Even Atrios gets it
Primary tabs
[I'm stickying this because the comment section is interesting -- for the discussion of the 12-word platform, and emergent parties/movements, and not (I hasten to add) for the Clinton permathread. --lambert]
Continuing the thread raised by twig, Eschaton on the horse race:
But there's still a weird sense, unlike any year in my lifetime, that this is not A Very Big Thing. I'm not quite sure how to explain what I mean.
If the "malaise" -- by which I mean reality -- has bubbled up to Atrios' level, that's very, very interesting. One wonders what the higher-ups in his faction think, if that's what he thinks.
Remember the post I wrote on finding an emotion adequate to our situation? (That is, we have the objective correlative, but just don't know what emotion to convey with it?*) Atrios's "weird sense" and "not sure how to explain" is, I think, in the same ballpark.
Note also that this Atrios post is after the RNC, the war on women, the racism, and all the rest of it at the RNCon. Yet... Fired up and ready to go? Well, not exactly.
I value Atrios -- just as a prophylactic to any off-topic "Atrios is teh suxx0r!" comments -- because he's an excellent blogger with a genius for the pithy phrase, and because he tends to be a beat ahead of the rest of the career "progressives." If Atrios -- on the single day of rest between the RNCon and the DNCon -- doesn't feel like taking down Romney with a pithy phrase, and setting the table for Obama in Charlotte, there's a reason for that, and it doesn't bode well for either legacy party.
Which I, for one, think is a very good thing.
NOTE * Like having a beautiful rose without knowing or discovering that the image of a rose could convey (be the objective correlative for) the emotion of love.
- lambert's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
This is what learned helplessness feels like
It's like being half drowned a dozen times. No matter what you do, someone is still going to try to drown you. After awhile, you stop struggling.
And this has been my point all along. We *KNOW* they're trying to drown us so we should make it really, really hard for them to do it. As long as we still have a vote, we have the power to make the powers that be miserable. We don't have to eat our poisoned mushrooms. Resistance isn't useless.
You shouldn't be surprised if learned helplessness is exactly what they are trying to create. The people who don't think these things through really think that if they vote for Obama this year that the beatings will cease. They will never cease until we decide we're not putting up with it anymore.
If Obama loses this year, the next two years will be pretty tough on us. But it might be of shorter duration than if Obama wins. It's not even like the Republicans are the only ones into promoting misery anymore. Only that Obama gets away with it because he has a D after his name.
It would have been better if we had agitated for Hillary this year. That would have shaken them up. But the left has been very well conditioned against her. So, in a way, they've contributed to their own demise. The tools to fight this thing were there all along.
Good analogy
I think the vast majority of the populace has felt this way for quite some time.
Though the media mirage of pundits have been oblivious to the state of the common man, this learned helplessness was never articulated very well in the social sphere. It's gotten to the point where it's no longer able to be hidden or swept under the rug.
Especially if careerist liberals like Atrios are finally starting to get it.
I think it would be better if Obama wins
the only one who can convince the Democratic base that the Democratic leadersheep does not care for them is the Democratic leadersheep. No one but Obama can take down Obama.
If Romney wins we will hear a lot of nonsense about about how things would have been better in a second Obama administration.
But whether you agree with me or goldberry the remedy is the same. Vote emergent party. Not just on the Presidential level, vote emergent party all the way down the ticket for every office that has an emergent party candidate. If we want a people's party we will have to build one ourselves.
I happen to agree with you on this...
>>If we want a people's party we will have to build one ourselves
I proposed that we form an organization to explore the possibility back in 2008. And then I had to concentrate on saving my job, which was unsuccessful. But it's still a good idea.
I propose we use the Christian Coalition as our model and call it something like the Federation for Democratic Reform.
And I'm totally onboard with voting third party this year.
The Christian Coalition may not be a good model
It was a blend of grassroots and astroturf. Ralph Reed could take the long view of taking over the Republican party beginning at the school board level because he had a collection of sugar daddy funders. We don't have that. So we should look to things that have worked in American history, the abolition movement, women's suffrage, the CIO (John L Lewis, the Reuther Brothers), and the civil rights movement. All these movements started from very local groups organizing around specific issues. I also think that we can learn form the recent experience in Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia's Charter 77, Poland's Committee in Support of Workers (Polish acronym KOR). As our civil liberties continue to erode, the experience of places like Easter Europe, Argentine, Brazil, etc., will be most instructive.
christian coalition and ralph
christian coalition and ralph reed, i've been reading about them just this week.
ralph reed and the "christian" coalition had the money and backing of some very powerful and evil people, like you say: grassroots + astroturfing.
far better that christians who want to organize for a more humane political system should emulate martin luther king jr instead:
I was referring to organizational models
A Christian Coalition model is not incompatible with the other movements you describe. It is simply an umbrella group used for organizational purposes, lobbying, vetting candidates and creating a real political voting bloc.
Under the circumstances, we won't be able to count on sugar daddies but the tools for organizing are low barriers. The problem is that whenever we try to organize, someone doesn't like the model for whatever reason and then nothing happens. The minute that someone has the audacity to propose something, they're shot down on the spot for being too forward or egomaniacal or something. Of course, it's never phrased this way. It's more like, "There's something wrong with the organizational model you proposed." That's like shooting the baby on the way out of the womb. If you want real change, stop doing that. Every movement had to have a starting point and must necessarily adapt to its environment to be successful, can I get agreement on that at least? So, pick a model, get as many positive attributes as possible together and then evolve. This is not rocket science.
I am suggesting that we pick a model that has already worked for some other successful group and copy it shamelessly, then change it to suit our needs.
The second thing to avoid is word smithing. That leads to divisiveness. Each movement under the proposed umbrella group is going to think their cause is THE most important thing and will spend endless hours thwarting any other group's most important thing with a lot of pompous, self righteous word smithing. Before long, the platform will look like it's written by My Little Ponies, Friendship is Magic.
So, I propose that we stick to the 12 word platform at first.
Third thing I would do is impose a quota. Yep, no one is going to like this one but I think it's necessary and will make us unique, forward looking and attractive. The leadership of this organization can have no less than 34% women. It can have more but it can't have less. In particular, the members of any finance or rules committee can have no less than 34% women, leadership will alternate between men and women periodically.
I like this idea for two reasons: First, even if we ask a male to step aside for a female, studies have shown that random promotions can be just as or even more effective than other methods of promotion. The person promoted can rise to the occasion. Leaders are often made, not born.
Second, I'm sick of being sidelined by the average male who has been raised to think that even the lowest male on the totem pole is higher than the highest female. We need to get this right at the very start. A 34% quota still gives them plenty of opportunity to dominate but makes it harder to squash dissenting points of view.
I reject Christian Coalition as a model
precisely because it is dependent upon sugar daddies to sustain it and there are no liberal sugar daddies. that is the lesson of post Reagan America.
so I look to movements which succeeded without sugar daddies. An umbrella group makes sense.
These are all very interesting thoughts
and really, really interesting. Some thoughts:
1. I'm with DCB on stress the partially AstroTurf nature of the so-called Christian coalition.
2. That said, the Christian Coalition was also driven by passion, and one of the oldest and most effective there is: Religion. (This connects to the groping around I've been doing about the emotion "adequate" to our present situation. Clearly, rage and hate -- so favored by some factions on "the left" -- aren't doing the job, or sparking the desired result).
3. I'm happy with the 12-word platform the way that it is. I think if the 12-word platform went though, anything else we wanted to get through would get through. (Though, to contradict myself, I wonder about the ERA, for 15 words? With only 3 states to go?)
However:
4. If we want to look for pre-existing local activism that shows both a massive level of civic engagement and no national integration -- I'm guessing Prohibition and Abolition and Civil Rights started out that way, and then "federated" (hat tip, Goldberry) -- the place to look is the anti-fracking movement and movements against the extractive economy generally.
5. But there's nothing of interest to the local activist in the 12-word platform, which is exclusively concerned with national policy.
6. But finally, I don't think "the answer" would be to add an anti-fracking item to the platform, because the issues raised by the local activists are profound, and speak to questions of home rule, the nature of private property, stewardship of the earth (if we even are stewards), even if they're all played out in the "permitting process." These issues tie up to local food activism ("food sovereignty"), and land use issues generally. Intriguingly, local food activism, at least in my area, is a place where left and right meet, even for the "off the grid" types, because if there's one thing the grid is good at, it's getting you back on it.
7. Finally, in terms of "adequate emotion" (terrible phrase) I think that's more likely to be found locally and not nationally. All of the policy issues in the 12-word platform are essential, I do not disagree. But they are also institutionally silo-ed, in that the single payer advocates are doing their thing, the anti-empire crowd their thing, and so on. So it may be that the base of whatever party? movement? Federation? is to come must be found below the siloes, as it were, in a vision of what "the permitting process" would look like in a sane world.
8. Finally, in a rentier state like ours, it makes sense to challenge the rents, to make the rent and the rentier an object not merely of ridicule but of loathing and disgust, suc as people used to feel when the term "usury" was mentioned. This is the "adequate emotion" issue once again, but it's also key to swaying the City Council in public meetings. It's one thing to frame the presentation of the corporate spokeshole as "jobs vs. our children's health," but it's another to frame the corporate presentation as breaking a taboo, as vile. Put them in the "child pr0n" bucket, in terms of the impact and scope of the emotions they invoke, as opposed to the, at best, "Snidely Whiplash" bucket. I realize this is a strategy of demonization, but then the spokeshole should be given every opportunity to disassociate themselves from the presentation.
Random thoughts. I'm writer, not an organizer, so I don't have the sense of what would work and what would not. However, I'm not so bad at sensing where the live opportunties are, even if I'm not good at turning them into action...
All very good points
Now we need to meet and hash this out.
BTW, I think that people are getting too hung up on the words Christian Coalition. What ever nauseous feeling you get when you think of it or Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition is still very powerful. What they have is a voting bloc and a lobbying arm and I don't know if you've noticed, but WE do not.
As far as I can tell, it is occupy that has the moral force of the civil rights movement but what occupy doesn't have is an organization.
You can call it anything you want but ultimately, what you need is an organization under which other groups and movements can coalesce and use the power of numbers and an economy of scale to push your agenda. If the first thing that happens is that people get nauseous over the connotations in a name, then we have bigger problems. We have people who are more concerned with satisfying some particular persona or worldview than in winning. You can have both but having a visceral response to a name does not bode well for the success of getting any movement off the ground. I find it childish. Ymmv.
I wholeheartedly agree.
This is just a debate over semantics.
Can't meet physically
No money to travel. The site has chat software, which keeps a record that could be treated as minutes....
having a visceral response to
having a visceral response to a name does not bode well for the success of getting any movement off the ground
the kkk is essentially an umbrella organization, plus it's pure grass roots! win-win!
if a significant number if people that you want to organize under your umbrella have a strong objection, whether visceral or reasoned, to the name or organizational model you've chosen, they aren't going to join your organization.
If O wins...
I think an O win beats progressives into passive submission wherein they learn that progressivism is conservatism, that pauperizing retired people is saving social security, that ending a war one of these days is the same as ending a war, that torture isn't so bad as long as we don't talk about it, that government ought to be secret and that the MOTU are the MOTU and there is nothing to be done about it.
In short, I think that a second O presidency will be the end of progressivism for a generation. Or more. And I confidently expect that to happen.
I always thought it was a sucky idea anyway
To run from the Liberal label. But, who care's what the label is.
I think we are all going to have to take personal responsibility for rebuilding our governments from the ground up.
Use the model of the 12 word Platform to run in every campaign. There are millions and millions and millions of unemployed and under employed people. And we & they should be flooding EVERY election with candidates.
Candidates with a simple printout listing their 12 words - or 50 words -- what ever works for that election. But, simple, clear statements.
I think it would be better to run as independents but, each person can decide what is best for their own campaign.
We could come up with a TAG for the action. But, I'm distrustful of parties. And I don't see this affecting many elections (at least for the first 2-4 years) at the national level.
Wake me up when Atrios or any
Wake me up when Atrios or any other of the elite blogs and bloggers dumps the Democrats altogether, including the neoliberal-neocon Hillary. I have given up on these bloggers, just as I have given up on Establishment liberals like Krugman. They never really get anything. They may show brief glimpses of awareness, but it never lasts. They never build on it. If they had, they would have been done with the Democrats a couple of years ago at the latest.
What is it with "Hillary"?
Seriously. Who cares? Who do you think is still pinning away for her? Name a single elite blog or blogger that is touting her as the savior. As a former supporter, I said to hell with her years ago when she backed Obama's Afghanistan double down. She is Obama's apparatchik now. Is this a reflex action to always need to mention the Hillary? The Clenis? Like they actually matter? They are as done as old moldy bread, and unlike the Jason Voorhes, aren't going to come back from political death to oppress you.
Fear of imaginary adversaries doesn't lend credibility. It almost seems like some kind of Tourette's.
.
Political bloggers make very bad average voters
I think it was Markos Moulitsas who said this and it's true. Political bloggers spend a lot of time arguing, analyzing, over analyzing. We're too deep in the weeds.
But the average voter will look back on the last time they had it good and pine for that.
That's one reason.
The second reason is that it's good strategy for getting what you want from the Democrats. If we had any good strategists in the blogosphere with weight, all of the elite bloggers would have jumped on the Hillary 2012 bandwagon by now. They're just too conditioned to reject her. It's a visceral thing, not a brainy thing.
Here's why it's smart to promote Hillary: The Clinton base is the only true threat to the Obama base. Hillary actually won the primaries in 2008 and we can prove it. The numbers were definitely on her side. That's a HUGE base of support in the party that was thwarted by Obama's money men. It's much more significant than Ron Paul's puny group in the Republican base.
If the elite Democratic activist base had wanted to really change the dynamics of the election and issue demands, all it had to do was abandon it's loyalty to the party nominee and throw its support behind Hillary. Even if she didn't get the nomination, the sight of so many activists pulling their support for Obama for a real, legitimate threat would have given the leadership the willies. It would have been significant enough for them to have to pander to us to keep us happy.
But the elite bloggers didn't do it because as I said, they've been conditioned to have a visceral response to Hillary. Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me because now, they're not happy and they don't know what to do about it. Furthermore, because they unquestioningly threw their support behind Obama without making a fuss, he feels free to go after the tougher nuts on the more conservative side of the voter rolls. Doubly stupid. Butchaknow, sometimes, you can't tell people anything. They have to learn it the hard way. Hillary was the Democrats Archimedes Lever and they didn't want to touch it for fear of getting their hands dirty.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Hillary Bullshit of either side
Bores me.
Hillary Clinton has zero value to any "average" voter I know. None, Zip, Nada. By signing on with Team Obama, she became another sellout political elite careerist hack, who is part of the problem, not part of the solution. She nodded her head and went along with Obama's fucking total failure Afghanistan troop surge for the love of fucking CHRIST! Went along with Gitmo, went along with extraordinary rendition, went along with drone killings, went along with sanctioned assasination/murder, including that of untried US citizens. And regardless of whether she did all that to keep her job, keep solidarity with Obama, or because she believed in it, DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
We know you love her, but mentioning her name, in any context is FAIL.
I don't know about average voters, but I do know some foreclosed
voters, and each and every one of them has brought up that they wished Hillary had won the Dem nonination, then she would be president and, they believe, would have taken steps to help them.
I know that I'm horribly disappointed in how thoroughly Hillary is playing the Colin Powell/Condi Rice role as secty of state: Not speaking out against the attacks on civil liberties by of her boss or against his illegal use of drone murders, just being the Good Soldier Hillary for him. I hated that she took that job, but she did and her reputation, while seemingly intact, will take a hit from history.
But that is not how these foreclosed on voters see it; they think she's doing a good job.
As Goldberry said, it's probably because under Bill the nation's lower economic quintiles did actually do noticeably better.
But, still, she actually comes up when people talk about getting no help from Obama. Her campaign poromises to do something similar to HOLC (which they don't remember namewise) sticks in people's minds as being a promise she would have carried through on and it would have done more for them than Obama has done.
So, at this time, that makes Hillary the only alternative from the Dems that many non-political geeks know about. And, while I pay a lot of attention to politics, I don't know of any other Dem alternative.
I'm looking at Jill Stein with hope...which is not a plan.
Hillary was in the banks' bed from day one
Given her tenure as Senator from NY, the state with the most major banks, that is a guarantee. I hate to say it, but any foreclosure victim who thinks that Clinton would have gotten more concessions from the big banks is delusional.
The fact that a neolib like her is considered the Dems' best alternative options says more about the state of the Democrat party, moreso than anything else.
But that's not the point that's being made
Jawbone's talking about the way people she knows and talks with feel. That has to be taken into account! I know, because I feel it myself; not only did my personal economy greatly improve in the Clinton years, as it did for many, my own class and age cohert hadn't been thrown on the scrap heap. It's really not surprising that ordinary people contrast a better past with the horrible present.
That said, I don't think those times are coming back, and now that I know more about what they were based on, and what was going on, I don't wish that they would.
Further, with AA "principles not personalities." I don't think that a candidate is the answer!
People did well under Bush, too
Or am I the only one who had friends talking about making a quick buck on flipping a condo, bragging about their home value going up, or taking out a HELOC to finance a Humvee or Lincoln Navigator? Remember all those home makeover shows? Remember Jim Cramer's Mad Money show, where all he would talk about were Google & Apple's stock price doubling all the time?
Granted it all went to shit once both of them left office. Bush and Clinton's economic records are more similar than people make them out to be (debt is another story tho).
Let's not forget Clinton passed NAFTA and CFMA, repealed Glass-Steagall and welfare. The "giant sucking sound" was Clinton's pet project, as was granting China most favored trading status. Bush was a disaster, yes, but he couldn't have done it with out Bubba. If Clinton left those alone, we wouldn't be seeing nearly the amount of pain that has been occurring.
I guess that's my long winded way of saying that I have no idea why people "feel" that way about the Clinton years. Especially in the inner cities. Clinton was bad, Bush was worse, and going back to bad is supposed to be progress. This is why there is so much apathy in the lower middle class, because the alternative really wasn't substantively better, although anything is better than this.
I guess I'm supposed to feel better about Clinton because Clinton has a better "brand," though when he left office even Gore wouldn't give him the time of day b/c of Monica (oh how times have changed).
Maybe my life would be easier if I just focused on their brands, rather than the silly things they say and do. Old habits die hard...
You've got
to be fucking kidding me. This is just too filled with preposterous to let go by (although I should, for the sake of the blog, but fuck it).
So where to fucking start?
Are you completely confused about the nature of the kleptocracy's ponzi scheme fraud methodology? Plus, you are talking about the status of the 1%, the only people who were involved in any of that. We aren't talking about the McMansion class you know.
First nominee (and likely winner) of the Preposterous Statement of the Year:
If you have evidence of this, beyond the anecdotal, please present. Alternatively, retract. Maybe people "make them out to be" dissimilar, because they are not similar.
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
How can we fucking forget? It's only mentioned like, every. single. fucking. time. the Clinton. name is brought up. Again, for the clue-impaired, we aren't talking about their policies (which is all you are mentioning here), we actually are talking about the concrete material benefits which were present at that time. I.e. what was it you didn't like? The peace, or the prosperity?
Maybe you don't have any idea because you hung out with people who were capable in the 2000's of buying Navigators, Escalades, and Google and Apple stock. Which sounds like a class war hit, but really isn't, because it's mainly a generational hit. They were capable of buying those things because they got out of college during the Clinton years and got a job right away. Try doing that from 2001 on. Maybe that was because Clinton's disasterous policies created the 2000's, but that is precisely not the point anyone is making. I submit you don't know anything you are talking about regarding the lower to middle classes or the city, because the simple fact is we had it better then. We had jobs and hope for the future. Please take a look at the employment, underemployment numbers for the '90's and any time before and after.
Or maybe you could "feel better" if you focused on the actual data rather than the silly branding? Clinton has a "better brand" than Bush? Obviously not in your circle!
This is the kind of shit that makes "the Clintons" or "the Clinton years" a permathread, because historical revisionism is fucking rampant from Clinton-haters from the left and from the right. The economy couldn't have possibly been better then for middle and lower class people because.... The Clenis! NAFTA! Welfare "reform"! Yet you ask anyone if they are better off now, have more prospects now, than they did 13 years ago. Just ask.
And yes, don't forget the Clenis. How can we?
Awesome.
Could you repost this to your blog? It would make a great stand alone post. And I'd like to share it.
Okanagen, I agree with Katiebird on the repost
Maybe touched up a little to show that it's an exchange.
The headline might be something like: "For your reference: My final word on the Clinton Permathead" ... We could just link to it in future, instead of repeating it....
I'm not sure why you're hyperventilating...
Well, I'm not going to let you put me in a position to defend Bush. I will never defend that person. Income inequality was a disaster, due to the Bush tax cuts.
Industrial policy, i.e. jobs, was a Clinton mess because of trade policy and outsourcing. All of that was due to Clinton's free trade agreements; not Bush. Bush had few trade agreements to speak of, while Clinton had hundreds. You also agree with me on all the Rubinite deregulation, so I'm not going to go there.
No, you didn't need to be in the 1% to make money in real estate. Ever hear of a subprime loan? Plenty of people all across the food chain were doing it.
You have no idea who I am, or where I come from. I did live in a lower class neighborhood at the time, and yes, some people in the neighboorhood were driving brand new SUVs. In fact, the guy who lived next to me had a brand new H3.
Clinton benefitted from a huge bubble economy also, but it's funny how no one remembers that. Were more jobs created during Clinton's term off a bubble economy? Yes. Did Bush create policies to offshore many of those jobs? No, that was Clinton.
I work in the construction industry, and yes, the Bush years were a very prosperous time for us. If you know anything about construction or contractors, you would know it is not entirely a 1%er affair by any stretch. And that doesn't count all the ancillary jobs that the housing bubble created, partly because they couldn't be outsourced.
Further, policy effects take years to develop. Monetary policy by the Fed takes about 18 months to take full effect. Obamacare won't go into full effect until 2014. And the full effect of Bush's idiocy wasn't fully felt until Obama took office.
Likewise, Clinton's welfare policies didn't go into full effect until 2002, which would show up in Bush's economic statistics, not Clinton's, even though it was his policy. As would all the job-killing free trade agreements Clinton signed.
No one ever mentions that welfare kept millions out of poverty in the Clinton years; the poor under Bush never had that option because of Clinton's "reform." Further, the welfare reform bill was phased in, and wasn't fully implemented until 2002. It was such a mess, one of his staffers resigned in protest over it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/iss...
Bush was a disaster, but you cannot credibly say that that people did not have prosperous years during the Bush presidency.
As I said, Clinton was better. People did prosper as well. No one is denying that, and I don't know where you got the impression that I thought 2000-2008 was some shangri-la.
But it should not come as a shock that some people, particularly on the low end, saw plenty of hard times during the Clinton years. Going from being simply poor to being the working poor is not a "success." If these jobs were so good, why did they go back into poverty 3 years later? Tax cuts?
Further, do you have any idea how worthless the poverty definition is? The definition of poverty is so skewed (~$25,000/yr for a family of 4) it means nothing.
"Moving out of poverty" (i.e., going from $25k/yr to $26k/yr) is meaningless. Yes, according to stats, the poor went from earning $21k/yr, to $25k/yr under Clinton. Is this really something to herald as a success? Do you think life is easy making $25k/yr? That is a hard, hard life by any stretch of the imagination, even during the "prosperous" Clinton economy.
I am not saying those Bush years were great, but the reality is far more complex than people give credit for. It was not exactly a depression.
Yes, there were periods where both had similar economic statistics:
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2004...
The black unemployment rate for both presidents were similar, just over 10% for their terms. They both bottomed out at roughly the same level at the end of their terms.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/realspin/...
That dovetails with the average unemployment rate for both: Clinton was 5.19%, Bush was 5.22%, which is virtually identical. See the chart at the bottom:
http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.com/2005...
That's actually the precise point I'm making.
There continues to be a lot of white-washing of the economic sins of Clinton (and frankly, Carter) that people need to come to terms with.
"Concrete material benefits" once more
The point (at least the point I make) is really simple:
1. On average, real wages rose in the Clinton administration. I'll dig out the charts from the last time this permathread happened.
2. For that reason, people retain positive feelings for the man and the administration.
3. The lesson for the left is that concrete material benefits ("and we get?") are important.
For some reason, and it baffles me, points #1 and #2 always evoke of a flood of ant-Clinton, and off point, talking points, as here. The points have nothing to do, nothing whatever to do, with Clinton's economic sins, which I doubt very many here need to be educated about.
Clearly an invitation to dance the Clinton Permathread Shuffle
Jest, FYI, due to some quirks last year, I was granted some editing privileges to the blog. I've never used them until now, but I just did on your post to remove my name from your header. If you click on "Moderation" you will find that one of our rules here (Update #7) is that we don't call people out for punishment in headers. I admit I hit your comment pretty hard, and in fact, despite being asked (which doesn't happen often), I didn't want to elevate my reply to a blog post, because I didn't want my frustration with your predictable and lame Clinton permathread arguments to be seen as singling you out as an individual, rather than focusing on the predictable and lame CDS permathread arguments you raised. Sadly now, you have forced my hand. But please note I will try to address your argument and statements, not you as a person, in keeping with the traditions of the blog.
Well, now I'm confused
I wasn't attempting to call you out in a negative way.
But perhaps I need to reread the thread -- or your argument is that there are two degrees of intertwined lameness.
I did write in haste, perhaps I just dropped the ball on my way to cut open my ceiling.
No, yer cool
I was responding to jest, who's reply was titled "Okanogen, I'm not sure why you're hyperventilating...".
I don't much like being asked why I'm "hyperventilating" either, but when I'm getting set to tee off on someone's ridiculous statements, I want to play fair and let their own words characterize their argument.
By the numbers
1.
I am not my arguments, neither are you. Rather than characterizing me personally, such as my supposed "hyperventilating", why don't you instead address my responses to your laughable assertions that the Bush and Clinton economies were more similar than we think. An assertion of which you provide zero convincing evidence in your response (addressed below). But please note (again) I am trying to address your argument and statements, not you as a person, in keeping with the traditions of the Correntewire.
2.
You put yourself in that position by pointedly saying (and I paraphrase) there was little difference between the Bush and Clinton economic records. I called you out on that. If you can't defend it, then stop there.
3.
What the fuck about "we are talking about the economy at that time, and not the ultimate policy aftermath" do you not fucking understand? You fail (again) to address our only point that people were better off during the 1990's than 2000's, and, rightly or wrongly, associate that with the Clintons. Clinton haters on the left and right, can't accept that reality, lest it undermine Clinton-hating arguments. They are left either avoiding the reality, or say it was just our stupid imagination.
Having said that about my never mentioning policy, I will reiterate that I never mentioned anything about "Rubinite deregulation" so you have no idea whatsoever regarding my position on that.
4.
Good fucking grief. Subprime loans, ARMs, mortgage fraud, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?". Incurring huge unrepayable debt is the new "prosperous"? Having said that, "yes, some people in the neighborhood were driving brand new SUVs.....". Why am I not surprised that you are using a right-wing trope, straight out of "Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs" casting? Regardless, let's say they "afforded" those material goods purely through sub-prime, usuarious loans; since then, they ended up likely defaulting on all of it, including their home. According to right-wing tropism, this is because they were too irresponsible to read the fine print and therefore the government is under no obligation to help these fools. If you still are lucky enough to live in a lower-middle class urban neighborhood as I do, you know that is true and all you need to do is look aroung at the neighborhoods walled with foreclosure sale signs. That said, I never saw many Escalades, H3s or Navigators around here. Except for the ones driven by drug dealers that is, like the guys in the apartment building behind my house.
5.
Clinton benefitted from a huge bubble economy also, but it's funny how no one remembers that.
Bullshit, in fact reliable Clinton-haters on the left and right remind us at every fucking opportunity.
They actually try to do it with evidence though, which is commendible. Although it is really beside the point, most people then didn't have to borrow their way into prosperity, and their involvement in the "bubble" was typically relegated to simply being employed. Are you going to blame people for having jobs?
6.
This is all an arguable formulation of a much more complicated reality, and you provide no evidence to back up your formulation. Some people actually look at it as a departure from the previous 12-15 years (see the many links below), and a unique period in time where productivity was exploding, due to a huge growth in the realized possibilities of the tech boom (an important article that one), and certainly also, some amount of speculation and over speculation in the markets. This, combined with drastically lower interest rates than in the Carter years, fueled a great expansion in the economy, past what was thought the theoretical limit of unemployment, down to under 4%.
Regardless of the causes, in the second half of the 90's, we middle and lower class folk were finally seeing our real wages increase versus the consumer price index sharply reversing a trend of stagnation and decreasing labor share of the economy that had been happening since the late 1970's. In addition, the lowered interest rates, lowered inflation, and increased value of retirement assets such as 401K investments and home values had a large effect on consumer spending and the expansion of the consumer economy.
7.
Again, for the 8,000th time, we are not talking about the policies they set in place, we are talking about the actual economy at that time. Whether he set the stage for future failure is important to you (and other Clinton-haters on the left and right), but not germaine to the actual topic. But regardless, did Clinton "create policies to offshore many of those jobs"? Actually, Reagan proposed NAFTA, GHWB negotiated and signed the final agreement with Canada and Mexico, effectively binding the US to the treaty, and Clinton sheparded it through Congressional approval and signed it into law. It was one of his campaign platforms, so no one can say he sandbagged that one. By contrast, Clinton reversed himself on decoupling China's human rights and other issues from normal trade relations. Which is what we have with China, normal trade relations, no special relationship exists and there is no such thing (as of at least 2000) as "Most Favored Nation", the term is "Normal Trade Relations", and it is what the US has with all other members of the WTO.
8.
Yeah, I know a little about the construction industry and contractors, having been one. I have been involved in the construction industry in one capacity or another since framing my first house in 1983. I'm not sure exactly what portion of the construction industry you are involved in, but let me inform you from my perspective and experience that for most of the industry, as a viable, sustainable, quality-conscious trade, the peak happened around 2001, when 9/11 destroyed most financing for serious projects. The housing bubble economy, filled with scammers, flippers, fly-by-nighters, frauds, con artists, kick-backers, and players, didn't start until around late 2002-2003. These hacks and crimers made a damn good living, I concede, in concert with absolutely unapologetically unethical (and often criminal) mortgage loan brokers. And yes, this certainly did pay, for about 4-5 years, when it all came crashing down, as has been documented ad nauseum. But your anecdotal characterization actually fails to acknowledge a longer term trend that was very real: namely, the people profitting from that bubble weren't the career professional construction workers or firms. The real contractors. The craftsmen. Nope. It favored the players, quick-buck artists, and the "home improvement" industry who would go down to the Home Depot parking lot to search for illegal alien labor. The pros had already had their wages destroyed by competition with illegals, as well as from fly-by-night operators. By the time the bubble popped, the ones who counted on actual construction work were fucked, and the ones who had legitimately invested in real estate or investment projects were also fucked because to stay in business, they had been forced to turn over inflated house and apartment building prices, and were left holding huge bags of massively deflated assets.
9.
The way you frame this argues that Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were responsible for the materially superior economy of the 1990's. Is that what you are trying to say? That everything that happened in Bush's presidency was because of Clinton? That Obama has no responsibility for the fiscal policy of the last 4 years? Letsgetitdone, can I have some help with this one?
But seriously, "Bush's idiocy wasn't fully felt until Obama took office"? How can you say that with a straight face? Perhaps you've heard of this "Iraq War" thing?
But once again, we are not talking about the effect of Clinton's policies, we are talking about the superior economy of that time!!!!!
10.
The actual reality is not as clear cut as you imply, and that piece you cite was written in 1997, before it was ever even implemented. You have no evidence to back up your claim (again). But again, this has nothing to do with your assertion that "People did well under Bush too".
I agree, some people had very "prosperous" years during the Bush presidency, but maybe you should reread your post to see where someone might have got the impression that you were favorably comparing 1992-2000 with 2000-2008.
When did you say "Clinton was better", you didn't say that at all.
11.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, although of course "some people" had hard times during the Clinton years. Some people are always going to have hard times. Yes, going from being "simply poor" to being "working poor" is a "success" if you are the person who is unemployed and finally able to get a job and see some hope for the future. And it beats the last five years, no?
Where the fuck did I say anything about the definition of poverty or "moving out of poverty" or anything like that? I didn't, I said the vast majority of people's lots improved in the late 90's, and if they had a choice between that time and the 2000's, just ask them which they would choose!
12.
No, it wasn't "far more complex" and what you said was the economy in the Clinton years was similar, when it demonstrably was not. I appreciate your wanting to moonwalk back from that, I know I would. Now whether "It was not exactly a depression" is certainly debatable.
Here you go again. Your first link is highly cherry-picked data from 1996 and 2004 and pretty much designed by Bloomberg to bolster Bush. The graph in your second link actually refutes your own characterization, with black unemployment descending precipitously from 1992 to under 10% in 2000, rising over 10% through most of Bush's economy, then starting to spike in 2008. Your characterization of unemployment rates is laughable. You do know there is a difference in the character between averaging a steeply falling unemployment rate (Clinton) with a steeply rising unemployment rate (Bush)? Sure they may average out the same to around 5.19%, but by the end of Clinton's term it was 3.19 and had been static at under 5% for 4 years, at the end of Bush's term, it was over twice that, at 7.2 and climbing fast. Where would you think s a preferable place to be?
13.
Then start your own thread making that point, the simple statement made here was what Lambert and others regard as people's impressions of concrete material benefits during those times. That's all, it doesn't fit in your dogma of anti-Clintonism, so you have to muddy the water with who is responsible for what when and complete fabrications about the character of those times. Got it.
14.
Wrong, we are merely saying most people would rather we go back to the economy of the late 1990's. That is somehow now a "whitewash" of Clinton's greatest crimes. Who the hell mentioned Carter?
At least you didn't repeat the "Monica" thing. Thanks for small favors.
Well, since Obama and the Ds react only to threats...
... if you think a resurgent Hillary Clinton is a better answer, then the best way to achieve that is to go after Clinton's base and try to take it away.
For me, the D train has long left the station, and Hillary Clinton -- the best of 'em -- was on board.
I think we're in a pre-Lincoln 1860 moment, where one or both of the legacy parties is going to fragment. The similarities between what Obama did to Clinton's supporters and what Romney did to Ron Paul's supporters are really telling, aren't they? Ritual humiliation on the Convention floor combined with gross rule violations at the state and party level.
The people, not the personalities
Alot of what we would call "traditional Democratic voters" are turned off to the vast majority of the leadership in the Democratic party. They would gladly turn back the clock to the concrete material benefits of the Clinton years, but I suspect would turn the clock back even further if they had the choice. Hell, compared to Nixon, Clinton was GWB.
Nothing is going to be remade by trying to recreate a halfway, neoliberal, political elite Third Way consensus. Lucy pulled that football away in 2000, if not 1993. And if you remember back to 1993, that was only 12 years since Jimmy Carter, the last of the true, New Deal Democrats who didn't mouth the "small government is better" mantra.
The clock has to be turned back farther, to an ideal of a society that actually believes it can improve itself through collective initiative, effort, and a human rights-based social contract. A time where we all believed we could accomplish something together.
Maybe I'm watching too much 1960-70 space program history....
two points
I completely agree. Obama's base and Clinton's base are the same. For one side to go to the other is basically incestuous.
I used to feel that way also. The country does have that bifurcated feel that was present at that time, doesn't it?
However, I no longer feel that way now, because people back then gave a shit. Nowadays, people medicate their fears and problems away with reality TV, inane social media, and other trivial nonsense. There is so little concern with the body politic that most people can't be bothered to vote. It's a case where Huxley's view trumps Orwell's.
http://www.highexistence.com/amusing-our...
I agree that the parties will shrink, but I'm not convinced an organization will take over the void left behind.
If that's the case, each party will become even more insular and detached, estranging the disenfranchised even more, making lobbyists, politicians and corporations even more powerful, and creating a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop that further entrenches these trends.
In other words, there will be no change. What we are seeing is just the beginning, and it will only get worse. And no one will bother to fight it, because it's much easier to escape the pain than deal with the cause, and because we've been conditioned & trained to deal with problems through delusion and escapism.
Absolutely, jest - I'll bet way more people know who Kim
Kardashian is than Paul Ryan or even Romney. There are too many people who don't know -- and don't want to know -- anything about politics. They are ignorant by choice, and plan to stay that way.
There are a whole slew of tv shows on cable now about people who make a living on the fringes of society -- pawn shop owners, junk pickers, people who buy storage units when someone can't pay the rent. They're all hoping to strike it rich, and sometimes they do, on a small scale. They're not stupid -- they know a lot about antiques and art and all kinds of things. But they don't seem to be educated, and insist on speaking like uneducated people -- horrible grammar, misused words, etc. The highest compliment they can pay anything is "bad ass." These shows are some of the most popular on cable.
My point (yes, I have one!) is that everything is sooooo dumbed down now that stupidity has become a virtue of sorts. Enough people have made a very good living at it to make it appealing to a big segment of the population. How you get people like that to discuss anything more complicated than what would you like on your hot dog is beyond me.
I can't even discuss politics with people anymore
They just drive me mad.
The mythology and ignorance ingrained in people's minds is just staggering.
The few times I do discuss these things, I can prove that they are wrong, but instead of them dealing with their cognitive dissonance, they just change the subject as if I never had a valid point to begin with.
The Kardashian vs. Ryan comment is spot on and frightening. You're absoultely right. Stupidity has become a form of entertainment. A few months ago I came to the conclusion that the average animated kids movie is more intelligent and well written than the average 17 and over movie. That says a lot.
And people wonder why most of my television watching involves
cartoons.
Seriously, it does. With a few exceptions, I hardly ever watch programming meant for adults. It's all just too stupid.
Concrete material benefits are key
Which is why the Clinton era is important and people look back at that adminstration with some affection.
But I don't think there's an answer to our plight in the Ds no matter who's at the top of the ticket. The rot is too far gone. Focus on policy and federation and the right people will come.
Republican Convention - What Wasn't Seen
Interesting to see how the Republican PTB crush Ron Paul's delegates, and this spooky re-emergence of Ralph Reed:
http://vimeo.com/48590719
Good show by Bill Moyers on Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist. These guys make the slime in The Blob look good.
But I don't think the Dems are any better, they just talk nicer while they knife you in the back.
Ralph Reed...shudder.
Along with nauseous feeling.
But it's having really big money behind you can do -- it can bring the stinking, rotten corpse of a politician back to political respectability. Why, here in the NYC area, The Brian Lehrer Show had Hermn Cain on as a poiitical analyst! Sheesh!.
Obama's insistance on "look forward, don't look back" hasn't helped voters to keep in mind what awful things the Repubs of Reed's ilk and time did to them.
9/3: Edited slightly to mkae sense of 1st graf.
The mention of Ralph Reed
The mention of Ralph Reed reminded me of something in my Bush scandals list:
A lot of our political classes, among whom I count Reed, are vampires. No matter how many times they are exposed for the crooks, gifters, and hypocrites they are. They keep coming back. About the only thing that can end their careers is the standard taboo of being caught in bed with either a dead woman or a live boy, and even that is working less and less.