The Failure of the American Democratic Party...

[Bakustra]

... and what YOU can do about it!

People hereabouts are starting to grasp that the Democratic Party of the US is at best a centrist party, and more often center-right, in global terms. The question is this: how and why did this happen?

Well, back in the 1990s, this organization, founded by the Koch brothers, called the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC for short, determined that what was needed for the Post-Reagan Democratic Party was simple: abandon their traditional economic platform in favor of a "pro-business" one in order to court white-collar upper-middle-class types. This was what led Bill Clinton to slash welfare, sign NAFTA, and do all sorts of things to fuck over workers and unions.

Fast forward to today, and the rise of the cultural right, the current economic mess, and the lack of any sort of meaningful options for people are all consequences of this. Because once the two parties fundamentally agreed on economic issues, they had to distinguish one another by cultural issues, and this led to the proliferation of wedge issues like gun control, abortion, gay rights, and so on, in order to win votes.

Secondly, with the two parties fundamentally agreeing on a free-market ideology, there were no prominent voices willing to oppose the gutting of financial regulations that would have prevented the 2008 crash, the current skyrocketing food prices, and our whole general economic mess.

Thirdly, the convergence of the two parties economically combined with our system, perfectly tailored to minimize the number of parties, has shut out any real dissenting voices from gaining power.

So what can you do about this? What needs to happen is simple: people need to realize their class interests among the working and lower-middle-class, and a party needs to represent these people. What you can do is talk to people about this. Suggest that they run for local office. Begin to develop a party infrastructure for state- and eventually national-level races. Refuse to vote for mainstream Democrats and let people know why if you get exit polled. These are just suggestions, of course.

[MKSheppard]

This was what led Bill Clinton to slash welfare, sign NAFTA, and do all sorts of things to fuck over workers and unions.

Speaking of Clinton; I'm so getting this shirt that I saw on St. Patrick's day in Ocean City MD:

[madd0ct0r]

Occupy Congress?

well, it's been done a thousand times before. liberal parties fall away from their core. just try to keep hammers out of the iconography.

Maybe an eagle bestriding a combine harvester and a Cadillac?

[Bakustra]

This was what led Bill Clinton to slash welfare, sign NAFTA, and do all sorts of things to fuck over workers and unions.

Speaking of Clinton; I'm so getting this shirt that I saw on St. Patrick's day in Ocean City MD:

Contributions such as these are truly what I live for. It's downright stunning how well you can grasp intent and present appropriate responses.

Occupy Congress?

well, it's been done a thousand times before. liberal parties fall away from their core. just try to keep hammers out of the iconography.

Maybe an eagle bestriding a combine harvester and a Cadillac?

You don't really need any particular iconography anyways- this would probably only hope to succeed by reorienting the Democratic party in the long run anyhow, so individual iconography would be limiting.

[MKSheppard]

Contributions such as these are truly what I live for. It's downright stunning how well you can grasp intent and present appropriate responses.

Maybe next time try posting something not so buzzword bingo-y?

[Bakustra]

Contributions such as these are truly what I live for. It's downright stunning how well you can grasp intent and present appropriate responses.

Maybe next time try posting something not so buzzword bingo-y?

I think the problem here is that your brain is incapable of dealing with ideas, and can only treat things as assemblies of factoids, thus explaining how you can make responses like these and assume that they make sense. But go on and explain why I'm wrong. I'm guessing you can't, and all you can do is obsess over style, totally ignorant of substance.

[Bakustra]

Actually, that was probably too sophisticated for you, so let's wind this down a little.

Okay, fucko, when somebody presents an idea, what most people do is think about that idea and either respond based on the idea itself or the data used to support the idea. So you could have attacked the idea of "the Democratic party has, by moving rightward, created many of the problems we face today", or you could have attacked the data, like "NAFTA hurt American workers, as did Clinton's welfare reform."

Your response is just "I don't like your tone." It's empty. There's nothing to it. No thought. Echoey, like the confines of your skull. Do you get it now?

[Julhelm]

Hey Shep, can you get me one of those too while you're at it?

@Bakustra: Have you ever tested yourself for humor-deficiency disorder?

[Bakustra]

Hey Shep, can you get me one of those too while you're at it?

@Bakustra: Have you ever tested yourself for humor-deficiency disorder?

I can do a home test right now!

"There is no 'taboo' against using nuclear weapons."

"To quote Paul Tibbets: 'That's their tough luck for being there'"

"Why is it that everybody assumes that women living under a belief system that in its radical form is blatantly oppressive of women do these things out of free will and not because they've been conditioned from childhood to believe that is the only way?"

Still as funny as ever, so I think I'm good.

Quickedit: Also, pretending that Shep is funny is enabling behavior and you should stop doing it.

[SirNitram]

Shep: I am very amused. I was wondering when someone would retort on the 'Miss Me Yet' signs of Bush and his legacy cleanup team.

Bakustra: It's only enabling if you A) Can't find it funny, or B) Think funny shouldn't be enabled.

Anyway, congratulations. You caught on to something that was clear years ago. Would you like a cookie?

Where's the infrastructure? It's generally called the Progressive Caucus, in the House, with 76 folks in it, dwarfing the Blue Dogs, creation of the DLC and it's equivalence. Or does this not work for you because it doesn't let you grandstand?

[kc8tbe]

I think the problem with both parties is that they don't do big things anymore. I agree in principle with a lot of Democratic party ideals like a social safety net, racial and sexual equality, egalitarian education, universal healthcare, sustainable/environmentally friendly energy, efficient transportation, etc. The problem I see is that the Democratic party keeps coming up with small, bite-sized solutions that don't really do much to address these issues, solutions that the Republican party rightly criticizes as being costly and inefficient. My best guess is that Democrats think these smaller solutions will be more politically tenable, but instead they hurt the Democrats in the long run because people perceive them as policies that failed or didn't do enough.

For example, Obama's healthcare reform law is a very incremental step that doesn't do much to control rising healthcare costs and won't really come into effect until 2014. Also, because of an oddly worded compromise called the "individual mandate", it may not even be constitutional. If Obama had done something like single payer, which is what liberals actually wanted, and made it come into effect sooner, he would probably be a lot more popular right now.

Another example is social security. Everyone knows it's in bad shape. The Democratic party's solution is "let's fix it later" when it should be "let's reform which people are eligible, possibly raising the retirement age and increasing revenue." The Republicans have rightly been keelhauling the Democrats for not taking the problem seriously.

Yet another example is Obama's solution to energy. He gave a pittance of a few billion toward energy research and tens of billions more to loan guarantees (e.g. Solyndra), many to modalities (solar, wind) that his own energy secretary told him aren't really going to help the big picture. Obama's energy policy has done next to nothing to reduce energy prices, which are now predictably higher than when he took office. I'm frankly suprised the Republicans haven't had the balls to propose the sort of nuclear energy renaissance the Democrats should have gone with. (Although the envirotards probably were a factor in this.)

Moreso than swinging back to the left, the Democratic party needs to go back to problem solving if it is to remain relevant.

[fgalkin]

Bakustra: Welcome to 2005.
Shep: No wars? Wear that shirt to Belgrade and see what happens

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[JointStrikeFighter]

That was a police action

[D.Turtle]

Another example is social security. Everyone knows it's in bad shape.

"Everybody" knows this, except when one looks at the numbers, its not a problem at all for the US. Healthcare costs will become a problem. Social Security won't.

[Bakustra]

lol welcoem to years ago!!

The fact that people are disappointed with Obama for not being left-wing, or think that Hillary Clinton would have been better shows that this isn't well-known enough. So I guess congratulations on being selfish with knowledge?

progressive caucus!!!

Hey, Nitram, part of the reason you don't get why I'm reacting to Shep the way I do is because you have the same deficiency of idea-handling abilities. There may be a large liberal wing within the Democratic party, but they have no real power within the upper echelons. This can be seen with virtually everything the Obama administration has done- they have continued the center-right policies of the DLC economically, and their cultural victories have been largely through exploiting the efforts of grassroots-level activists and still are essentially centrist- a left-wing approach to GLBT rights would be actively pushing for things like gay marriage, ensuring trans individuals have freedom to alter their records, or in other words moving beyond what is already acceptable. DADT had no real popular support. Defeating it was like kicking a beam that's been rotted through. In other words, the goal is to take the reins of power away from the center-right people who run the Democratic party and return them to the liberals and the social democrats.

Another example is social security. Everyone knows it's in bad shape. The Democratic party's solution is "let's fix it later" when it should be "let's reform which people are eligible, possibly raising the retirement age and increasing revenue." The Republicans have rightly been keelhauling the Democrats for not taking the problem seriously.

They are taking it "seriously", it's just that they're adopting the Republican position of "entitlements should be cut" rather than a genuine liberal position like making FICA taxes progressive instead of flat. Making it needs-based is untenable to the center-right, since that would mean depriving rich people. Raising the retirement age increases the burden on Medicare by increasing the chances that people will suffer debilitating injuries in their last few years of work, as their bodies pass into old age.

Yet another example is Obama's solution to energy. He gave a pittance of a few billion toward energy research and tens of billions more to loan guarantees (e.g. Solyndra), many to modalities (solar, wind) that his own energy secretary told him aren't really going to help the big picture. Obama's energy policy has done next to nothing to reduce energy prices, which are now predictably higher than when he took office. I'm frankly suprised the Republicans haven't had the balls to propose the sort of nuclear energy renaissance the Democrats should have gone with. (Although the envirotards probably were a factor in this.)

Nuclear power is debatable as to whether it's really cheaper than solar and wind in the long run- it relies on massive subsidies and some studies have concluded that these are solely what makes it viable. In addition, people are suspicious of an industry that has repeatedly lied to them- first about electricity too cheap to meter, then about the safety of nuclear power plants, then about whether disasters could ever happen again- solar and wind are simply the only way forward as things stand, since the root causes of rejection of nuclear power can't be fixed long-term in the current American system.

[Aaron MkII]

That was a police action

Tell that to the Medak vet's.

[Simon_Jester]

The original post does strike me as rather... generic. Stylistically, it's a bundle of things we've all heard dozens of times before on N&P, with a side order of "playing to the crowd," because a lot of the more active N&P-ians can be counted on to lap this stuff up.

Another example is social security. Everyone knows it's in bad shape.

"Everybody" knows this, except when one looks at the numbers, its not a problem at all for the US. Healthcare costs will become a problem. Social Security won't.

Social Security payouts aren't so much the problem, because they're proportionate to the number of old people. While the boomers retiring means a surge in the number of old people, old people aren't all that long-lived, so the increase won't be permanent. And Social Security doesn't really pay out that much money per capita.

Medicare, which is the program that provides health care subsidies, yes, that's growing fast on that projection. You're right there. Old people require more health care, and health care is getting steadily more expensive, outrunning inflation. If the government is committed to providing Medicare, then yes, it absolutely needs to either do something about health care costs or scale back benefits in line with what the voter base is willing to pay for.

The former is one of the reasons I think the corporate-center coalition that deadlocks health care reform is going to crack up in the next five to ten years. The young and low-income middle-aged find health care expensive enough that it's a bad bargain or feels like one; the old are getting so numerous that the state simply will not be able to take out enough loans to keep paying their medical bills that much longer at this rate.

The dam held very effectively in 1994. It creaked in 2009. I suspect it'll break some time between 2014 and 2019, unless Obamacare turns out to be very very effective.

[SirNitram]

I think I'm clever for using lolsepek wen snipin

Wow. Instead of any calm reply, you bounce around in annoyance that, I dunno, I pointed out the infrastructure you were whining about? The idea that I've been selfish with knowledge is LAUGHABLE. This whole center-left thing has been brought up repeatedly here. For years. Michael Wong himself discussed Clinton as the biggest problem in the Dems recent history. But whatever. You are clearly just out to try and make anyone who dares not leap to your side look stupid, which is funny considering your bland, repetitive writings that have been done to death. You whined about infrastructure, I showed you.. You got upset, pounded out stupidity in place of my words, and rant about how they are not dominant. Way to grab the goalposts and run, twat. The idea that all of Obama's acts are center-right are darkly amusing. Because of course 'stimulus' is center-right, they love them Keynesianism. Oh wait, they hate it with the burning fire of ten thousand suns.

But hey. You'll say whatever you want because it furthers whatever strange agenda you have. I suggest you start some work on putting in better Dems, since you put that above all else. Or is that for people besides you, the people with, what's your farcical phrase.. 'deficiency of idea-handling skills'? What is that even supposed to mean, for those who studied math, science, and engineering instead of whatever the fuck that comes from?

[SirNitram]

The original post does strike me as rather... generic. Stylistically, it's a bundle of things we've all heard dozens of times before on N&P, with a side order of "playing to the crowd," because a lot of the more active N&P-ians can be counted on to lap this stuff up.

Another example is social security. Everyone knows it's in bad shape.

"Everybody" knows this, except when one looks at the numbers, its not a problem at all for the US. Healthcare costs will become a problem. Social Security won't.

Social Security payouts aren't so much the problem, because they're proportionate to the number of old people. While the boomers retiring means a surge in the number of old people, old people aren't all that long-lived, so the increase won't be permanent. And Social Security doesn't really pay out that much money per capita.

Medicare, which is the program that provides health care subsidies, yes, that's growing fast on that projection. You're right there. Old people require more health care, and health care is getting steadily more expensive, outrunning inflation. If the government is committed to providing Medicare, then yes, it absolutely needs to either do something about health care costs or scale back benefits in line with what the voter base is willing to pay for.

The former is one of the reasons I think the corporate-center coalition that deadlocks health care reform is going to crack up in the next five to ten years. The young and low-income middle-aged find health care expensive enough that it's a bad bargain or feels like one; the old are getting so numerous that the state simply will not be able to take out enough loans to keep paying their medical bills that much longer at this rate.

The dam held very effectively in 1994. It creaked in 2009. I suspect it'll break some time between 2014 and 2019, unless Obamacare turns out to be very very effective.

Actually, D. Turtle's graph is taking into account the Baby Boomers. It actually takes into account elderly who won't be born until... 2015.

[SirNitram]

George W. Bush did recent stimulus #1, shithead. President Obama's stimulus plan consisted of a great deal of controversial (among progressives anyway) tax cuts as well.

Who made that cool? I think it might have been Ronald Reagan.

Dubya's Stimulus with economically laughable, not Keyesnian. The Obama one at least put what money it spent into infrastructure and other needed projects, instead of just beer money, which is economically unuseful.(Though the buffs to unemployment and food stamps helped the struggling). And yes, Obama's stimulus was weighed down in both size and effective measures. Perhaps you remember the fact that a major portion of the Legislative Branch is designed to empower a radical minority, and said minority has no goal other than destroying Obama? It kinda ruins your chances of getting useful things done when the game and the media is rigged against you.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, D. Turtle's graph is taking into account the Baby Boomers. It actually takes into account elderly who won't be born until... 2015.

...How does that contradict anything I actually said?

The idea that all of Obama's acts are center-right are darkly amusing. Because of course 'stimulus' is center-right, they love them Keynesianism. Oh wait, they hate it with the burning fire of ten thousand suns.

Deficit-financed stimulus was perfectly fine according to the American center-right until 2009, when it became politically expedient to oppose it on grounds of deficit reduction. It will probably become perfectly fine again if they ever end up actually getting to run the country.

Now, to the American far right, stimulus is unacceptable, or at least ought to be funded at the expense of Medicaid, the EPA, and state funding of scientific research instead of at the expense of the deficit. But that's a horse of a different color.

[aerius]

Another example is social security. Everyone knows it's in bad shape.

"Everybody" knows this, except when one looks at the numbers, its not a problem at all for the US. Healthcare costs will become a problem. Social Security won't.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/socialsec ... oonssa.htm

According to the NCPA:

•The CBO report projects Social Security revenues will no longer be sufficient to fund all promised benefits beginning in 2019 – only a one year delay over the Trustees’ projection of 2018.

•The CBO report projects a long-term deficit that is approximately 20 percent smaller than the program’s Trustees’ projection of an $10.4 trillion unfunded liability.

•This means, barring fundamental reform, the government will need to raise taxes, slash benefits or significantly increase the debt to keep its promises to retirees – even under CBO’s slightly smaller projections.

Problem - No one wants to fix it, no one has a serious plan for fixing it. So in 6 or 7 years depending on whether you go by the SS trust fund actuaries or the CBO, benefit cuts, tax raises, borrowing, or some combination of the above will need to happen.

[Simon_Jester]

Dubya's Stimulus with economically laughable, not Keyesnian.

Yeah, and I'm sure Mel Gibson and Christopher Lambert aren't true Scotsmen either.

Look up where they were born and raised.

Do you or do you not feel silly now?

Note that if you were joking before, then you should have already felt silly because you were being silly, which is okay as long as you're aware of it I guess.

You know, you could have said it was a bad bill, or that the stimulus in there was more thanks to the Democrats in congress than President Bush (though it did pass with bipartisan majorities), but instead, you pull out a ridiculous fallacy.

How is it a fallacy to say "X is not Y?" Keynesianism doesn't just mean "the state spends a ton of money." It means specific things about what the money is used for. It's totally possible for deficit spending during a recession to not be "Keynesian." That's not a fallacy, that's just an argument- which may be true or false, but can't just be dismissed as "No true Scotsman."

I mean, this is like if we did this:

A: "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."
B: "Nanook here does."
[A looks at Nanook, observes that Nanook is, in point of fact, an Eskimo]
A: "...Hey, wait a minute! Nanook isn't a Scotsman."
B: "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY!"
A: "Nanook isn't even a fake Scotsman, he's an Eskimo!"
B: "FALLACY! YOU ARE FALLACIOUS!"

Sheesh, D-13. The whole "point fingers and shout about fallacies" thing is really overrated. You should know this by now.

[SirNitram]

Simon handled this better than me, and without the blood pressure. I can't really add to this side rant from Dest 13, so I'll leave it in hands less likely to get dragged into the yelling match.

[Aaron MkII]

Dude, eskimo is not the preferred nomenclature, Inuit, please.