It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump

[peoli]

NAOMI KLEIN 2016


They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.

But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?

Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness.


https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate?

[LizBeth]

1. Yes, that whole first paragraph of factual hurtles they put up for HRC to get past.

Correct. There is not even any pretending otherwise.

[Walleye]

2. What is neoliberalism?

[Recursion]

23. An economic philosophy that is pro-trade and skeptical of price controls

Its chief tenants are sometimes called "The Washington Consensus" and describe the globalized trade and internationalism that prevailed for about 2 decades after the fall of the Soviet Union and saw the largest eradication of poverty and reduction in global inequality in human history. Its adherents run the political gamut from people like Ludwig von Mises on the right to people like Paul Krugman on the left.

In recent years it has also become a word that basically means "a Democrat I don't like" among a small but loud subset of the left.

[Walleye]

24. What's the difference between a neoliberal and a plain old liberal?

[Polybius]

25. Probably like comparing a neo-conservative and an old school conservative

The neo's are much more involved in foreign policy. The regular's are more inclined to oppose war and put America first.

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. Neoliberalism is not liberal

That’s where most folks get confused. It’s an economic theory, not a left/right ideology. There are both Democrats and Republicans who are strong free market neoliberals when it comes to economics.

That’s one reason why they use hot button social issues (guns, God, gays) as wedge issues, because they often were/are fairly close in practice on the economic stuff.

[wyldwolf]

29. "pro-trade and skeptical of price controls" - like FDR?

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. No- neoliberals are free market, no regulations

Like Reagan

[Recursion]

35. Well, no, neoliberals do not generally support laissez-faire

Mostly they prefer regulations to come from international bodies rather than national ones.

[wyldwolf]

42. "free trade," which is what the topic is, is not the same thing as free markets

FDR ran on free trade.

[aeromanKC]

3. "Hillary by a landslide" is what put trump in the White House

Because of "Hillary by a landslide" people stayed home, voted 3rd party or wrote in someone else as a protest vote.

That will not happen this time!!

[TomCADem]

4. More BS Campaign Divisive Rhetoric That Shows Bernie's Not Fit To Be President

This is why you cannot trust Bernie. He says he supports unity on the one hand, but then his campaign pushes these divisive talking points to attack the Democratic party when Bernie does not get his way.

[peoli]

7. This is from 2016. Try to read before you auto react

[TwilightZone]

10. The attitude pre-dates 2016.

It's nothing new. It was true then, and it's still true now. Same divisive nonsense from the "unity" candidate.

[TomCADem]

15. How 'Neoliberalism' Became the Left's Favorite Insult of Liberals

As explained below, Neoliberalism has just become a catch-all epithet to attack Democrats from the "left" regardless of their underlying policy positions. You posted the article, then you complain that it is from 2016?

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/how-neoliberalism-became-the-lefts-favorite-insult.html

The neoliberalism of the 1980s and 1990s has faded into memory, as its adherents failed to settle on a coherent set of principles other than a general posture of counterintuitive skepticism. (Peters’s new ideological manifesto, We Do Our Part, only mentions neoliberalism once.) But the term has been used to mean different things at different times, and it has returned to American political discourse with a vengeance. Then, as now, it is an attempt to win an argument with an epithet. Only this time, it is neoliberal that is the term of abuse.

And the term neoliberal doesn’t mean a faction of liberals. It now refers to liberals generally, and it is applied by their left-wing critics. The word is now ubiquitous, popping up in almost any socialist polemic against the Democratic Party or the center-left. Obama’s presidency? It was “the last gasp of neoliberalism.” Why did Hillary Clinton lose? It was her neoliberalism. Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz? Neoliberals both.

The Baffler’s Chris Lehmann dismisses an Atlantic story on the Democrats, which touts Elizabeth Warren as a model for the party’s future, as just more neoliberal tripe. “In the world of neoliberal consensus, it’s a simple taken-for-granted axiom that senators — the lead fundraisers and media figures in both major parties — call the shots, and should be entrusted with charting an electoral comeback,” writes Lehmann. “All the reliable notes of arm’s-length cultural puzzlement are struck soundly here, from the putative identity-politics-class-politics divide on the left to the neoliberal wonk class’s painfully absent common touch.” Obviously, the authentic way to demonstrate a common touch is to throw around the term neoliberal as frequently as possible. Try it if you ever need to strike up a conversation with some strangers in a bowling alley in Toledo.

Neoliberalism is held to be the source of all the ills suffered by the Democratic Party and progressive politics over four decades, up to and (especially) including the rise of Donald Trump. The “neoliberal” accusation is a synecdoche for the American left’s renewed offensive against the center-left and a touchstone in the struggle to define progressivism after Barack Obama.

[betsuni]

17. Thank you, what a useful article! Trying to win an argument with an epithet

[delisen]

52. Naomi did not have a clue about Russia

She did not know what she didn't know and her performance since has been worse.

[AGeddy]

5. Naomi Klein, as usual, is incorrect

[DURHAM D]

6. lol Last time we heard anything from Naomi

she was advising Al Gore to wear earth tones.

[abqtommy]

8. Ahem... yes, but Hillary did win the popular vote and got ratfucked out of her win by the EC.

We are obviously a match for tRUMP-style extremism but not for tRUMP-style ratfuckery...

[StevieM]

9. I will never understand why anyone doubts that 2016 was almost entirely about the fake email scandal

People were convinced that one of the candidates somehow broke the law and got away with it because she is rich and famous.

How much worse does it get for a candidate than that?

[squirecam]

38. Hillary had a huge 6 pt lead right before

Comey said they were looking at it again. It certainly cost her the election.


https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17233600/james-comey-weiner-emails

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[StevieM]

44. And that was on top of the July press conference.

Her numbers went down after that. More importantly, she didn't get the recovery that she should have gotten when the bogus story finally wrapped up.

[SunSeeker]

11. No, Naomi, deregulation, privatisation, and austerity are Republican policies.

Obama had to fight REPUBLICANS for a greater stimulus package, not Hillary and her "machine," whatever the fuck you mean by that. Creating this bullshit nonexistent villain, "neoliberalism," only lets Republicans off the hook. It is insane and plays right into Trump's hands.

[betsuni]

19. Argh. How do Republicans become invisible to people like this?

It's bizarre.

[mercuryblues]

12. Looks like some people are stillfighting the 2016 primaries

[YOHABLO]

13. Klein is right. But since this site has been taken over by Biden supporters

there's no point in discussing it. Someone up there said: "What's neoliberalism". Well that pretty much says it ALL.

Look up Milton Friedman, or even Google ''neoliberalism'' maybe you will learn something. Good luck to all of you.

(I'm almost afraid to click 'post reply')

[peoli]

14. Thank you. Don't be afraid of anyone

[progressoid]

16. Yeah, I remember the days when people like her were applauded here.

Oh well.

[vercetti2021]

18. Taken over?

I'm pretty sure Biden supporters are actual Democrats. Nice try.

[emmaverybo]

61. Is this the coup Bernie has been talking about?

[Codeine]

62. Wait, are we a sleeper cell?

Should I be wearing a coup uniform? This is all so confusing!

[wyldwolf]

26. "taken over" - says the guy who joined TEN YEARS after DU came online,

Let me guess! You were here before then under another name... or lurking. LOL.

[Gore1FL]

40. If join date matters I was here in 2001

I don't disagree with assessment of the younger poster.

[wyldwolf]

45. then you should know the site hasn't been "taken over" by anyone

It's a ridiculous statement.

[Gore1FL]

47. There was a mass migration in the past that left this site awkwardly moderate. nt

[wyldwolf]

48. the pouty Bernie bros left voluntarily after 2016

No one 'took over," least of of Biden supporters.

[Gore1FL]

49. Mostly because people told them to leave.

I remember well the "we don't need you" statements and attitude. This was, of course followed by, cries "Where were you when we needed you?"

While we reach for GOP votes that we will never get, we tell the left to fuck off. Great strategy.

[wyldwolf]

50. So in other words, they couldn't stomach to be here when their Lord and Savior lost

No site admin/owner booted them off.

[Gore1FL]

51. The community cast them out and made them feel unwelcome.

In the last day or so I was told I should post at JPR. It's still going on, today. I don't intend to leave, but please don't try to gaslight me. I was there to witness and feel the abuse.

[wyldwolf]

54. Not so, and doesn't even approach the point of the original poster

All through the 2000s, we heard how oh-so "proooogresssive" DU was. You're contending the small minority of moderates ran you off. The OP contends Biden supporters invaded and took over.

[Gore1FL]

63. In any event, making the atmosphere suck is no way to win support.

I am not contending anyone ran me off. I am here. I just consider thje behavior of some here too be divisive and shitty. It creates a hostile community destined to fail.

We lost a lot of good people. Many who remain became Biden supporters. Many of those behave badly today.

Your cute little violin emoji sure demonstrates the privilege you feel in being in the majority at DU, though. That must feel groovy.

[Turin_C3PO]

32. Biden and Clinton are not neoliberals.

[loyalsister]

43. More accurately

Hierarchy, harsh competition, and Libertarianism, and money in politics at the expense of people were features of 90s politics.

That was what welfare reform, the crime bill, and deregulation were all about.

[rzemanfl]

58. It was not "taken over." Read profiles.

I read yours.

[RhodeIslandOne]

20. The trinity of trash.

Noonan, Dowd, and Klein.

[pecosbob]

21. I frequent Mother Jones and Democracy Now! regularly so I'm familiar with Klein

I have little respect for self-declared arbiters of party purity, but when a broken clock is right, it's right. If payday lenders are contributing to your campaign, you should probably ask yourself why you showed up in the first place. This is straight dope from the bottom socio-economic class. Truth is things suck at the bottom and Democratic office-holders have not been doing enough about it to bring people out to the polls.

IMO if you're losing splinters of your base at the same time you're losing swing voters, then your platform is too similar to the the other party.

[Gothmog]

22. What is neoliberalism?

I am a proud member of the Democratic Party

[grossproffit]

27. BS supporters favorite insult (neo-liberal shill) right after "the establishment."

[Turin_C3PO]

34. Neoliberals are a problem

but people like Hillary and Biden aren’t neoliberals. They’re just pro free trade. Neoliberals are mainly found in the Republican party.

[Gothmog]

36. These attacks are dividing the party and helping trump

[Uncle Joe]

28. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread peoli.

[Happy Hoosier]

33. Utter Nonsense, IMO.

I like Klein, but she is letting her personal preference cloud the evidence, IMO. The GOP has honed their message to leverage resentment and fear against brown people, immigrants, and anyone who threatens their image of a white supremacist America ever since they adopted the Southern Strategy in the 70's.

They are leveraging cultural issues to manipulate working class white people in to opposing their own economic interests.

I personally think it's glaringly obvious.

[robbedvoter]

37. She forgot Putin and also the fact we won by 3 million votes.

But sure...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. Hillary won the PV

She was clearly the people's choice by millions of votes. Between everything else that happened (that she herself documents here), there was also a 4-way vote split that enabled Trump to scrape up just enough votes to win the EC in several states that put him over the top. I know that the PV doesn't put a candidate into the office but it does prove that people actually do vote for "neoliberals" like Hillary and Gore, who faced an almost identical outcome in 2000. But when other third-party candidates jump into these races, they help split the vote on (often) the progressive side so that the Republican can scrape by with a plurality of the votes and win the EC and get into office.

[Marthe48]

41. trump might be in the W.H. but he didn't win

he was installed.

[wyldwolf]

46. little inconvenient truths always get in the way of left wing fundamentalism

[still_one]

56. +++

[redstateblues]

57. Left wing fundamentalism- that really sums it up

[peoli]

59. Left wing fundamentalism .....that's a new one on me

[Cary]

53. Pheh

[still_one]

55. Typical Naomi Klein anti-Democratic partybbullshit, and of course another Guardian OP ED pushing

Ithe same crap

[JudyM]

60. It'd be much better for so many if Liz and Bernie's main goals, broadly speaking, were shared

by moderates, IMO. We have so much to do to heal the world (tikkun olam), and such riches to a bring to bear. Instead we support military buildup and corporate socialism, Sanders is right about that. It’s like, if Jesus walked in and looked around, would he be pleased... (not a believer, myself, but Jesus as metaphor )

I love Dems. I just have a different vision of what we are.

[Gothmog]

64. The Establishment did not destory sanders-he destroyed himself

I never considered sanders to be a serious candidate. sanders has zero major legislative accomplishments in part because none of his fellow Democrats really want to support his agenda. I do not understand sanders' political revolution and how this revolution would somehow force congress to adopt his agenda. The only thing that is clear is that sanders attacks on other Democrats and the Democratic Establishment have backfired

Link to tweet

If you look back at Sanders’ share of the vote in each primary, he hasn’t actually lost ground. In Iowa and New Hampshire, he got a quarter of the vote. In Nevada, he got a third. In South Carolina, he got a fifth. On Super Tuesday, he stayed in the same range, drawing about a quarter of the vote in the states he lost and a third of the vote in the states he won. What hurt him was that Biden increased his share of the vote, while Sanders didn’t. As other candidates dropped out, their voters went to Biden, not Sanders. And one reason for this pattern is Sanders’ constant message of antagonism. He has cultivated enemies instead of friends. Now he’s paying the price. …..

Sanders’ first defeat, on Feb. 29 in South Carolina, was a warning that he needed to assuage fears about his candidacy. Instead, he celebrated those fears as proof of his success. On March 1, he proudly told a crowd in San Jose, California, that the turnout at his rallies was alarming the establishment. The next day, in St. Paul, Minnesota, he repeated that message. When Sanders was informed that fellow candidates Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were dropping out and endorsing Biden, he said it was no surprise, since the corporate elite was out to get him. And when Maddow asked Sanders whether he was specifically running against “the Democratic Party establishment”—not just a generic “political establishment”—he replied: “Democratic establishment. Yes.”

At his rallies, Sanders has continued to call for a “political revolution.” And he has added another villain to his list of enemies: the stock market. When the market surged after Super Tuesday, Sanders, far from welcoming this news, cited it as evidence of Biden’s corruption. “We’re taking them all on,” he said of the companies whose valuations had increased. “The stock market went up this morning ’cause they thought that Biden did well.” Sanders told Maddow that “the health care industry and the drug companies did very well” because “Biden had a good day.” And he warned these companies that if he got his way, their stocks would suffer. “I got some bad news for those guys,” he said. “Don’t count your chickens until they’re hatched.” ….

Meanwhile, Sanders has escalated his talk of conspiracies. On Sunday, he claimed that “the establishment put a great deal of pressure” on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to “force” them out of the race. “What was very clear from the media narrative and what the establishment wanted,” he told George Stephanopoulos, “was to make sure that people coalesced around Biden and try to defeat me.” On Wednesday, after his defeats, Sanders again rebuked “the Democratic establishment” and insisted that “our campaign has won the ideological debate.”

What Sanders fails to understand is the connection between his defeats and his rhetoric. It wasn’t the media or the Democratic National Committee that turned Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and millions of voters against him. It was Sanders. His relentless message of conflict, along with his expanding list of putative enemies, attracted a fraction of the electorate but alienated everybody else. As the primaries narrowed to a two-man race, his base was no longer enough to win. The establishment didn’t destroy Bernie Sanders. He destroyed himself.