General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Biting political analysis of the McCain funeral from Jeet Heer:
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
malaise
(278,668 posts)Get thee to the greatest page
truth will out
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Sure, there's far too much money in Washington and that and other corrupting influences do affect Democrats also. Another big one is that the people we send like being there too much for our good and don't want to leave.
But as political scientists note, while liberal Democratic politicians do want to prosper in a town overrun with money, overall they believe in democracy and what they're sent there to do -- to be leaders in government of, by and for the people. That ideology is a huge check that keeps corrupting influences from taking over. They believe in what they are supposed to do.
Today's conservative Republicans tragically do not. They tend to see, and many fervently believe, that our federal government as intrinsically dysfunctional, destructive, and very corrupt and go there in part to prove their ideology is right. And that is intensely corrupting.
Not all conservatives are that bad, by any means, though today's remnant Republicans are. We need to get their corruption and anti-government extremism out of government.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Renew Deal
(83,050 posts)He is as much responsible for this as Bush, McConnell, and the rest of the Republican Party.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,102 posts)
JHB
(37,461 posts)EVERYBODY who spent their careers in conservative and Republican messaging.
As political consultants, as media figures, as speechwriters, as think-tank fish. All of them.
They turned the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Ahab, and now they're complaining about how their beloved Pequod spends all its time chasing the White Whale.
And the moment Trump is no longer a factor, they'll go right back to doing the same thing.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Various Republicans, including members of the media and retiring Congresspersons, have been critical of Trump. Steve Schmidt, Republican Party strategist turned TV pundit and Trump critic, has even renounced his Republican Party membership. Schmidt tweeted, "29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump."
Now, let me preface what I'm about to write by saying the more people that recognize the horrors of the Trump Administration the better. But let's be clear about a few things. Trump and his base of support is a monster of the Republican Party's making, a monster who was 50 years in the making. The Southern Strategy and racist dog whistling has been modus operandi for the GOP for longer than Steve Schmidt has been alive. Schmidt turned eighteen as Ronald Reagan's administration was coming to an end. I imagine Reagan inspired Schmidt to register as a Republican. Reagan, the man who basically kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign by giving a speech about "states' rights" less than ten miles from Philadelphia, MS, where three civil rights workers were murdered. Every other Republican presidential candidate, from Nixon to Bush to McCain to Romney, has also engaged in dog whistling.
In addition, the Republican Party has engaged in race-based gerrymandering and race-based voter suppression. The Republican Party has also fomented and exploited sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, jingoism and hatred of LGBTQ persons. The Republican Party has undermined trust in government by infusing government with incompetence and corruption. The Republican Party has also fostered the "liberal media" myth, which has contributed to a highly irresponsible infotainment industry that promotes false equivalencies and seems unwilling to label facts as facts and lies as lies (out, I suppose, of some twisted sense of what constitutes fairness or balance).
All of the above made the rise of Trump or someone like him almost inevitable. So, all I can suggest to Republicans who are critical of Trump is that you keep scrubbing those hands. The blood won't come out easily, but what choice do you have but to keep scrubbing?
Let me make one more point before closing. Unless one is genuinely ignorant of history, it is utterly disingenuous to suggest that the Republican Party of today (or pre-Trump) is anything like the Republican Party that was started by anti-slavery Whigs. Nor is today's GOP the "party of Lincoln," as some like to claim (Lincoln, by the way, was no abolitionist). Mr. Schmidt, the pre-Trump Republican Party is no more the Republican Party of 1854 than today's Democratic Party is the Democratic Party of pre-1964 Strom Thurmond.
Why call out Republicans who are critical of Trump, one might ask. The reason is simple. Republicans need to take ownership. We need to be clear about who Republicans have been for half a century now. All persons of conscience must guard against this notion that all will be well or "normal" if we simply rid this nation of Donald J. Trump. All is not well. Republicans have very deliberately created a monster, which was born before Trump moved into the White House and will undoubtedly survive long after Trump is gone. Own it, Republicans. Own it.
Lastly, to all those persons of conscience, vote for Democrats in November. The party may not be perfect, but it's the only thing standing in the way of authoritarianism, the only thing standing in the way of fascism. If you've never voted before, 2018 would be a good time to start. Your Social Security, your health insurance or your child's health insurance, and your very life may depend on it. Please vote.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)I've been saying for a while now that campaigning against trumpft is not the answer. Someday trumpft WILL be gone, but the republican platform will be there. trumpft has done nothing, absolutely nothing that wasn't in the repub platform before he got there.
The only difference between trumpft and other republicans is that trumfpt is vulgar, crude, bigoted, and doesn't know how to hide it. And while a lot of other repubs may have done criminal things, I'd say most pale in comparison to the vast criminal acts of the trumpft "family business."
EndGOPPropaganda
(1,117 posts)Such a great post.
(But don’t forget the vehicle the GOP used to groom their hateful base: rightwing propaganda media, from Fox to limbaugh to Breitbart. Without rightwing media Trump would have had no shot.)
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,614 posts)Your points need to be hammered home and discussed in their own thread.
Thank you!
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Kissinger, Le Pen, Putin, Orban, Neil Farage, Don Jr. (Skypeing from prison) the Mooch, Diamond and Silk, Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Kanye.
Link to tweet
Beartracks
(13,617 posts)
ecstatic
(34,500 posts)Not true. Looks like a weak justification for why many Bernie voters went for trump.
Bluepinky
(2,337 posts)I would have also liked to see members of the Bush administration at least charged with war crimes and lying to the American public. If nobody is ever held accountable, the crimes keep escalating, which they have.
I was also really disappointed that Obama didn’t rescind Bush’s tax cuts for the rich during his first year as President, he ran on that promise and then never followed through.
Not many Bernie voters went for Trump, though. A vote for Trump was a vote for a con man, and Bernie voters were smarter than that. The vast majority voted for Hillary.
MsLeopard
(1,285 posts)paleotn
(19,435 posts)but my good sense tells me a sizable portion of Bernie's voters didn't vote at all in the general. Enough to swing it to Dumpster? Probably not, but who knows? We must remember that the outside propaganda that affected so many voters was not a general election phenomenon only and wasn't just directed at the middle or right of the political spectrum.
As for taxes, Obama couldn't rescind the Bush tax cuts at the stroke of a pen. Tax rates did increase on incomes > $400K per year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise between Obama and the Dems with the Reps, while keeping the Bush rates for everyone else. While I agree the Bush tax cuts should never have been passed, significantly raising taxes, thus dampening economic activity, in the midst of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression would have been...lets say, more than counterproductive. Once our economy began to stabilize, we could then start to think about returning tax rates to Clinton levels. Did they rise enough, fast enough? Hard to say, but by the current economic boom they should have returned to Clinton levels or higher on higher incomes. You have Congress, particularly the Reps to blame for that, not Obama.
I agree with your first statement. There's nothing like a good perp walk or two to put the fear of god in Wall Street types. They need to be regularly humbled and well controlled lest they become pit bosses at a casino verses efficient allocators of capital.
Bluepinky
(2,337 posts)I would hope that Democrats help to promote income equality whenever they can, and it’s frustrating when they don’t do this. I remember Obama ran on rescinding the Bush tax cuts, but it seemed like it was forgotten after he was elected. The people who voted for him overwhelmingly supported him on this.
paleotn
(19,435 posts)As top income tax rates and cap. gains rates have moved lower since Reagan, executive pay has exploded, wages for the bottom 75% have stagnated and income inequality has risen to levels not seen since the gilded age. In Obama's defense, he inherited a hell of a mess. A tax system in shambles, driving inequality and huge deficits, while helping to fuel financial bubbles like the one that caused the 2008 crash. He was able to sign legislation reverting top income tax rates back to pre-Bush levels( > $450K married filing jointly), but Dems lost the House in 2010 making any further increases in tax rates impossible.
SunSeeker
(54,007 posts)Obama put all his political capital in getting us healthcare and saving our economy. He only had 24 working days of a supermajority, which was when he was first elected. A president is not a king, nor a magician who can just wave a wand to make things happen.
SharonClark
(10,351 posts)Bluepinky
(2,337 posts)He bent over backwards to try to work with the Republicans when he got into office; he didn’t realize at the time that they had no intention of working with him and would do everything in their power to undermine him.
betsuni
(27,298 posts)and saving the economy. Don't know why people don't understand this. 
Chemisse
(31,008 posts)Part of that was letting go of all the crises and corruption created under the previous administration. He could hardly go forward with bipartisanship when he rankled the GOP establishment by investigating the Iraq War and prosecuting bankers.
Of course there was not a prayer of bipartisanship to begin with, and he realized that eventually. He made a lot of mistakes in his first year to 18 months. Whether that led to the fissure in the Democratic Party, I have no idea. I think we were ALL angry at him early on. Perhaps the fracture began over health care. Most of us would have preferred single payer. Some of us accepted what we got (which I saw as a fairly painless move toward single payer, with the Medicaid expansion and the hope of more in the future) and some never forgave him for that.
I agree that Obama had a passion for compromise, getting along and bipartisanship. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it was a somewhat naïve effort on Obama's part to bring the two sides together that resulted in the watered down health care bill that satisfied very few (and disappointed or angered many), regardless of political bent, and splintered the Democratic Party into several smaller groups within the Party who are often at each other's throats.
Simply stated, Obama missed an opportunity. When McConnell declared that his number one priority was to make Obama a one term president, instead of trying to get along Obama should have taken off the gloves and twisted the arms of resistant Blue Dogs (and others) and shoved single payer down their throats.
If nothing else, a core sector of the population would have been very happy and could have formed a nucleus to build upon to herald in a New Democratic Party with a spine.
Parenthetically I agree that Bush and Cheney et al should have been prosecuted for war crimes and the banksters prosecuted for their transgressions.
A final note -- I agree with recent polls showing Obama to be the best President of our lifetimes. But not because of any agenda he implemented or furthered, because he carried himself with dignity and grace and respect for the Office which he held. There wasn't a single scandal involving his administration during the entire eight years he was in office.
Chemisse
(31,008 posts)Although I think Obama did quite a bit of good during his two terms. The fact that I can't remember all his accomplishments off the top of my head is in part a reflection of how very little he did to publicize them. This is what I saw as his biggest flaw. He did not take control of the message and use it to build and maintain support for the Democratic Party.
Welcome to DU!
GoCubsGo
(33,135 posts)Cosmocat
(15,047 posts)And when I read that, I had to concede the point. Even before he was elected I said that I knew he was too close to big money for my liking. One major feeling of the cleanup of the financial downturn was no one was really held accountable for what happened.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Pretending that our problems began with Rump is the worst possible take-away from our current situation.
PatrickforO
(15,125 posts)Good thread. Interesting that we have some on here who are saying we need to pander to the center to win elections, but this set of tweets seems to belie that.
Some 60 million voted Trump in 2016 because they were deeply discontented and wanted change. That's why Trump positioning himself as a populist, even though that was an outright lie, was so effective for him. The people wanted a populist. The people want better wages, healthcare, stronger Social Security - the stuff on our platform. And they want a populist to set that vision.
The old white guys can go on being scared and reactionary because they are literally a dying breed.
As for the rest of us, we need to take back our republic and truly make of it a government of, by and for the people. When people feel like they DO have a say in policies that affect them, and act on that belief - that's democracy. Let us bring democracy to ourselves and get rid of both the oligarch freaks and the chest pounding nationalist freaks.
radical noodle
(8,798 posts)"Populism" is a poor excuse for trump. He made it clear who he was from the moment he first announced his candidacy.
malaise
(278,668 posts)Tea Party racists.
radical noodle
(8,798 posts)The Tea Party was born out of hatred of the black man in the White House.
malaise
(278,668 posts)I don't plan to forget
PatrickforO
(15,125 posts)He did heavily stress the manufacturing that had been moved offshore and the need for better-negotiated trade agreements to bring back good jobs. That was his populist thread, and if you've ever met people in a little town that had a factory that moved, you know that whole swaths of this country's economy have turned to rust. People who were once middle class and had decent lives now are working at places like Wal-Mart because those are the only jobs. They don't have healthcare any more. Their once-new truck is now on its last legs. They can't afford to send their kids to college. Et cetera. When a politician says he wants to address those things, or implies he does, as Trump did, it is in fact a populist message. Trump was lying, of course, but that is a populist message.
Trump is also a racist, as you point out, and early on his campaign swung from hope into fear and hatred. I agree with you on that.
Clinton had a great platform, and in fact won the popular vote. Trump cheated, yes, with Russia, and was aided by years of Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression, to win the Electoral College by what? 78,000 votes in three states?
But don't forget the power of the media. They showed all of Trump's rallies in their entirety - great for ratings, and they presented him over and over and over and over as a legitimate candidate and a populist.
Like it or not, Clinton faced two major hurdles: first, unlike Trump, she was not perceived as a populist. Somehow, with much of the fault at the media's doorstep, Clinton's genuineness and caring was never stressed. Clinton is a great lady. She never forgets, and she still checks in with people whom she helped many years ago. She really cares, and that can't be taught. You either have it or you don't and Clinton is genuinely a very nice, very caring, hardworking person who would have made a fantastic president back in the day when we actually had people in DC who wanted to govern us. Had she won, the Republicans would for sure have impeached her by now, and you know this is true. They would have obstructed her every...single...step...of...the...way, unrelentingly, 24/7/365.
And, of course, this brings us to my second point: The right wing for some reason had spent years and years, decades, smearing Clinton. Whitewater this, emails that, pizzagate, and so on. The bottom line is that corporate hate-propaganda, that decades-long smear campaign worked. It made a substantial portion of our population, mostly older white men, absolutely, fervently hate her. I mean to the point where they are so into their hatred they spray saliva when they are talking about her.
So, she had that baggage - horribly biased media coverage creating the perception she was the establishment candidate, and the feverish hatred, built over decades, once again fanned into flame on thousands of AM radio stations, Fox 'news' and other corporate capitalist propaganda organs.
Trump wasn't a populist and isn't now. But as Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." And that is the message people got because Trump is a master at creating chaos and riding it to victory. He implied he was a populist and this lie was accepted at face value. Somehow, he sensed that Americans want the game to change in some fundamental ways. And, you cannot deny we do want that kind of fundamental change - but there's the rub. What needs to change looks different for Trump supporters than it does to us. To an old white guy who used to be prosperous but now has to work two jobs just to stay above water, the fear, carefully fostered as part of the GOP's 'southern strategy,' makes him afraid he's going to ultimately lose everything to immigrants, gays and minorities.
This is why, when I'm talking to young people who want to run for office, I tell them they must pound on kitchen table issues. All politics is local, and the game people want to change is they want to have a better say in policies that affect them at the local, state and national levels. Kitchen table issues are populist issues. WE have the populist platform, and we need to pound on that with one voice. Then we'll win.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)
JHan
(10,173 posts)but speak to Iowa farmers right now and they'll tell you his policies are hurting them, but they're still supporting him because they think he's a good guy. The amazing thing is he told them he would do this shit but it didn't rank high enough for them - it was not the motivating factor for their vote. They could have looked at his advisors and seen it was going to be an elitist shit show once elected, but they were blinded by more pressing concerns like Muslims taking over America /sarcasm.
They voted for a guy with a golden toilet and a tacky tower in Manhattan.
A golden toilet They KNEW this and they voted for it. They bought his shitty merchandize which was made in China. This assumption that these people were duped and didn't know what they were voting for has to stop. There are voters out there who are malicious and vote maliciously, at best they are irrational and low information - sometimes by choice.
And it wasn't the first time they did this. Romney wasn't shy about wealth excess. He owned a mansion with an elevator for his cars and he loved to indulge in buying prancing horses.
As for Obama, I get it. People are upset Bankers weren't prosecuted but look at the place where they were prosecuted: Iceland. Iceland's pots and pans revolution was bloodless, they just shoved their entire constitution out the window. They eschewed banking reform and went after bankers for things like tax evasion and insider training. Should Obama have established some special elite unit to go after bankers in the U.S , could he have done what Bush did with the Enron Task Force? Yes, but it's not like nothing was done. Bank reforms were implemented.
The populist always needs an enemy, and the populist decides who that enemy is. Grievance is a powerful motivator. The schema is always "establishment" ( something always nebulously defined) vs "the people" and it shouldn't surprise anyone that the populist narrative Trump built on catered to WWC grievance narratives when the biggest populist movement we've ever had was the KKK. The whole populist narrative of 2016 was "abandonment of the white working class"
I would argue that it was populist rhetoric which blinded people to what Clinton had to offer - -it was the relentless demonization of people based not on substance or record
Clinton was going to tackle:
- debt-free tuition
- police brutality
- unemployment, and the minimum wage
- protecting roe v wade and choice legislation ( despite the complaints from those calling abortion " wedge issue)
- paid family leave
- universal pre-k
- greater funding for Alzheimer’s research
- wall street reform ( More detailed than anyone else in the election at the time)
- healthcare...
I could go on and on. And yet she was framed by the same populists of being a "corporate stooge"
Yeah I've had enough of populism thank you very much.
PatrickforO
(15,125 posts)Our message, our platform that you outline above IS populist, because it addresses kitchen table issues. Our platform would genuinely make Americans' lives better. In the real sense, not the Trumpian sense, of that word. Because populist is kitchen table. Trump has just perverted it.
Originally in the 19th century, what was known as populism was essentially a monetary argument. The corporate capitalists and bankers wanted to control central banking so they could earn interest off the national debt, while the populists (remember W. J. Bryant's famous "We shall not be crucified on a cross of gold!" speech in 1896?) argued for a pure version of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which requires Congress to coin money.
As an economist, I've gone clear out in the weeds with the monetary argument, and I am fond of asking people the question, "If our national debt is money we owe ourselves, then why are we paying it back to 'investors' and bankers with interest?" I mean, we have fiat currency, which means nothing is backing it but the 'full faith and credit' of our government. A dollar is only a dollar because we agree it is.
Some say Kennedy was killed, at least in part, because early in June 1963, he issued Executive Order 11110, which called for the US to issue notes backed with silver to replace Federal Reserve notes. Bankers really hated this because it would adversely affect their profits, and coincidentally, Kennedy was shot down only six months later. Lots of unsolved mystery surrounding that whole chapter.
It's always about money. Everything is about money. That's why we should take a page from Warren's book and expand corporate charters to include the welfare of workers and consumers, as well as the environment as opposed to merely increasing earnings for shareholders.
A good place to start if you want to tackle the real populist issue, which is monetary policy, is 'Web of Debt' by Ellen Brown. Good book, and right on the money, if you'll pardon the pun. North Dakota has public banking, and a bunch of Democrats in my state are touting public banking.
I guess this went out in the weeds a bit, but essentially we seem to be in agreement.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Human needs are central to anything, so food, housing, shelter, education are bound to be popular with most people.
The amazing thing is that Republicans have managed to retain power while being on the wrong side of issues.
Tax cuts for the rich? Not popular.
Outright ban on abortion? -Not popular.
Zero Gun Control Laws or tepid Gun control legislation ? Also not popular.
etc etc.
Yet they get victories because they double down on resentment and creating enemies. Cultural resentment is their selling point because if you look at polling where questions are asked about America's "decline" and traditionalist values, you see the fear. Trump went full demagogue and it worked.
The framing of Trump's victory as a populist uprising is also problematic. It wasn't. Similar to Brexit, it was a mixed bag (The vote split in Brexit was 52/48 I believe). He only won because of the electoral college. He lost the popular vote.
His election happened at a time when voters were subjected to a sophisticated information war designed to confuse, distract and divide.
And Trump's numbers were just slightly better than Romney's. Republicans fell in line and the cyber warfare campaign waged in swing states had an effect by the smallest margin of votes.
In the midst of this, we saw the effects of a gutted voting rights act and gerrymandering which continues to help republicans in congress.
Rather than a populist uprising, I'd say the election proved the banality of evil.
We've had populists before, they frighten me ( and my mind goes back to the likes of Savonarola). Populism doesn't need to exist within an economic framework because its selling point is grievance and the results are often a horror show. This is why I mentioned the Scandinavian countries: They're admired and we wish to ape them, yet neofascism is on the rise in countries with universal healthcare and low-income inequality. So what gives?
I want reformers, who understand the drudge of reform and how to bring about lasting change and improved outcomes for people. I more admire workhorses who get things done. We'll probably never agree on this, but we both want the same thing: More democrats in power.
PatrickforO
(15,125 posts)You especially make good points about today's meaning of 'populist.' I was going by the more traditional definition: a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people; a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people; or a member of the Populist Party, a US political party formed in 1891 that advocated the interests of labor and farmers, free coinage of silver, a graduated income tax, and government control of monopolies.
So, in my eyes, you see, the term 'populist' is a good one because our national government really doesn't represent the interests of the ordinary people. It's too corrupt with corporate dollars.
Let us then agree on the term 'reformer.' It is a good one, making me mindful of Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal. Because we darned sure need some reform!
JHan
(10,173 posts)(while I'm aware of his flaws, both he and Lincoln rank high on my top presidents list.)
As for Corporate Money, it's a reality that's always been there. We've had some truly horrible developments since the aughts: Citizens United being the main one, which has impacted all of politics. Right now even some progressive groups are 501c4's.
This corruption situation is not at all new. As I've said before here, history is replete with far more jarringly corrupt examples like Tammany Hall, Boss Tweed, Huey Long. The Astors and Vanderbilts were known to influence elections, then there was the Pendergast Machine which helped Truman launch his career (Bless him though, because I rank him highly ) and then William A Clark.
Also, Defense Contractors has Congress wrapped around their fingers. This is the case in every state - particularly swing districts. They've got their tenterhooks in the military appropriations committee. And really, if you're a Senator, Congressman/woman are you really going to say no to anyone in that industry setting up shop in your state and providing jobs? If you challenge them, they'll sink you.
So we've got these countervailing factors we ought to be aware of when we assess how successful or unsuccessful Dems are in implementing things..
This is why I lean more towards Alinksy " he who fears corruption fears life." I want reps to improve systems when they have the power to - make them more robust, improve regulatory frameworks. Republicans have had way too much success tipping the scales towards corporate power, upsetting the balance between initiative/enterprise and checks and balances on the system to ensure fairness. But I expect politics to be complicated, slightly corrupt at times, and very messy because that's the nature of power - it may have no moral valence on its own but to grasp it one must be cunning, shrewd and sometimes use the tools of your enemies to greater advance your own causes.
JHan
(10,173 posts)are seeing a rise in Neofascism.
It's happening in Scandinavian countries everyone idealizes.
The average Trump voter makes 75k a year.
It's 2018, why are we repeating myths proven false.
brer cat
(26,462 posts)of one person; it doesn't really "belie" anything, and blaming every ill on "elites" is a cop out. We have a long history of elites serving this country well, albeit imperfectly, but if we seek purity in all our leaders, we are doomed to fail as we leave millions of potential voters sitting on the sidelines instead of supporting an imperfect candidate.
I find it hard to believe that anyone living in these years of trump can believe that his voters were motivated primarily by populist ideals. They have fiercely embraced the racism, bigotry, and misogyny that he started shouting from day one, and they have not held him accountable for failing to appoint an administration or promote policies that would achieve any such ideals. Sixty million people DID have a say in politics and DID act on that belief, and now we have have a fascist running our country. "Democracy" is no protection from charismatic liars who can convince the gullible and willfully uninformed to vote against their best interests.
Elections won by those on the fringe are those who peel off enough of the center to cobble together a majority of voters. Republicans did indeed have a long run-up to the 2016 election where they worked tirelessly (and revoltingly) to pull together a large base of people who could be moved by appeals to white supremacy. If we are going to elected Democrats, we have to better understand who is in that center and how to motivate them to get off their a$$es and vote. For example, it is indisputable that Black women generally vote in higher percentages than any other demographic group, and while they are hardly monolithic, I see them as largely in the center politically. What can we learn from them? I don't have the answer, but I do think (a) they look with clear eyes at what they stand to lose, (b) they recognize a con when they see one, and (c) they aren't waiting on a savior...power can come from a ballot and they use it.
Squinch
(53,142 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts).. and over and over and over and now treated as fact.
Squinch
(53,142 posts)JI7
(90,831 posts)not looking at Trump's Taxes and other background.
that's why they are ok with him ripping people off with shit like Trump university.
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,614 posts)Cambridge Analytica gave the Russian operatives the buttons to push for a wide range of people online. Rush's rants reached a certain demographic via radio. Alex Jones went for the outright crazy fringe. 'Establishment' Repubs spoke the same lines they've used since Reagan.
Racists, bigots, misogynists, fringe, evangelicals, rich, poor -- each received the message they wanted to hear. It was a very broad net and those caught in it obviously didn't look around to see that what stirred them up conflicted with what stirred up the voter next to them (except at the rallies).
Aristus
(68,583 posts)I can't think of a better way to sum up in just one word everything Trump is and represents.
blue-wave
(4,488 posts)someone like Manafort. He actively worked for years and years to undermine our countries foreign policy objectives in Ukraine. Many in the establishment were likely saying "Oh, it's OK, he's one of us. Look at how insatiably greedy he is, stuffing his pockets with 10's of millions. He's a good 'ol boy!" How else could he get away with his actions without, at minimum, acquiescence?
Now, because of that dismissive attitude, we have a mess of epic proportions on our hands. The establishment worships unbridled, wild west type greed. That is how someone like Manafort could do to our country what he did. How else did tRump come to be? It's also what Putin understands all too well.
SunSeeker
(54,007 posts)
My feelings exactly.
ismnotwasm
(42,478 posts)I do like most of the thread though, but I am very tired of the word “elite”—when does that happen? Local reps? State senators? Governors? All leadership? The money in politics? Politics itself?
Trump has recently co-opted the word, telling his fans that “they are the elite”.
There are a lot of words that are almost useless as descriptors anymore both from over-use and mis-use. “Elite” is one of them
peggysue2
(11,510 posts)And before we eliminate all the 'elitist' leadership people, why don't we get rid of the Trumpster and his acolytes before they burn down the house. With us in it!
The Democratic Party did not bring us Trump and his incompetent craziness. Obama had nothing to do with Trump and his neo-fascist, alt-right movement. The demerit badge belongs solely to the Republicans who opened the door and invited the Trumpster in. Like a vampire.
Because winning!
Stop with the whataboutism and concentrate on November 6th. Right now that's the only thing that matters.
If we want a country, that is.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run. The Clinton's attended Trump's most recent wedding, and if you believe Amy Chozick from the NY Times, at Hillary Clinton's encouragement.
There was some talk about Trump running as a Democrat at one point. His rise occurred in a majority Democratic city where his graft, unfettered ambition, and corrupt connections have been known for decades.
Obviously Trump is now a Republican and campaigned on divisive and racist themes. But to act as though there are no connections is false.
Heck, we just came out of a week of tribute to the Democratic Party's favorite Republican. But now there no connection between "us" and "them"?
SunSeeker
(54,007 posts)At least this National Review author does mention the GOP's Southern Strategy. Funny how you don't.
Dems being civil with Republicans does not make them "accountable" for Republicans' wrongs.
Don't buy the false equivalence bullshit. It is pure GOP propaganda.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)but attending weddings because donors will be there and/or encouraging Trump to run is not "civility." Or perhaps you too thought it was a good idea to buddy up with Trump on the golf course and encourage him to run for President.
There's not a single explanation for Trump's rise. Instead there are multiple factors, from Russian interference to dog whistle racism to faulty DNC analytics to press failures to vet Trump to the polarization of the election map to the failures of regulators to stand tall against Trump's obvious corruption to voter suppression.
Unfortunately, we rely too much on simple explanations and this makes it less likely that we learn from errors in judgment. And it really would be best to look at all the factors to avoid this kind of debacle in the future.
JI7
(90,831 posts)election system.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)including weddings for a developer (i.e. Trump) who has been popped by the feds for racist rental practices, who has regularly stiffed working people who labored on his sites, who has multiple bankruptcies, who associates in his businesses with felons that really should have prevented him from getting a license to open casinos, who racially baits on the Central Park jogging case, before going on to be the public face of the birther movement, etc. In other words, the Donald Trump that was clearly visible long before being encouraged by Bill Clinton to run for president.
So, you're right, attending a wedding and playing a few rounds of golf on a Trump course are not the same as conspiring to interfere in a presidential election. But when a man with Trump's sordid history adopts extreme tactics in the presidential campaign, it shouldn't be a surprise, and it should prompt some reflection on whether to avoid or encourage relationships with unsavory figures like Trump, especially for leaders like the Clintons that have a reputation for supporting the common person.
I don't think there's any doubt that these associations played a role in this debacle of a presidential race. If you think differently, it's all good. But it would be great in the future if a candidate like Trump isn't encouraged to run for president by any Democrat, whether it's sincere encouragement or not.
JI7
(90,831 posts)and trying to equate everyday things people do with the russian attacks on the elections and trying to equate entertainment figures with those running for public office is meant to defend trump and the russian attacks on the election.
maybe we should blame david letterman for having trump on his show.
maybe we should blame all the people who were on the apprentice and blame nbc for giving him a show.
it's like Trump bringing up FBI Agents affairs to try to take attention away from the actual issue of the attack on the election.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)that has been a hallmark of Trump's rise to the presidency? Nothing to say about racist real estate practices, organized crime associations, ripping off the working class people that did dangerous work on job sites, etc.? All of this was known before people in Trump's private circles, including Bill Clinton, encouraged Trump to run. And you think that there's no accountability here, or accountability for Republicans only, even when Trump's rise largely occurred in a Democratic majority city?
Even with 20/20 hindsight, knowing about Trump's prominence in the birther movement, invitations of Bill Clinton's accusers to the presidential debate, along with collusions with Russia and the constant use of a public office for self-enrichment, nothing suggests that for Democratic candidates for president, associations by choice with dubious characters like a Donald Trump should be avoided in the future??? That's an Omarosa level of denial there.
And yes, to some extent, the culture that produced reality TV, empty suit celebrities that are propped up through the race for ratings, blatant racism and sexism in the culture of mass media (David Letterman, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby are part of this) and the blending of cheap entertainment with public policy formulation has some culpability in the rise of Trump. This rise didn't happen in a vacuum with no actors beyond the Russians, fairly obviously to me at least.
So, playing golf, chilling at third or fourth weddings with a racist, dishonest real estate developer who rips off his workers, and encouraging him to run for president is what everyday people do? You and I must live in different worlds.
Nothing I've said defends the Russians or Trump, and I have no idea how you get that impression from what I've written. The cyber wars and weaponization of social media by Putin's forces to undermine elections is a huge, ongoing, and unsolved problem that, without a Mueller level of determination to hold the conspirators accountable, might continue into 2018 and beyond. Preventing further damage to democratic processes is a job for all of us.
What I am saying is that looking back at all the factors that led to a President Trump, one of them is the ignoring of serially problematic actions over a period of decades due to political expediency, social graces, reverence for celebrity, the chase for donors, or whatever you want to call it. I will personally favor presidential candidates in the future that avoid such associations rather than cultivating them. To me, that's a simple commitment to make in order to genuinely represent ordinary people and prevent the rise of a Trump long before it occurs.
But, opinions vary.
JI7
(90,831 posts)from Americans Banks after his many failures.
accountability is acknowledging the real people behind him instead of the "hey lookie there" and some stupid wedding.
yes, everyday people did watch the apprentice .
everything you said it to take away from the real power behind him. just like he brings up some stupid FBI affairs , christopher steele and hillary and other shit to take attention away from the real problem .
BannonsLiver
(18,191 posts)More dead end OR/JPR style nonsense.
classof56
(5,376 posts)Who is Jeet Heer? And what is Ancien Regime?
Tired Old Cynic
GoCubsGo
(33,135 posts)classof56
(5,376 posts) JHB
(37,461 posts)I have criticisms of TNR, but it's a very different beast than NR.
Response to JHB (Reply #60)
BannonsLiver This message was self-deleted by its author.
DeminPennswoods
(16,347 posts)as the person delivering their message. If Mike Pence would become president, the Schmidts, Wilsons, Frums, Boots, Kristols etc, would just fine with him as the leader of the GOP.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)If we want to do long-term damage to the Republican Party, Democrats must hammer home the message that the rise of Trump (and the enabling of Trump) or someone like him was the inevitable result of 50 years of Republican rhetoric and policy. With an immense amount of help from an irresponsible infotainment industry that chases ratings, promotes false equivalencies, denies responsibility for fact-checking, and often implies that every statement is an equally valid opinion (there are no facts, there are no lies; there are only opinions), all in the name of boosting profits and not upsetting advertisers. It's not enough for a few pundits on MSNBC or CNN to state the obvious.
When Trump is gone, I guarantee you that the dominant narrative will be that everything is hunky-dory, that Trump was merely a bump in the road. Unless Democrats preemptively establish a different, more honest narrative.
The Republican Party has fomented and exploited racism (including xenophobia), sexism, religious bigotry, jingoism and extreme selfishness for decades. The pre-Trump Republican Party is directly responsible for Trump. They need to own that, which the anti-Trump Republicans who appear on TV or who are retiring from Congress aren't doing--they're all pushing this idea that the pre-Trump Republican Party was just fine. When in reality they need to make drastic changes or close shop and let a new party fill the void.
If Democrats don't start hammering home that message (which, yes, involves taking the media to task via the media...something Republicans started doing decades ago to great success) and take control of the narrative, the post-Trump Republican Party and the media will claim all is well because we've returned to "normalcy." As if that's acceptable. As if everything was just fine pre-Trump. As if the Republican Party hasn't long been built upon a foundation of bigotry, greed and lies. As if the Republican Party hasn't long been morally and ethically bankrupt. As if the Republican Party hasn't relied heavily upon race-based gerrymandering and voter suppression. As if the "liberal media" lie of the last 30+ years wasn't bullshit from day one.
It would be a mistake to think the Mueller investigation and removal of Trump and convictions for other Republicans will be enough to destroy the Republican Party as we know it. Memories and attention spans are short. Democrats must establish the dominant narrative, or Republicans will. And repetition is utilized for a reason. It works, and it's necessary. Make Republicans own the monster they've created. The monster isn't Trump but Trump's base and the environment that gave rise to the Republican Party of Trump.
Jarqui
(10,506 posts)Without the support of many in that cathedral, Trump could not have stolen the election.
Trump remains in the Oval office because many in that cathedral still enable it.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Lets pull all of it together and turn this thing around.
SamKnause
(13,871 posts)
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I liked Obama but he was too willing to compromise in exchange for nothing, and he does represent the Democratic side of the old order that is failing. I think history will view him as a transitional figure, who saw the weaknesses of our system, but was unable to fix them. The next Democratic president will be the one to set up the new regime.
StepnKretchit
(60 posts)He is articulate, charismatic, and they did not want to "monkey this up".
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Republicans were determined to block whatever any Democrat in the White House would do.
StepnKretchit
(60 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)At Obama’s call for fines and rules preventing another meltdown. I remember bank execs showing up to meetings with the President, in their personal helicopters and jets.
I may be misremembering...correct me if I’m wrong.
Erda
(173 posts)At the time, the financial system was on the brink of collapse. People had a "wait and see" attitude towards President Obama, even doubting if he knew which fork to use or which suit to wear at public events. I remember a reporter criticizing his choice of a charcoal grey tuxedo, over a black one at a formal dinner. I also remember the portrayal of him and Mrs. Obama as terrorists in disguise because of their use of fist bumps. Do you remember, "Was it a terrorist fist bump?"
President Obama had to prove himself, and he did over time. The highest priority had to be stabilizing the country because it was in free fall. Who in the political class would have backed him at the time, had he called for investigations?
Can you imagine what might have happened if President Obama had attempted to put these powerful, rich people in jail? How "uppity" of him. Compare it with what is happening to Robert Mueller now, whose patriotism is being questioned. Only it would have been much worse in my view, given the bigoted Republican party which vowed to undermine President Obama from the outset.
NNadir
(34,811 posts)While the racist trajectory of Republican presidential politics from Goldwater's vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through Nixon's "Southern Strategy" through Reagan's "Welfare Queens" to Bush I's "Willie Horton" and the election of an actual Ku Klux Klansman in Trump is undeniable, these poorly explicated tweets are not particularly bright or interesting.
In the last few days, we've heard many references to T. Roosevelt's Sorbonne Speech, reference to which evokes exactly this twit/tweetery, specifically the famous lines about whether critics count.
I had no idea who Jeet Heer was until I googled him. He's apparently a comedian, which probably explains that his rhetoric is a joke.
To include the statement about Obama that he includes in these mindless chants is neither insightful or honest.
One could easily turn this criticism on journalists, many of whom, apparently like this guy offer nothing more than criticism but as shown by their poor thinking and their highly selective attention which played a huge role in the 2016 election, they are actually lacking in the real ability to accomplish things.
I actually learned quite a bit from this well planned and well staged funeral about my country's better angels. It was, particularly for the humiliation of some of those in the room, say from the current Senate Quislings, and "golf-ball" brain not invited into the room, an eloquent statement on true American values.
I'm in no mood for piddling complaints by twit/tweet journalists.
Mr.Bill
(24,849 posts)because Nixon didn't die in prison.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Some giant leaps of trying to connect disparate events, and ignoring those that counter the argument. Like Reagan & Manafort? How about McCain refusing to have Manafort anywhere near his team?
No, it was the rise of the Tea Party, and the hard core base of that Tea Party. Of which neither Bush nor McCain was one. Reagan, either. Islamaphobia? By Bush? McCain? Reagan? Nope. Just the Tea Partiers...some of the rank and file politicians and their base.
You could just as easily say the Democrats created Trump by their actions or inaction. You could say that Obamacare lit the fire underneath the rank and file Tea Partiers. Did it? Maybe. It certainly fired them up. But did it create anything or just feed what was already there? It's pretty easy to connect dots to reach a false conclusion.
As for McCain and Palin, he wouldn't have selected her, if he had known what she was. His mistake was not making sure she was vetted properly. They were desperate to do something to have a chance against Obama, and in their desperation and haste, they made a huge mistake. So while he did select her, he didn't select what she was. There is a difference.
Everyone is to blame in some way, probably. But ultimately, the ones who voted for him, and the Russians, are responsible for him being called President.
lindysalsagal
(22,417 posts)I don't think I've heard it put into a nutshell so plainly before. It's that simple. And although McCain was himself tolerant, his party used this to win, over and over again. It's happening in florida now, and I don't hear any repubs refuting it.
The Jeet Heer person is right, whoever it is.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)He just got another follower.
mountain grammy
(27,365 posts) Brilliant!!
The Liberal Lion
(1,414 posts)Removing trump is not enough. We have a whole party of traitors to contend with and their path to the destruction of our republic has been long. I agree with the analysis. In 2008 with the mortgage meltdown we had the chance to truly change the economy and make it work for everyone. I love Bam, but I feel the way he handled the mortgage crises was one of his two biggest mistakes (the other being the ACA which itself was modeled after the highly flawed Heritage Foundation plan). I don't know if Bam should have pursued prosecution against the bankster, but I do know that the bank bailout in the form of the HARP program should have been used to keep everyone in their homes. The only people who should have lost their properties should have been those who used the fraudulent loans to purchase second and investment properties. This was a fatal error on Bam's part. But the illusion of a prosperous and strong economy was already shattered during the Clinton era with the collapse of LTCM. LTCM was only a practice run for what would happen with the bank and auto industry bailout. Next we Americans become little more than passive slaves when the we were cheated out of the 2000 election, and the "Supreme" court stole our vote. This of course was only a practice run for the grand theft carried out by trump, the Russian and the republicans. We allowed ourselves during the Bush years to be suckered into a false patriotism that was used against our interest in taking us both into Afghanistan and Iraq. Billions upon trillions of our resources were squandered in those wars in order to line the pockets of war profiteers. Where we are now is our own fault, we became a complacent and subservient folk with the mythology of land of the free and home of the brave becoming as meaningless as Santa Claus showing up to eat mommies cookies on December 25th. Even now, in our oh so holy outrage of what is happening to our government and our land we console ourselves in snark, place false hope in a system that has already shown itself to be corrupt, and fail to take any meaningful action to relieve ourselves of this nightmare because of the "inconvenience". It's truly sad to watch a once great country with high ideals devolve into little more that a shithole, banana republic with big guns due to our complacence. Many who talk a big game now will find themselves with bent knee in the very near future because actually doing something is too "inconvenient". This is how America dies, by it's own hand.