The cold truth about Obama and FDR

[phantom power]

In the end, I still think we're all boned without a return to "welcoming their hatred." The DLC as a response to "backlash by moneyed interests" was a pyrrhic victory, since it resulted in nothing pushing both parties far to the right, leaving voters with only a choice between center-right Dems and clinically insane Republicans.

Reacting to Wall Street's delusional rage against the President which I highlighted earlier, Daily Kos diarist David Mizner asks the pertinent question: why doesn't the President simply welcome their hatred? After all, Wall Street is deeply unpopular and Dems would stand to gain, right?

...

Plainly speaking, FDR didn't need the bankers' money. Campaigning wasn't nearly as expensive in those days. Lack of effective mass communications made it harder to purchase persuasion. And the Powell Memo that led to the coordination of big business spending on elections was over 30 years away. Wall Street had money, but it wasn't as coordinated and it didn't go as far.

But that's not all. FDR also had the votes of the racist South. He couldn't afford to lose them. FDR had the opportunity to pass an anti-lynching bill, but he couldn't afford to do it and still get the New Deal passed

...

The cold truth is that Democrats' decision to support working families and organized labor from 1930-1970 led to an intense and furious backlash by moneyed interests, without which the Movement Conservative revolution would not have been possible. Republicans outraised Democrats in presidential elections during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s by a factor of 7-1 and higher. That in turn led to the creation of the DLC and the rise of the neoliberal elite to raise enough funds to be remotely competitive.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/cold-truth-about-obama-and-fdr-by.html

[zipplewrath]

1. You left this part out

The cold truth is that Democrats' decision to support women's rights and especially minority rights in the 1960s led to the loss of the Deep South and much of the Rust Belt.

The author is basically making the case that the democrats never should have purged the southern party of the segregationists. Can't say I agree with him. Neither did LBJ, and LBJ has fairly well establish political "chops".

[MadHound]

2. And sadly, in an effort to gain money and votes,

The Democratic party moved to the right as well.

[vi5]

3. This question is akin to asking...

"Well, why don't the Washington Generals just play against a different basketball team than the Harlem Globetrotters?!?!?"

The fact is the Dems still get paid handsomely for their ineptitude.

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. n/t

[lostnote12]

5. Well spoken......n/m

[Zorra]

6. So then, at this point, it appears that Occupy is our only active hope

for freedom, democracy, and opportunity, in the US. The only hope the 99% has for constructively and progressively increasing their opportunities in the future.

There are some issues with this piece because it presents a narrow "absolute truth" with no source citations or significant descriptions of historical conditions, and may be a biased and duplicitous attempt at justifying the takeover of the Democratic party by the DLC/1%. But if that is the case, it actually backfires.

The article does paint an accurate picture of the impossibility of significant constructive change being enacted through the political/legislative process.

It fully supports the widely held Occupy position of remaining apolitical, because the political process is irrevocably broken, due to the fact that it is totally owned by the 1%, and operates solely in their interest. Furthermore, there are no political/legislative means for the 99% to ever wrest control of the process from the 1% in the future.

It's totally lose-lose for We the People. Voting is little more than an annual chance to say "hooray for our side, hooray for our guy" while politicians in both parties continue to operate in the in the interests of their 1% owners. Any honest, well meaning Democrats are totally handcuffed by the system.

This sucks.

The "hard cold truth" is that when you (the Democratic Party) sell your soul to the devil (the 1%), you become the slave of the devil. The devil owns you from that point forward, and there's no going back. You sign in blood and you take the money, and you're damned to hell forever.

And then the bank takes the farm anyway.

A hopeless lose-lose situation.

It's always just better to stand up for what is right, and to do what is right, and figure out an honest way to win without selling your soul for false promises from the 1% devil. You cannot gamble with the devil and expect to beat the devil at his own game. He owns the house, and the game is always rigged, and he's watching your every move.

I am not advocating not voting, because there are some good Democrats, and there are no good republicans at all.

At least if Democrats are in office, we will have a slower, more comfortable ride down the highway to hell, and can maintain a glimmer of hope that Occupy can beat the 1% devil by not buying what he's selling.

From my POV, that's the best we can hope for.

May Day in the media

http://occupycentral.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/your-inbox-occupied-may-day-in-the-media/