.

The big accomplishments of the Obama era were not Hayek-style neoliberalism though: bank/auto bailouts, stimulus spending and Obamacare. They were certainly deeply flawed from a progressive standpoint, but at their fundamental core they were the opposite of neoliberalism.

Also, globalization and neoliberalism do not go hand in hand. It's entirely possible to be isolationist AND neoliberal. In fact, a lot of globalization is not neoliberalism, for example the WTO, IMF and World Bank are again, kind of the opposite of neoliberalism. They're government intervention and control over markets.

Obama's drone policy was horrific, killed civilians and has been a recruiting tool for extremist organizations that further destabilize countries and harm the poor and working class in those places. It's not neoliberalism though.

Yes, neoliberalism is a problem and is influencing the democratic party.

No, neoliberalism is not the source of ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.


And have a good Thursday and a great weekend after that.


Snowblind wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

...

I see we (Comrade Fergie and I) lost the posts about the Carter years and deregulation and his advisor, Alfred Kahn, vituperating against Teamsters and auto workers.

:(

I was pretty happy with those posts and thought they pretty well illustrated Democrats implementing neoliberal policies four decades ago.

Oh well.

You could just message Chris and ask for the contents of that post.

I could, I suppose, but I won't.

Instead I'll just try and replicate the salient points below:

Comrade Fergie quoted wikipedia on Carter and neoliberalism:

Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s, during the Jimmy Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking, and airline industries.[72][73][74] This trend continued into the 1980s, under the Reagan Administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[75] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report, "Plugging in the Supply Side." This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[76]

I quoted a review of Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal by a Worcester comrade of mine that included a quote from Carter advisor and "Father of Airline Deregulation" Alfred Kahn:

Frank points to Jimmy Carter, who “cancelled public works projects… with the help of a Democratic Congress, he enacted the first of the era’s really big tax cuts for the rich and also the first of the really big de-regulations… [he] put the country on an austerity diet spectacularly punishing to ordinary working people… .” A Carter advisor, Alfred Kahn, said: “I’d love the Teamsters to be worse off. I’d love the automobile workers to be worse off. You may say that I’m inhuman… but I want to eliminate a situation in which certain protected workers in industries insulated from competition can increase their wages much more rapidly than the average without regard to their merit or to what a free market would do… .”

Then I mentioned Ted Kennedy and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 and how that decimated the power of my union.

Let's see how many tenets of neoliberalism as defined in the paragraphs Citizen Boogs pulled from the Monbiot article we can see on display:

Attempts to limit competition are inimical to liberty...check
Tax and regulation should be minimised...check
Public services should be privatized...nope
Labor unions are portrayed as market distortions...check
Inequality is cast as virtuous...nope
Efforts to create a more equal society are counterproductive...nope
The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve...nope

Three-sevenths of them on display in one wikipedia paragraph and one quotation from a Carter advisor.

And that was just the beginning.


Oh, sorry, if I had realized you were going to add more, I would have waited to respond.

IIRC, Frank's book doesn't talk much about FDR. I think he actually includes a disclaimer about the drawbacks of the New Deal era but says that that lies outside of the purview of his book. At least that's what I recall, but I don't have it in front of me.

EDIT: Same goes for the Kennedy/Johnson years. IIRC, he picks up the story around '68 and Nixon's election.

As for the rest, if you're going to insist that neoliberalism is just doctrinaire regurgitation of Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman and ignore, for example, Peters' "A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto" and that circle of Democrat leaders, then I can understand your confusion.


Hmm... in other news, it looks like (former) National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is now the subject of an investigation by the Department of Defense's Inspector General. Seems like the White House is still stonewalling and trying to not provide any documents requested by Congress about it, but I'm not sure that'll hold forever.

Sovereign Court

Rednal wrote:
Hmm... in other news, it looks like (former) National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is now the subject of an investigation by the Department of Defense's Inspector General. Seems like the White House is still stonewalling and trying to not provide any documents requested by Congress about it, but I'm not sure that'll hold forever.

IDK, the media storm and fervor seems to be almost over now. I imagine it will take something of real substance to reignite the investigation.

3,051 to 3,100 of 4,260 << first < prev | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards