• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mark Blyth: "Global Trumpism" And The Revolt Against The Creditor Class

Gaztopian

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
481
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
To be honest, it needs to be torn apart and rebuilt; it is nakedly deluged in corruption; a hardcore Clinton partisan like Donna Brazile (fired from even CNN for passing the Clinton campaign debate questions) replacing the thoroughly venal DWS is a particularly glaring example of the persistence and sheer audacity of its debasement. What better time than now after all the political die have been cast, federal political office has been settled and the Democrats have suffered an edifying loss due to defunct neoliberal establishment politics and candidates? One of the few good things about this failure is that it lays bare the laughable inadequacy of the old guard and the Clintonites 'middle way', and provides the foundation and path back to being a party that represents its constituents, particularly the working and middle class, and their concerns more than monied donors.

That having been said it's important to note that political cannibalism/insurgency wasn't the primary cause of Clinton's loss so much as deserved distrust and dispassion with her as a candidate; the well founded perception that she and her establishment Dem peers are not in fact especially concerned with or connected to the plight and apprehensions of the average person. Poor turnout and flipping of the blue wall/Rust Belt says it all really; that the Democrats are no longer trusted as good faith representatives for those they have always claimed as their core supporters. Did tensions with Bernie contribute to that to some extent? Sure. But without a doubt the most culpable parties of all and by far are Clinton and the DNC.

Although probably for different reasons, I, too, support the demolition of the democratic party and its reconstruction. But what I repudiate is progressives' entitlement to be the architects of the new democratic party.

After the contentious democratic primaries, disillusioned progressives rebuffed the democratic establishment's calls for party unity in the DNC leading to the general elections' campaign. A large segment of the progressive base barracked itself behind the asinine Bernie or Bust movement; the more rational segment reasoned that progressives aren't necessarily democrats - they only vote democrat out of self-interest, and once that vote ceases to serve their best interest, progressives are under no obligation to commit to the party in the general elections and fall behind its candidate.

In light of the aforementioned, what gives progressives the right to dictate the new direction of the democratic party and its leadership?
 

Mac77

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
12,049
Reaction score
2,089
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Although probably for different reasons, I, too, support the demolition of the democratic party and its reconstruction. But what I repudiate is progressives' entitlement to be the architects of the new democratic party.

After the contentious democratic primaries, disillusioned progressives rebuffed the democratic establishment's calls for party unity in the DNC leading to the general elections' campaign. A large segment of the progressive base barracked itself behind the asinine Bernie or Bust movement; the more rational segment reasoned that progressives aren't necessarily democrats - they only vote democrat out of self-interest, and once that vote ceases to serve their best interest, progressives are under no obligation to commit to the party in the general elections and fall behind its candidate.

In light of the aforementioned, what gives progressives the right to dictate the new direction of the democratic party and its leadership?

It would be a steep uphill climb or anyone not on the far left to lead the democrat party today.

There are a significent number of people in this counrty who are far left and the democrat party is their home
 

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
8,867
Reaction score
4,405
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Although probably for different reasons, I, too, support the demolition of the democratic party and its reconstruction. But what I repudiate is progressives' entitlement to be the architects of the new democratic party.

After the contentious democratic primaries, disillusioned progressives rebuffed the democratic establishment's calls for party unity in the DNC leading to the general elections' campaign. A large segment of the progressive base barracked itself behind the asinine Bernie or Bust movement; the more rational segment reasoned that progressives aren't necessarily democrats - they only vote democrat out of self-interest, and once that vote ceases to serve their best interest, progressives are under no obligation to commit to the party in the general elections and fall behind its candidate.

In light of the aforementioned, what gives progressives the right to dictate the new direction of the democratic party and its leadership?

Because the Democratic Party was the de facto progressive party until neoliberal Clintonistas essentially hijacked it in the 90s with the indispensable aid of donor money, and ran with the party ever since, increasingly ignoring their base in favour of said donors, cooking its constituent frog by degrees so that they would scarcely notice these changes over time until it finally became too much to bear; the progressives are merely taking back what is theirs.

If the Clintons can do it, we certainly have a right to, especially after their humiliating and abject failure.


Why is he highlighting .000000001% of possible trump voters during an economic lecture on globalism?

The left, including this imported liberal from scotland, are doing everything they can to nullify or undermine Trump's win.

Polls show many ? even most ? Trump supporters really are deeply hostile to Muslims and nonwhites - Vox

It's a minority, but I wouldn't call it being anywhere close to as small as .000000001%

Most of the article I can discard out of hand, since I don't think much of those stats are particularly damning (not having a favourable view of Islam != racism; likewise with anti-immigration, even if there's a correlation). Thinking straight up that blacks are less intelligent and more lazy than whites... probably racist; also true of over 30% of polled Trump supporters. Even if that's exaggerated by half/double that's still a pretty sizable chunk.

Personally I'm not interested in debating over exactly how much of Trump's base is legitimately racist; it's a complete aside to the subject of this thread and the professor's observations/lecture; if you want to put the focus on something other than racism, great; so do I.
 
Last edited:

Gaztopian

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
481
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Because the Democratic Party was the de facto progressive party until neoliberal Clintonistas essentially hijacked it in the 90s with the indispensable aid of donor money, and ran with the party ever since, increasingly ignoring their base in favour of said donors, cooking its constituent frog by degrees so that they would scarcely notice these changes over time until it finally became too much to bear; the progressives are merely taking back what is theirs.

If the Clintons can do it, we certainly have a right to, especially after their humiliating and abject failure.

The word "de facto" is key here; it reinforces the utilitarian grounds behind the progressive democrat voting pattern and the absence of partisanship behind it, thus taking us back to my contention; if progressives aren't democratic partisans, what entitlement do they have to rebuild the democratic party and dictate its new direction?

Bernie understood the quandary; he realized that if progressives are to have a say in the post-election democratic party, they must demonstrate their loyalty to the party and its candidate instead of engaging in mutiny and political cannibalism. Alas, his wisdom was largely unheeded, and the democratic party is destined to be torn by fierce infighting. More importantly, with the absence of a major political establishment sheltering progressives, their agenda is destined to disintegrate in the next 4-8 years, if not longer - progressives truly **** the bed with their obstinacy and lawlessness.
 
Last edited:

Mac77

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
12,049
Reaction score
2,089
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Because the Democratic Party was the de facto progressive party until neoliberal Clintonistas essentially hijacked it in the 90s with the indispensable aid of donor money, and ran with the party ever since, increasingly ignoring their base in favour of said donors, cooking its constituent frog by degrees so that they would scarcely notice these changes over time until it finally became too much to bear; the progressives are merely taking back what is theirs.

If the Clintons can do it, we certainly have a right to, especially after their humiliating and abject failure.




Polls show many ? even most ? Trump supporters really are deeply hostile to Muslims and nonwhites - Vox

It's a minority, but I wouldn't call it being anywhere close to as small as .000000001%

Most of the article I can discard out of hand, since I don't think much of those stats are particularly damning (not having a favourable view of Islam != racism; likewise with anti-immigration, even if there's a correlation). Thinking straight up that blacks are less intelligent and more lazy than whites... probably racist; also true of over 30% of polled Trump supporters. Even if that's exaggerated by half/double that's still a pretty sizable chunk.

Personally I'm not interested in debating over exactly how much of Trump's base is legitimately racist; it's a complete aside to the subject of this thread and the professor's observations/lecture; if you want to put the focus on something other than racism, great; so do I.

Muslims around the world are hostile to Americans and we are responding to them

Muslims attacked us on 9/11 and many times since




Yes we are at war so we have counterattacked them too.

If liberals had this attitude during WWI America would have lost the war
 

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
8,867
Reaction score
4,405
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The word "de facto" is key here; it reinforces the utilitarian grounds behind the progressive democrat voting pattern and the absence of partisanship behind it, thus taking us back to my contention; if progressives aren't democratic partisans, what entitlement do they have to rebuild the democratic party and dictate its new direction?

Bernie understood the quandary; he realized that if progressives are to have a say in the post-election democratic party, they must demonstrate their loyalty to the party and its candidate instead of engaging in mutiny and political cannibalism. Alas, his wisdom was largely unheeded, and the democratic party is destined to be torn by fierce infighting. More importantly, with the absence of a major political establishment sheltering progressives, their agenda is destined to disintegrate in the next 4-8 years, if not longer - progressives truly **** the bed with their obstinacy and lawlessness.

De facto or not (it was progressive in all but name. While it can certainly be argued that its decline as a progressive party preceded the Clintons to an extent as money flooded politics by the mid 70s onwards, the rise of the Clintons was the definitive changing of hands), it was certainly more their party than it was the Clinton's and the neoliberals prior to said hijacking. It's not that progressives weren't aligned with the Democratic party, it's that the Democratic party wasn't explicitly called the Progressive party.

At the moment, it's the neoliberal wing that is the party's problem: the neoliberals who were instrumental in devolving the DNC and Democratic Party into a distrusted, corrupt institution swimming in nepotism; the neoliberals who picked the wrong candidate via a rigging of the nomination process despite the warnings of the progressives; the neoliberals who chose to focus on an overplayed narrative of Trump's 'deplorables' rather than emphasizing Clinton's (and by extension Bernie's) constituent friendly policies out of fear of commitment to them; the neoliberals who, alongside a Republican base only to happy to cooperate with many of their worst ideas, have bred the resentment of the working class it was supposed to represent that made Trump's election possible. By and large, progressives fell into line during the seminal election; the fault here is overwhelmingly on the DNC and Clinton as a candidate; she was undeniably awful, and there's no pinning well-founded public distrust and disenchantment concerning her on us. After she lost, it is most certainly time that we take the party back; it's not about tearing the party apart, it's about putting it back together such that it's electable again. That having been said, I'm not sure what obstinacy and lawlessness you are referring to. The establishment neoliberals lost in every way it's possible to lose: they lost the house, the senate, the presidency, and soon the SCOTUS. They have failed miserably and their time has passed.


Muslims around the world are hostile to Americans and we are responding to them

Muslims attacked us on 9/11 and many times since


Yes we are at war so we have counterattacked them too.

If liberals had this attitude during WWI America would have lost the war

I think there may be a lack of clarity here; as a mathematical operator/symbol, != means not equal. Having a poor opinion of Islam does not make one racist.
 
Last edited:

Mac77

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
12,049
Reaction score
2,089
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think there may be a lack of clarity here; as a mathematical operator/symbol, != means not equal. Having a poor opinion of Islam does not make one racist.

I think the overwhelming majority of trump supporters are not racists
 

Winston

Dead Voter
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
18,277
Reaction score
13,309
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Mark Blyth is the truth.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
27,446
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
F

The professor called trump supporters racists.

He didnt say how many and neither did I say ALL liberals as you accuse me of doing.

I wonder why an economics professor commenting on globalism felt the need to smear trump voters at all.

But he did

Goodness, it's just a nod to the obvious that there just IS a small but significant xenophobic/racist/bigoted element in these worldwide nationalist movements. The leaders of the movements don't even try to hide it, and Trump just HAS attracted those leaders to his coalition. They are excited about this administration, and whether it's completely unintentional is really beside the point - they ARE part of his coalition, here and elsewhere in similar nationalist movements in Europe.

The point made in this lecture and others is that's a symptom of something else, namely economic insecurity.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
27,446
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Cut every government program equally across the board

That's not a very good idea because it presumes each program is exactly equally bloated, and exactly equally necessary. Comparing the national budget to households is often silly, but the comparison here is appropriate enough - if your household budget it out of whack, you probably would figure out that maybe leisure and entertainment (cable TV, movies, bass boat, alcohol, golf club dues), is a more appropriate place to take an axe than education for your kids, for example.
 

Mac77

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
12,049
Reaction score
2,089
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's not a very good idea because it presumes each program is exactly equally bloated, and exactly equally necessary. Comparing the national budget to households is often silly, but the comparison here is appropriate enough - if your household budget it out of whack, you probably would figure out that maybe leisure and entertainment (cable TV, movies, bass boat, alcohol, golf club dues), is a more appropriate place to take an axe than education for your kids, for example.

And you presume that a majority of voters will agree with the cuts that you want to make and the spending that you want to keep

I don't think my targeted cuts would be accepted and I don't think your cuts would either

No one is going to accept cuts to their favorite programs unless everyone is sacrificing equally
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
27,446
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And you presume that a majority of voters will agree with the cuts that you want to make and the spending that you want to keep

I don't think my targeted cuts would be accepted and I don't think your cuts would either

No one is going to accept cuts to their favorite programs unless everyone is sacrificing equally

First of all, I didn't mean to restart this old thread (didn't notice it until I'd posted) but I just don't agree with across the board cuts, at all, unless that's the starting point and then there are obviously areas that need MORE money, and lots of areas that can be cut MORE than the baseline amount.
 

Mac77

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
12,049
Reaction score
2,089
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
First of all, I didn't mean to restart this old thread (didn't notice it until I'd posted) but I just don't agree with across the board cuts, at all, unless that's the starting point and then there are obviously areas that need MORE money, and lots of areas that can be cut MORE than the baseline amount.

Without universal cuts to every spending program I think you will see the usual practice of more spending across the board instead
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,778
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Enlightened self interest is not unique to Americans

But we have always been among the best at it

I thought it was mostly absent from Americans. I seem to see a lot of things done for the benefit of other countries and a willingness to borrow money to pay for it. Self interest? You need to go back a few decades to see in America.
 
Top Bottom