Loser liberals vs power populists

[eridani]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051407I.shtml

Not only are populist candidates excluded from the debate, but political positions that are inconsistent with loser liberalism are also largely excluded from public debate. So, trade policy is consistently portrayed as a debate between "globalizers" and "free traders" who are being challenged by "protectionists." In reality, the globalizers are ardent protectionists who are happy to have highly educated professionals protected from foreign competition. They also want to increase patent protections on drugs and copyright protections on software and make poor people in the developing world pay more money for these products. They are only "free traders" when it comes to placing less educated workers in the United States in competition with workers in the developing world.

The loser liberals similarly control the debate in other areas. A modest tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, like the one that England has, could easily raise more than $100 billion a year in revenue. But, the hedge fund crew knows that this would be real money out of their pockets, so they don't even let the issue get discussed. After all, it's fine to make a bunch of stupid auto workers lose their jobs — we can always give them "wage insurance" - but it's another matter altogether to cut into the income of the hedge fund crew.

The loser liberals also keep single payer health care insurance off the table, although they might be willing to pay somewhat higher taxes to allow a few more kids to get health care coverage. The loser liberals would never allow for a serious discussion of alternatives to patent-financed research for prescription drugs, no matter how many Vioxx-type scandals fill the newspapers. After all, we're talking about the profits for Merck and Pfizer, not pensions for steelworkers.

There is a long list of government policies, many of which are extremely harmful to the economy and society, that have the effect of redistributing income upward. Like the Republicans, the loser liberals want to make sure that these policies never come up for public debate. But, the loser liberals may be willing to pay taxes on their billions. Perhaps we should be thankful for small favors, but real change will require overturning the structures that redistribute income upward, not a modest trickle of tax revenue that allows some of this money to flow back down.

[yurbud]

1. And they would rather lose than be right

[Selatius]

2. What is needed are constitutional reforms to break the ancient log jam.

Like a drive to switch to a voting system that allows multiple political parties to become viable, not just two. Proportional representation, for example. Once the log jam is broken, the river will flow where it wants to flow, not where the dead wood force it to flow.

[Demeter]

3. I Must Concur With This Entire Thread To Date--And It's a Shame

[loudsue]

4. I like that: Power Populists vs. Loser Liberals should be a new

talking point. I like putting the power populists first.

:kick:

[sadiesworld]

5. kick

[stimbox]

6. KICK!!!!

Too late to recommend.

[sadiesworld]

7. Unfortunately, the more I learn...

the more I realize just how far we are from the party of FDR.