2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJust as Bernie is an FDR Dem, HRC is a NE Blue Blood Rockefeller Republican
This excerpt from FDR's 1944 State of the Union helps define our situation by giving a benchmark for measuring which candidate is a true Democrat:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
One of the great American industrialists of our daya man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should developif history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920'sthen it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.
I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.
Our fighting men abroad- and their families at home- expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying.
To compare and contrast John D. Rockefeller's view of how the world is supposed to be organized you could read this HistorydotCom review http://www.history.com/topics/john-d-rockefeller
Or you could just watch Hillary and Bill Clinton in action.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Tanuki
(14,919 posts)college internship "Wellesley in Washington" program, that she did not choose the placement and was assigned to it by the program director, and in fact campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)and volunteered to help Rockefeller in his opposition to Nixon.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=0
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)She reveled in her role as student government president, which offered both the visibility and social validation she craved. (I think I enjoy winning elections as a tangible proof of respect and liking, she wrote to Mr. Peavoy
Gaining power, Ms. Rodham asserted, was at the core of effective activism. It is the very essence of life, the dynamo of life, she wrote, quoting Mr. Alinsky.
But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to rub raw the sores of discontent and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system.
In reply to above statements from the article:
1. She has grown up. She now accepts trashing as part of the campaign strategy.
2. Even as a young woman, she craved power, and social validation. She's always been aiming for the gold ring. It validates her. Without that validation is she insecure?
3. Again, she is living out her young adult goals. Power is everything to her. Regardless of how it is obtained (money and ugly campaign tactics).
4. She has always been averse to getting-her-hands-dirty-"revolution". She is always willing to work the slow and patient and sometimes backward path toward social change. Regardless of how many are suffering now because change is needed NOW!
Something happened to her as she matured in politics. She used to be an idealist who really wanted to see change and help people. Now she's in it for the power and the money and is willing to play the game as it is "rigged" now. Not even pushing for change for the American middle class any more. Only for the wealthy. She has to protect the wealthy and the system. She has become the trickle-down politician who now and then helps implement a policy to help the poor, but never does what it takes to actually give them a ladder to climb.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)She embraced Goldwater FFS.
artyteacher
(598 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)+1
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)one of the few that have staunchly held to Democratic values and ideals. He has walked the walk. Even when the Party took a huge slide to the Corporate Reich. He is and Has been an FDR Democrat.
To me he is and has been more of a Democrat than MOST (in office) who have called themselves democrat.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)And isn't that the TRUE measure of who you are? You are known by what you do rather than the tribe you come from or the color of your skin or anything as SUPERFICIAL as that.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I mean.. gosh a rootie....
Did you all just get together and decide.. "Hey, lets all say Bernie isn't a democrat, heh, heh. That'll show 'em.?"
That's like saying Hillary isn't a woman.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)They certainly do everything they can to escape from the need to discuss them.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Just like Bernie, by writing it down on a piece of pater at the courthouse. That's how it's done. Simple as that. It isn't a miracle or birthright, just a label on a piece of paper.
peggysue2
(10,832 posts)That small niggling detail that St Bernard confessed to last night: he's running as a Democrat for the media exposure and money.
Enough to make any idealist's heart swoon, I'm sure.
Or make FDR turn over in his grave,
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Something your candidate can't claim..
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Just like Trump and the birthers.
He has caucused with the Democrats for his WHOLE CAREER. And they appreciated him so much that they put him on committees and even made him chairman of some.
So, if the Democrats in congress accepted and appreciated him, who the hell are you people to question it?
No one that's who. Just birthers who can't defend Hillary on issues but must resort to nonsense like this so you have something to say at all.
Javaman
(62,531 posts)LOL that tired argument is just that, very very tired.
upperatmos
(8 posts)Shocking!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747#ixzz42vJss3Cu
And he's right. Third party never gets the media (which is needed for the grassroots effort to collect the money necessary to run)...or the money, and third party might steal votes in the general, but has no chance in hell of ever winning. Without media or money in today's system, there is no "running".
He had to play the game this way if he had any intention of winning. It was the "ethical" and "serious" decision to participate to win.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)-Stealing voters data from the DNC, then playing the victim when they were rightfully caught and punished.
-Impersonating Culinary Union members in Nevada to gain access to employee breakrooms, so as to campaign for Sanders
-Implying in NH television ads that Sanders had been endorsed by newspapers who had not endorsed him at all.
-Sending out mailers that stole the logos from the AARP and League of Conservation Voters, two seniors organizations
-Implying an endorsement from the American Legion that never happened
Downright "Nixonian," that Sanders campaign is. But then again, Tad Devine has worked on 0 winning presidential campaigns out of 5 tries, so it's no wonder he's getting this desperate.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)... Only 1 democratic candidate has a failed presidential bid under their belt -- and it isn't Sanders.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)No, Sanders is the one with the failed career under his belt. 26 years in Congress with zero to show for it. And you might want to actually research Sanders' record before tossing around the whole "A failed campaign makes you a failure" argument, because he lost a shit-tonne of his early efforts at public office.
Fun fact: Clinton learned from her 2008 bid, which is why she hired Obama's delegate team and is basically using his strategy against Sanders this time around. And it's why she's winning. So what if she lost in 2008? We still elected Obama twice. Clinton leads Sanders by a bigger margin than Obama ever led her.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Only has ever won one campaign. Sanders, after his 'failed efforts', has won 14 elections.
peggysue2
(10,832 posts)have few concrete results to show for all his elections & revolutionary zeal. Talk is easy; results are hard.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)What what results does Clinton have?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)He had the record for getting amendments into legislation.
Just like Hillary just saying whatever comes to mind?
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Do you even care?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Jesus on a cracker! You have brought out every irrelevant meme that has been dismissed since the beginning of last summer! Now the "VT doesn't count. Why is it even in the USA" one?
WY has less people than VT and is HUGE...but is run very differently. It's not the size and number of people; it's how it's run.
Next you gonna tell us Sanders hates gun legislation and is part of the Minute Men militia...right?
How can one recognize Nixonian tactics when they have fallen for every single one out there?
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Hillary is much closer to Nixon than Rockefeller, not just for the dirty tricks but also the persecution complex and the hawkishness.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...and the interest group within the Republican Party that fled to the Dem brand after the Rs, most concerned about immediate gain, scooped up the disillusioned racists that LBJ alienated.
Nixon was one of the breed, not an exemplar.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Sooo sick of the Republicans that have infiltrated our Party. fuck all the DLC/ThirdWay/TrojanHorse types.
livetohike
(22,147 posts)matter how you want to spin Bernie's politics, he is Bernie Sanders*
*Democrat of convenience only
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Do you believe she is even going to try?
One of the great American industrialists of our daya man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should developif history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920'sthen it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.
What do you interpret the meaning of this phrase to be?
"if... we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home"
What is the link between the 1920s conditions in the US and Fascism? And if you are going to say Trump, I'll point out that authoritarianism wasn't part of the 1920s.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Which meant something very very different in the mid 20th century.
The D label can mean different things depending on when you look at it. Right now the definition is changing again. It ain't Hillary's definition.
This "no true Scottsman" BS is so pitiful and very un-D.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Disastrous. On the imperial questions she's far to the right of Rockefeller's man, Brzezinski, who opposed the war of aggression on Iraq. She would never have done the Iran deal, never have opened to Cuba, and she says she's proud for having pushed for the destruction of Libya and Syria.
LonePirate
(13,426 posts)Or are you throwing around wild accusations to bolster your point hoping no one notices?
In all likelihood, those deals started germinating while she was still SoS with people she appointed or hired likely working on them. Of course that's probably tough to realize while wearing DU's Hillary Hatred Blinders.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Since they are tools. As a class, maybe, but as individuals?
(Except maybe Trump. Who isn't even a politician and is no longer establishment, as he stresses. For he is worse than a tool: he is a con-man and now the national leader of the racists.)
The Clintons are totally irrelevant to me as persons. I am interested only in what they DO, not who they are (which I'm all for, having working class roots myself). After almost 25 years of watching what they do, I feel qualified to speak on it. Don't you?
I find it interesting that the Iran deal arrived only after her SOS tenure. Her critical approach to the Iran deal was sold as a strong endorsement, but you can read between the lines, so see here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-backs-iran-nuclear-deal.html
After that, she went back to talking like this: (see the quote in the following link)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-accidentally-denounces-iran-deal/
Pander, pander. And to whom? The right.
And that's after the deal was made, she talked like that. "Misspoke," no doubt! (And oh dear, said something implicitly mean about Obama, how could she?)
As for Cuba, the shameless Castro/redbaiting during the Florida debate - and the simultaneous failure to condemn Reagan's death-squad war in Central America, as well as the SOS record on Honduras - tell me enough. Maybe she would have also made an opening, but she doesn't talk that way and never did.
How about you answer now on Kagan, Nuland, Kissinger... we'll leave the warm embrace of GWB the other day (whose aggression against Iraq she voted for) out of it. That's just personal love, isn't it?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)modestybl
(458 posts)... and saving the Repubs from themselves, and us from the Repubs...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)jalan48
(13,870 posts)Trickle down was never a real policy, it was a con.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is the job of banks and other such businesses to consider their own interests first.
I'm not opposing that principle.
But I am saying that government should represent all the people and not just interests of the well-heeled and economically powerful such as bankers and other successful businesswomen and men.
In my view, there is nothing wrong with capitalism in a democracy. I rather like it. But the capitalism should not be allowed to crush the democracy or harm it or silence those who are not successful and wealthy or harm them.
And what we saw in the foreclosure crisis and the housing bubble that led up to it was capital crushing a lot of helpless, poor and middle class families and individuals. And I cannot forget that.
We need campaign finance reforms that prevents capital from crushing democracy.
Feel the Bern!
jalan48
(13,870 posts)Whether it's 'too big to fail' or 'corporations are people' something is wrong with the current set-up. Humans should be in charge of the system, not faceless entities that well-heeled individuals (HRC) can hide behind.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We don't need so many people in the military today, but we should as we did then, make it possible for all young people including people whose parents for various reasons cannot afford to pay for a post-secondary education, to get one.
A post-secondary education does not have to be in a college or university. Learning a trade or skill should also be possible for all our young people.
And no one should be saddled with debt for having made the effort to become useful by learning whether what is learned is a trade of skill or the knowledge you acquire in a college or university. Making it possible for every child safely to find his/her way in the world should be our goal, and we should invite trade unions and professional associations to join in making sure we reach that goal.
Education is for the good, for the enrichment, of the country and not just in order to help the individual earn a living.
This will seem off topic but it isn't.
I took my very young grandchildren to a sort of aquarium by the ocean where I learned that certain whales lay their eggs in rocks in the ocean. The whales hide their eggs in a kind of spiral thing that fits in the crevices between the rocks and protects the eggs from predators. (At least that is how I understood it.)
Many animals have strategies that are natural to them such as camouflage that protect them from predators.
What is our human method of protecting ourselves from predators and the dangers to us that are forever present in the world around us?
We do not hide our eggs in rocks. We do not have the ability to camouflage ourselves by changing our color.
Instead, we form social groups and establish rules of conduct within those groups that help us protect ourselves and others from the many, many dangers that are posed to us as weak, vulnerable humans that take a very long time to reach maturity even physically.
This is why the right-wing, conservative, me-first, libertarian philosophy is unrealistic. Sheer nonsense.
I cannot see how anyone who has held a tiny and very helpless human baby in their arms and nurtured that child to maturity can possibly support a Trump or any other right-wing politician.
We humans are so vulnerable. We are only safe within a strong society. I am not advocating fear. I am talking about the reality of human life.
And that is why every religion that has succeeded in the world preaches social consciousness in one from or another. Every religion teaches that we must take responsibility for each other and for our society and not just for ourselves. Every one of the Ten Commandments for example is an instruction intended to help people live peacefully in society.
And because I believe this so strongly, I am supporting the candidate that I believe is the most likely to help us to move further toward the kind of society that will help our children and each other survive in our hostile world.
I'm supporting Bernie.
And yes, post-secondary education is the right of every child in our society at this time. It does not have to be college or university, but it should be something that enables the child to give to others in our society and be a safe, productive, contributing member of our society. Without an income, as FDR said, a person in our society is not safe.
Thus, to say this in a slightly different way, every unemployed person who wants a job is vulnerable and unsafe in our society.
When we realize that, we will have made a lot of progress toward building a society that makes us secure.
Bernie understands that.
That is one of many reasons I support Bernie. I believe that he understands what FDR was saying better than any other candidate.
Please, please vote for Bernie. For the reasons I have stated above, he understands the purpose of our society best and is the most likely of the candidates to keep Americans safe.
And,
Feel the Bern!
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)For freedom
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
No comments added by alerter
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:44 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Waste 'o time alert but I did learn a new word: neccesitous
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: facts aren't alertable: this isn't the playpen
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I AM SO SICK OF THIS CRAP. You people would have hated FDR too.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A lazy alert will always get a "Leave It Alone" from me.
Note the 'you people' out of #6 who obviously skipped a day or two of anger management class.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)The only Rockefeller I remember was Nelson Rockefeller, and Hill seems far to the right of him.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)But that's only politics. In image, she's totally progressive! Don't buy it? Why not?!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)But they were also big into philanthropic giving. The belief system is modeled on theories of monarchy.
phrase of noblesse
1. the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged.
I suppose 'capitalistic royalty' might capture the essence of how it was viewed by it adherents.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)If Bill was Progressive she's Conservative. Never could understand during all the BS , she stood by her man. Oh well a Conservative's wife would , not all Conservative wifes would but many.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)how much he sounds like Bernie. They both define the principles of the Democratic Party. More importantly, they define what are fair and human principles to live by.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:44 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Waste 'o time alert but I did learn a new word: neccesitous
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: facts aren't alertable: this isn't the playpen
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I AM SO SICK OF THIS CRAP. You people would have hated FDR too.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A lazy alert will always get a "Leave It Alone" from me.