- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,349
- Reaction score
- 6,037
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I can agree with that, but I have doubts about the way Bernie wants to do it.
The Dem party is not as "homogenous" as you might think, and if Bernie lost the primaries it shows that not all Dems want "real, substantial change". (Which, yes, I agree is fundamentally necessary to take the US out of the stone-age of democracy.)
Progressives must have goals but understand that changing American mentalities is a long, hard slog.
For America, it seems that "success" is reduced fundamentally to one parameter. Called "Wealth". How much ya got relative to everybody else. Which is the foundation of our presently stark Income Disparity in the nation.
If you were to live in a truly Social Democracy, you'd understand that the calamity of concentration of Wealth, due to low upper-income taxation, is NOT THE PROBLEM. Yes, there are multimillionaires, but such an objective is not the mind-boggling pursuit of the entire nation.
Those living below the Poverty Threshold in the US are 14% of the population. In Sweden they are 7% - half that amount.
And a nation's goal should be 3/5%. Can we achieve that same reduced level?
Of course we can.
But not by voting Replicants in charge of Congress and the Presidency! And certainly not by voting Donald Dork as PotUS - a guy born with a 40Megabuck spoon in his mouth ...
I can agree with that, but I have doubts about the way Bernie wants to do it.
The Dem party is not as "homogenous" as you might think, and if Bernie lost the primaries it shows that not all Dems want "real, substantial change". (Which, yes, I agree is fundamentally necessary to take the US out of the stone-age of democracy.)
Progressives must have goals but understand that changing American mentalities is a long, hard slog.
For America, it seems that "success" is reduced fundamentally to one parameter. Called "Wealth". How much ya got relative to everybody else. Which is the foundation of our presently stark Income Disparity in the nation.
If you were to live in a truly Social Democracy, you'd understand that the calamity of concentration of Wealth, due to low upper-income taxation, is NOT THE PROBLEM. Yes, there are multimillionaires, but such an objective is not the mind-boggling pursuit of the entire nation.
Those living below the Poverty Threshold in the US are 14% of the population. In Sweden they are 7% - half that amount.
And a nation's goal should be 3/5%. Can we achieve that same reduced level?
Of course we can.
But not by voting Replicants in charge of Congress and the Presidency! And certainly not by voting Donald Dork as PotUS - a guy born with a 40Megabuck spoon in his mouth ...
Mr. " I Could Never Hold A Job " .......................before finally getting a tax payer funded job and lecturing others about jobs and taxes.
I think you're seriously underestimating the thirst for real change.
The vast majority of Americans want money out of politics.
A majority of Americans actually support most of Bernie's substantive ideas on healthcare and education.
Beyond that, he was far more popular among the general populace (and remains so, as the most popular politician in the States) than both Hillary and Trump; significantly more popular among them in fact, than he was among the Dems during the primary. Fast forward from then till now, and I can only imagine that his vision for the party is now at better than 50% support among the Democratic party. Though it's true establishment types and the donor/consultant class/third way Clintonites continue a desperate stranglehold on its senior leadership and fight tooth and nail against necessary and meaningful change, I've no doubt that there's been substantive change in both the composition and predilections of the Dem rank and file since 2016.
Incrementalism isn't necessary to defeat the likes of Trump and the Republicans; in fact, it may well be actively toxic and counterproductive in this respect per Hillary's example and the historic recent electoral losses suffered by the Democratic party.
I think you're seriously underestimating the thirst for real change. The vast majority of Americans want money out of politics. A majority of Americans actually support most of Bernie's substantive ideas on healthcare and education.
Incrementalism isn't necessary to defeat the likes of Trump and the Republicans; in fact, it may well be actively toxic and counterproductive in this respect per Hillary's example and the historic recent electoral losses suffered by the Democratic party.
Yes, you may be right (though I think you are Left-of-center ;^)!
But Hillary did win the nomination (and did win the popular vote). Bernie has put together a fine program of Social Improvements. But most Americans are afraid of the world "Socialist", which exists nowhere in the world today except North Korea. Since socialist theory advocated the national ownership of all production resources. (That just doesn't work in a market-economy based upon Demand - the originator of all Supply.)
So, if Bernie has established a list of "Nice things to have in an American Social Democracy", getting there is still going to be the hard part.
There are two fundamental attributes of most Social Democracies, which are:
*National HealthCare Systems
*Free Tertiary Education (which Hillary adopted into her platform)
How many American support fundamentally*both ideas? (I can't find a poll that sought answers; but if I do, then I'll post it here.)
*In Europe, both are non-negotiable attributes of their Social Democracies.
I put the question above, "Do Americans want a Social Democracy". The two most predominant aspects of such are National Health Care Systems and Free Tertiary Education.
Here is an answer to the first above. Note how the change is still very recent, and if more than half, not really at the amount that would be necessary to get it passed any time soon. (Trump would veto it.)
Nonetheless:
Agreed. Again though, I think you're underestimating the state of progressivism in the States, and getting far too hung up on the socialist label and Dem primaries.
Let us start at the well of the socialist renewal, the Vermont senator. Sanders, as everyone knows, calls himself a “democratic socialist.” The word “democratic” is fundamental here, because historically socialism has not, typically, come about as a result of free and fair elections. In most socialist countries, like the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic where your humble author was born, socialism was imposed at the point of a gun. Sanders, therefore, is wise to distance himself from the socialists of yesteryear and insist that socialism in America should be chosen, freely and fairly, by the electorate.
As many of Sanders’s supporters have repeatedly and rightly pointed out, socialism is not communism. In fact, for most of the 20th century, socialism was understood to be a halfway house between capitalism and communism. The latter was a utopian vision of the future characterized by classless, stateless, and money less communal living. Strictly speaking, therefore, no communist country was ever “communist”—not even the Soviet Union (a.k.a., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.
You may be correct. I am looking at the US from abroad. That has its good aspects and its bad.
And I don't mind in the least being corrected when the correction is validated by factual evidence. (Which is sorely lacking on this forum from the Right.)
But, what I am keen about is making fellow Americans (Yes, I am one!) understand the difference between Socialism and a Social Democracy.
Socialism vs Social Democracy (from the Atlantic): Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist - excerpt follows.
The difference brought about by Social Democracies in Europe is that - by means of higher taxation and government spending - the abuses of Unnfettered Capitalism are mitigated by the simple fact that Income Disparity is prevented. That is, more of the National Wealth that we all generate by means of our work - after taxation - returns to the common weal. Whazat?!?
That is, "The benefit or interests of all members of a country or community".
Not equally, but equitably ...
In light of recent Princeton studies on this phenomena of an unspoken plutocracy ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...litics.doc.pdf ), the impact on federal American democracy, or what passes for it cannot be overstated.
From the Guardian here: Bernie Sanders urges progressives to seek more electoral wins
Excerpts:
It's time to prepare for the mid-terms, where the Dems take back the HofR ...
You have to wonder why Bernie would support a party that colluded with his opponent and media to make sure he lost. If thats not "the ruling class" I dont know what is.
Until Bernie cleans up the party, I dont see why the next election would be any better for them than the last one, where 10 million democrats didnt even show up to vote. They are obviously turned off of the Party.
From the Guardian here: Bernie Sanders urges progressives to seek more electoral wins
Excerpts:
It's time to prepare for the mid-terms, where the Dems take back the HofR ...
With Trump as president, the chances are good. But I also think to accomplish taking back the house, some common sense must be used. The question is do the progressives want to defeat a more moderate Democrat in a conservative district in the primary only to get trounced in the general or do they also back the more moderate Democrat who very well could win a conservative district in 2018 due mostly to an unpopular Donald Trump?
Remember history, the Tea Party in 2010 and 2012 did exactly what perhaps Sanders wants. The Tea party defeated more moderate Republicans in the primaries only to have them lose their senate seat in the general in states the more moderate Republican would have won. Aiken, Mourdock, O'Donnell, Angle comes quickly to mind. Far right candidates who defeated candidates who stood or would have won the general in the primaries.
It's called "politics" and not of the ruling class.
Of which, you are evidently not savvy. Perhaps you think the Dems are run like the Replicants?
]...
You are right. Just because Bernie lost the Dem Primary and Hillary (won the popular-vote but) lost the election does not mean that the duality-in-nature (Centrist and Progressive) of the Dem-voter is denied. There is a younger contingent that is decidedly Bernie and an older contingent that still likes Hillary.
The Dems need to understand that political-outlook duality in their constituencies geographically. The Dems are no longer an entirely homogeneous political party ... (especially in California)
Isn't that what people did when they voted for Trump instead of the same old insiders who feel, or felt, rather comfortable in their lofty positions?They won those seats by standing up to the ruling class,"
The problem is both political parties have become more and more ideological pure. That has left more Americans without a political home. In 2000 35% of all Americans said they were independents, today that number is 42%. In 2012 35% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats, 30% as Republicans, today those numbers are 30% Democratic and 27% Republicans. Both parties are shrinking. As late as Reagan the Democrats had 40% of the electorate that identified with them. Above 50% in 1964 and 1975. and in the 40's from FDR through Reagan.
The big tent has folded. I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle. Somewhere in-between their ideologies and perhaps begin governing as such. That is a dream that seems far out of reach. The big tent will not return.
LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Very interesting resumé and thank you.
Let's not forget that we have just been through the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. This had to have an impact upon mentalities, both political and personal. Moreover, the higher up the Income Ladder a nation gets, in fact, the more people think that their standard of living is a fixed-condition repeatable ad-infinitum.
It isn't, of course, because a market-economy is a highly mutable variable and depends upon a great many events that are unpredictable. Like the subprime mess that would have been predicted had the FRB been doing its job investigating the fundamental basis of mortgaging at the time. (And snuffed it in time.)
MY POINT?
We, the sheeple, don't understand when politicians (that we elect) get-the-economics-wrong. We first voted the HofR into the control of Replicants (2010), and then they sat back for four more years claiming "Budget Austerity" for not creating more jobs. Why? To sink Obama's reelection in 2012.
What did we, the sheeple, then do in 2016 for this craven ineffectiveness? In 2016 we gave them the White House!
When a people get that politically stoopid, there is no need to seek where the fault lies. It is within our political system, and to see the blamable person one need only look in a mirror ...
You gave the GOP the White House mainly because of the person you nominated.
The Democrats never were a homogeneous political party. Once they were known as the big tent party. Americans of all political ideologies identified with them. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party had its conservative wing and its liberal wing along with those in the middle. They would unite come election time and it was this big tent that gave the Democrats 40 continuous years of control of the House and 56 out of 60 years going back to FDR.
They would united come election time and then fight like Hades in congress against each other during congressional sessions. Will Rogers put it best when he said, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
The problem is both political parties have become more and more ideological pure. That has left more Americans without a political home. In 2000 35% of all Americans said they were independents, today that number is 42%. In 2012 35% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats, 30% as Republicans, today those numbers are 30% Democratic and 27% Republicans. Both parties are shrinking. As late as Reagan the Democrats had 40% of the electorate that identified with them. Above 50% in 1964 and 1975. and in the 40's from FDR through Reagan.
The big tent has folded. I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle. Somewhere in-between their ideologies and perhaps begin governing as such. That is a dream that seems far out of reach. The big tent will not return.
Hillary WON THE POPULAR VOTE - which is the only measure of voting in every other democracy on earth. She won the popular vote by the largest margin of anyone who lost the election in the Electoral College - which was 2%!
Are you daft? Nobody can call that a "fair election"! Nobody in their right mind, that is.
(Meaning lobotomized Replicants ...)
I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle.
That is not who the system serves.
It was a fair election according to the rules and laws that were in place since 1789.
It was a fair election according to the rules and laws that were in place since 1789.
Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election this month – in particular, his winning a clear majority of the Electoral College vote despite receiving nearly 1.3 million fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton – prompted readers of another Pew Research Center Fact Tank post to wonder how the U.S. system compares with the way other countries elect their leaders.
The short answer: No other democratic nation fills its top job quite the way the U.S. does, and only a handful are even similar.
Besides the U.S, the only other democracies that indirectly elect a leader who combines the roles of head of state and head of government (as the U.S. president does) are Botswana, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, South Africa and Suriname. (The Swiss collective presidency also is elected indirectly, by that country’s parliament.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?