Supporting Bernie Sanders Because He Supports Workers? David Brooks Thinks You Have a Mental Problem

[eridani]

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18400/supporting_bernie_because_he_supports_workers_david_brooks_thinks_you_have

But the more important question ignored in Brooks’ analysis is how people are supposed to respond when the party they have supported consistently pursues policies at odds with fundamental principles of their core constituencies. In the case of the Labour Party in the UK, and the administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the United States, the wealthy have received the overwhelming majority of the benefits of economic growth.

This has been due to policies that have favored the financial sector and trade deals that have disadvantaged ordinary workers to benefit major corporate interests. In both countries, there was no effort to prosecute bankers who had violated the law during the housing bubble years. The Clinton administration pushed to remove constraints on the financial sector, even while leaving its government guarantees in place. President Obama has opposed a financial transactions tax in the United States, which would take tens of billions annually out of the pockets of the financial industry. His administration has also worked actively to block the introduction of such a tax in Europe.

He has also pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would increase the cost of prescription drugs for the countries in the agreement. It is also likely to worsen the US trade deficit in manufactured goods, since more foreign earnings would be diverted to be paying for drugs and other patent-protected products. Of course, the Clinton administration explicitly pushed for the over-valued dollar that is the origin of the large US trade deficits.

It is impressive to see Brooks argue that trying to turn the Democratic Party toward an agenda that supports workers rather than the rich is a psychological problem.

[BlueIdaho]

1. The DNC and New Labour

Both decided the best way to win was by turning their backs on traditional liberal values and marching ever rightward becoming the "lite" versions of conservatism. Sadly the biggest winners of this about face were the 1%ers whose favor they curried.

Today both parties intelllegencia are freaking out that candidates Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are about to become party leaders by embracing traditional liberal values. The popularity of their messages is undeniable to so many people looking for a leader that will fight for working men and women.

The bankers, billionaires, and bullies find this unbelievable - I think it's damn well time for someone to put voice to liberal causes and the plight of ordinary folks.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Brooks is one weird dude.

It's like they tested a smart ray on a Republican and it partially worked on scattered bits of his brain.

[daleanime]

5. That sounds like a reasonable explanation.

Wish he would make better use of the bits that are working.

[Demeter]

3. David Brooks is the mental problem--clear case of projection

[sabrina 1]

4. Brooks is worried that if the people actually have a say in how things are run

in this country, rhetoric, such as his which is acceptable to DC insiders, since he makes his living making sure not to rock the yachts of the Wall St controlled inside DC power mongers, will not be in demand anymore.

He is the epitome of all that is wrong with journalism today.

[SoapBox]

6. Ditto.

...entrenched establishment.

[sabrina 1]

7. Yes, they are all getting very nervous. They thought they had done their jobs well enough

over the years, that someone like Bernie, an authentic, truth telling politician would be laughed out of any race. Too bad they never mingled with REAL PEOPLE and this all wouldn't be such shock to them.