Robert Reich, in my household we would vote for you in a heartbeat and wish we had the opportunity! I wish you had a much more prominent role somewhere so that your voice and words would be heard by many more people. It is a voice of reason, intelligence, humanity, common sense and principle. We appreciate your writing very much. Carry on!
Morris was right. Trump took over the Republican party telling voters what they wanted to hear (Build a wall, trade war with china, drain the swamp).
It is 2022 and voters want a leader that is screaming as lout as Trump. But voters in both parties want a leader that is screaming "Medicare for All" as loud as Trump screamed to "Build that wall" As loud for "$15min wage" as Trump screamed for "Trade War with China". as loud to "Tax the Rich" as Trump screamed to "Slash corporate taxes"
The Dem view on these issues polls very very well with Dems and GOP. And Biden is virtually silent on all of them. Why is that? Because he has chosen donors over voters.
JUST HEARD ON LOCAL BROADCAST NEWS: (A Kristine Frazao report.)
Apparently, ol' Tweety & the Tweety-tossers are trying to compare recent FBI action under Garland with what they did to MLK under Hoover, and the same mentalities completely supported Hoover, at that time. Comparing ol' Tweety to MLK ‽ Give . . Me . . A . . Break! What-about-ism appears to be the >new< last refuge of the swamp-scum! I get it! Monty Python has moved into Politics! LOL!
Be forewarned: If the FBI can go after ol' Tweety for stealing Sensitive Compartmentalized Information and stashing in his unsecured basement, they can go after >you too< if >you< steal Sensitive Compartmentalized Information and stash in >your< unsecured basement! LOL! >You< may call that espionage and >highest possible< treason . . ., but >I< couldn't possibly comment! LOL!
These are the same people that were convinced that Trump won the election but for local operatives only in swing states figuring out how to "rig" the voting booth...
Just to be fair, liberals fall for such non sense too.. They let CNN and MSNBC and the NYT convince them that Bernie was not electable even though he crushed Trump in every poll. They let CNN and MSNBC convince them that Trump was a Russian spy and Mueller totally refuted that nonsense.
Voters on both sides are being misinformed by the media.
Which serves to demonstrate how poorly we educate these students in critical thinking, I taught school for 19 years (science) The emphasis from the administration was on A) attendance, B) a quiet, orderly classroom and C) sports. This school was located in a solidly middle class neighborhood. Americans in general need to put more emphasis on teaching critical thinking skills and less on sports. Religion should be taught at home and in churches NOT in public schools, I'm not saying we should disrespect a child's (or adult's) personal religious views. We need to respectfully remind students and parents that if we teach one group's religious tenets we'd have to teach all religious tenets and when would we find time to teach reading, math, science, (truthful) history, civics, health, physical education, art, music, woodshop, automechanics, keyboards, critical thinking and all other skills needed to produce functioning employable adults.
The parents who are 100% certain that Trump won the 2020 election and that people like the Prosperity Gospel Minister are representing the word of God should be teaching their kids "ethics"???
I disagree. Schools don't have to push religion to teach kids ethics. How about we replace PE for a class in ethics and critical thinking?
I don't care how they do it, children deserve to learn ethical behavior and critical thinking, especially if the USA is to have any agreeable future. It wouldn't hurt to teach them the true meaning of fascism, authoritarianism and a representative democracy - but not until high school
The only people that are going to school boards and demanding that these books get removed and that children not be taught about things like evolution or homosexuality are the same people that truly believe Trump won the election and and that vaccines are useless.
If we want to teach critical thinking and the definition and history of things like Fascism, Communism and Representative Democracy then people that believe need to also get in front of school boards. They are winning because they are organized and engaged and active. And the vote
I have been suggesting that for months, but I think Bob is too intelligent to try. And after reading his governor's campaign trail story, I do not blame him.
The Dem party in California refused to vote on a Medicare For All bill for all Californians. The Dems in California are just as controlled by big corp interests as the GOP and DEMS are in Washington.
Dr. Reich would get crushed in fund raising because (a) he knows policy (b) his policies favor the poor and middle class over corporate profits. HE would suffer the same fate as Elizabeth Warren..
There are lots of good economists and journalists saying what Dr. Reich is saying. Republican voters wont listen to him because they disagree his identity politics. Its that simple.
Most Republican voters agree with Dr Reich's economic ideas but not his identity politics.
Put it this way if there was someone on Substack that supported Trumps views on race, immigration and trans and gay issues but they were arguing for the same economic agenda as Dr Reich would you subscribe to their substack?
I think it would be a serious mistake strategically for Democrats to “move to the center” in this election cycle. Bernie Sanders has rightly pointed out that the country is far more liberal than we think and will support Medicare for all, a much more aggressive approach to the climate crisis, higher taxes for the rich and corporations, and closing the gap between rich and the rest of us, and even the economic and social gap between whites and non-whites. Upwards of 75% also support choice for women, as well as the ERA. I also think Dick Morris and your campaign manager were cowards. Voters respond to candidates who have vision, who speak the truth and take the higher moral ground — candidates whose words are congruent with what they truly believe.
Peter, you are so right! Moving to the right is ridiculous. Dr. Reich's comment about that being halfway between democracy and fascism is apt here. Republicans have bought some kind of line about certain people not being worthy of basic rights and the insanity that fetuses are of more value than the women who host them. That is really flawed reasoning, but has enough of a following that they are imposing it on a whole lot of people who don't want it. That is not democracy and moving right moves us into that kind of selfish, my beliefs are more important than your rights thinking. Your examples of what a majority of Americans want is spot on.
Do we ever consider the possibility that men, once they impregnate a woman, might feel an attachment to that potential person? Men might be so unable to face or admit their own softness, they can only dream up laws that will force their will on women as a response to this bond they might feel toward the fetus. Is this thought naive?
First expand our base and out vote the Republicans. On December 17, 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 25% identified as Republican, and 41% as Independent.
Millions of potential voters remain unregistered and most of those folks trend Democratic. Field Team Six has a database of unregistered women who trend Democratic. Contact Mervis Reissig
Second, instead of the moral high ground, emphasize that Democrats are the Party of success. A series of legislative victories highlighted by the Schumer-Manchin budget-reconciliation agreement (now known as the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA), we win. Republicans must not get diabetes, Republicans must not want babies to have formula, do not want to prosecute price fixing and price gouging, etc.
Visual imagery is arguably even more important than verbal messages. For example, "The Stations of the Cross" you find in any Roman church, depicts ol' JCs story as icons, and the practice dates back to preliterate days in the early Christian church, before the days of Gutenberg. It's how the illiterate Romans learned the core New Testament story. How's that relevant?
It appears to date back to ol' Tweety's favorite president - Jackson.
I'm thinking that among the first things the Democrats should do is update its mascot - I mean, where's a positive message in an image of Democrats as a party of jackasses ‽
It's a side issue to the messaging discussion here, but an important side issue.
DZK — I think this is a CENTRAL issue. The meme, the sound byte, the quick and slick answer gets through. People don’t want a lecture.
And ridicule is a strong mover of emotion — if they can ridicule the Dems, accurately or not, they win support. That is a sad bit of reality.
I think your thoughts on this are highly pertinent, and I wish Dems would take this issue more to heart. George Lakoff talked about “framing.” We ignore that issue to our peril.
A jackass is a cross between a horse and donkey, like interspecies marriage. We democrats push for multiculturalism and diversity. This means we might consider keeping our mascot.
I doubt the Dems will try to “rebrand” at this time in history — you never know about the future, but the Elephant and the Donkey [I don’t call it a jackass] are deeply entrenched. I’m not crazy about all the easy ways one can disparage the Donkey, but we should think about it, not just concede.
Have you ever been kicked by a donkey? It delivers quite an effective punch and ya remember it for a looooong time. Just sayin'. (It really does hurt like a somabitch.)
Besides, I wasn't really suggesting rebranding. What I said was "the Democrats should do is update its mascot." That doesn't even imply abandoning it or rebranding. I mention elsewhere that they should clearly define what it represents, suitable for current times - not what it represented at the time of Andrew Jackson.
I doubt it too, but any discussion must start >somewhere.< It'd be better if ideas start getting discussed. BTW: The opposition >definitely< make it out as a jackass. I'm not talking about conceding. I'm talking about adjusting. In Jackson's time, the jackass had a very different connotation than it has today. Here we get back to the "originalist" thinking trap.
FURTHER THOUGHT: The image of a rampant elephant I mention elsewhere clearly defines what the Republi-wankers would have us all believe about them.
Why not a human being? A native American, for example - sort of like on the old nickel - to remind us we're >all< immigrants in this land? (And honors native Americans, as well.)
My favorite pic of my step-father, Joe Schierberl (Democratic County Chair) is of him standing next to a fine-looking donkey in front of an old barn in PA.
The Party of Success, although sufficiently bite-sized, strikes me as a bit weak. Look for something "catchier" the >means< exactly the same thing. Just a personal impression, here.
Maybe "The Party of Progress." It embraces as virtue what they're accused of being - although to be fair, even that strikes me as a bit weak.
How about some permutation of non-denominational images to emphasize policies favoring:
Feeding the hungry & financially-struggling;
Clothing/Sheltering/Housing those in need;
No usurious corporations that profit from others' misery & desperation
Caring for Animals (No trophy-hunting [ala Trump Jr]; Family Farms that can provide a living to farmers, rather than BigAg oligopoly Factory Farm cruelty that's provides no money to indentured farmers)?
Y'know: things Jesus actually spoke about, rather than the anti-abortion myths that power-hungry religious charlatans promulgate (to support the Dark Money, tax-cutters' political alliance)
I was just spit-ballin' the example she replied to. I'm not one bit committed to it. I even mentioned I thought it was weak, but it's a starting place for discussion. Your exception is a fair enough consideration.
"Progress" is the root word of "progressive." It's like wearing the costume, but not the mask. I think we should call ourselves "Liberals." That's the basis of the Constitution: liberalism. It's a beautiful word, with its root word meaning "freedom" and its American version calls it "generosity."
Daniel is correct. What we(democrats) can do and still tell the truth is to keep telling the Republican truth…. Tell exactly what it is they have voted against, tell exactly what it is that they are trying to impose on all of us, tell exactly the truth about every lie they mutter, and then ask the voter if that is what they want? Because you are here to see to it that the voter gets …… health care, freedom of privacy, taxes that reflect a sane fairness, an improvement in our infrastructure so Americans can once again feel proud of their roads and bridges and transportation, and a freedom to converse in a legally protected atmosphere to a fair wage and safe working environs. Tell the Republican truth about all this and then ask the American voter if that is what he/she is willing to accept. No one losses sleep about living by ones moral code. Just be honest and tell the facts over and over and over and prove we can stay the “honest” course.
Because they think they have to tell their truth. They have to tell the Republican truth and ask again how many want that truth.
It is not unlike the old “socialism” issue that the Republicans use over and over again....even when asked what that means to them not one can answer . So, throw them under the bus with their own “truth”! People feel better when we use the word truth. Especially Republicans because they can’t describe that anymore than they can describe Socialism.
Thank you for this, the medias hysterical polling NEVER includes the numbers just %. If there's only 10 republicans and 100 dems, who cares what 90% of republicans want? So many young people are also unregistered and dont identify with this toxic tribalism
Yes! That drives me nuts in most "statistical" calculations ..... % of what?!?!? How was the poll conducted? What were the questions and choices of answers? On and on....
Proof of your last statement is that Bernie was immensely popular and some of us think he would have won in 2016. He should have worked harder for Hillary Clinton although he was right to be embittered by actions of the DNC.
Bernie WOULD have won. As early as the Spring of 2016, the website 538 was publishing daily national polls which compared Bernie v Trump and Hillary v Trump. Every single day, in every poll, Bernie beat Trump about 2:1, whereas Hillary and Trump were level. This was through early 2016, until Bernie was sandbagged by the DNC. Sure, Comey should not have put his thumb on the scale, but the point is Hillary never managed to distance herself from the orange clown. The appalling election result in November could have been predicted months earlier.
Yes, Berrnie stayed the course on his principles and had the people behind him. The “centrist” faction of the Dem Party— the Big Money guys— put their thumb on the scale. And still, principled AND pragmatic Bernie encouraged his people to vote for Hillary, because she was still not the toxic mess that Trump is. The vast majority of the American public wants to vote for someone who honestly tells voters what that politician supports. But it’s tough to get the whole picture out when a meme can bring someone down these days, and no one wants a lecture or a history lesson to help them understand. They succumb to slick sound bytes. I want the Democratic Party back that believed supporting the people— all the people— is good for our entire society and system. Charles Wilson’s comment that what is good for General Motors is good for the country is said to be a misconstruction of his intent. He intended to say what is good for the people is good for General Motors AND vice verse. Both! I don’t want us to destroy our economic engine; I want the engine to keep running strong in service of the people, not to grind us up. I am a (tiny) business owner from an entrepreneurial family. Business is good, and our system should enable it for its success and ALL of our success. But business exists for a society to function— society is not here in the service of business. It needs to be symbiotic, not parasitic.
That is Bernie’s position, too. He should have won.
I hope it is possible to be a principled, savvy, knowledgeable and skilled person who can support policies that promote the general welfare of our people— including the economic sector that generates our economic strength In partnership with labor and consumers and those who need our help to survive—and still tell the truth, and win elections across the country.
Yes, one has to get elected to be able to bring one’s principles to the job of governing, but I hope we have not reached a point where we have to choose between a snake and a serpent. I hope people are capable of perceiving what side their bread is buttered on, We will always have some citizens vulnerable to the cults of personality and celebrity—-and destroying our educational system, abandoning critical thinking skills makes that a greater danger—but I would be devastated if our future is more Trumpian than it was when we all still believed that man was a clown.
I would vote for you in a heartbeat, Professor Reich.
I really miss a lot of the small businesses that have disappeared. It’s like franchise row everywhere you look. We’ve lost so much with all this consolidation.
This is the dilemma of the Democratic Party. When we FINALLY have a candidate that truly believes in the PEOPLE, Bernie (who knew better and is registered as independent), the Corporate and elite owned DNC "put their thumb on the scales", organized their political puppets (Obama, Clyburn, etc.) to crush the "person for the people". Why do you think the "Build Back Better" failed so magnificently by THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? They have PROVEN to so many people to have LOST THEIR WAY demonstrating NO backbone or even being able to recognize what "Doing the Right Thing" means. Money talks. Now they are just another corporate owned party with much better social policy vision than the totally backward moving, Freedom Party Caucus, I mean Republican Party. The Democratic Party has demonstrated that their economic policies are NO different from the dismal Republican Party. "Too Big to Fail???" Obama (D) giving U.S. Taxpayer BAILOUTS to the Wall Street gang that primarily caused the 2008 recession. (I question WHY JPMorgan's Jaime Dimon continues to be CEO of a publicly held company when that company, under HIS watch, has been fined $920 MILLION dollars for metals market manipulation? Laws MUST be changed in order to STOP or at least reduce the "open" corruption that exists in business today.) In Capitalist government, businesses FAIL!. Even if OUR tax dollars were going to go to Wall Street to SAVE THEM, WHY were their NO STRINGS ATTACHED to the money? I would have demanded an American Taxpayer percentage of OWNERSHIP with future profits sent back to the U.S. Treasury! In addition, the CEO and his lackey Board of Directors MUST be removed before any funds are provided.) And to pour even more salt into the wound the A.G. did NOT press charges against anyone running these Wall Street institutions!! Meanwhile millions of hard-working people LOST their jobs AND homes. No bailout for them. And you wonder why horrible Trump was elected?? Obama then gets his hundreds of millions from Netflix. What kind of a country have we devolved into? The Democrats MUST FIGHT TO GET BACK THEIR MORALITY AND SOUL OF THEIR OWN PARTY BACK and BELIEVE IN THE VALUES THEY ORIGINALLY BELIEVED IN if they expect people to believe in them again. (However, I think that ship has been purchased and sailed.) Until then, we search for a valid 3rd Political Party that truly demonstrates that they care and will NOT be "bought off" by monied interests (ex: Sinema). In the meantime, at least vote the FASCISTS (Republican Party) OUT OF OFFICE!!
OK, some of what you say, I agree with, but just to set your story into actual context [because context matters], Obama didn’t give us the crash — that was done by the Republicans who did nothing to slow it down when they inherited the seeds of it from Clinton [when Bush was ushered in by the Supreme Court, instead of the rightful winner of the 2000 election - Al Gore]. Economists talked about the overheated real estate market all the way back at the end of the 90s, while Clinton was oveseeing a flourishing stock market and a surplus in the national economy. I have no idea if Gore would have continued Clinton’s attitude or not, but Bush did nothing to deal with the “impending crash” that the real estate industry was cruising toward — and remember, it was Clinton who let the Glass Steagall Act go away so banks could behave badly and bring on that crash and Republican moguls just ran with it [it was not poor borrowers who caused the crash — it was out-of-control bankers with their insane investment “products” and bundled mortgages that eventually brought them down and destroyed the lives of millions of mortgage holders who couldn’t even renegotiate a loan because nobody knew who owned it anymore … ]. Then when we crashed into The Great Recession at the end of 2008, the Cheney Administration got the bank bailout approved by Congress, and passed it on to Obama, who was not even in office yet. I agree, Barack did not do enough to mitigate that awful thing, nor did he find a way to help homeowners, as well, but he didn’t initiate that monstrosity, either. But I was aghast at his cabinet full of Clintonian Wall-Streeters and Chicago types. Not people for the people, that’s for sure. It’s not too surprising that no one said, “Let’s help Americans get through this, too.”
So, yeah, if people want a party “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” we’ll have to take the Democratic Party back, or find a third one. But right now, Washington is parceled out the R’s and D’s, so taking the D’s back sounds like our best bet.
Maybe we need some strategies to do it, along with anger that they’ve been bought. [i’m hearing a lot about the strength of millions and millions of small-dollar donations these days — maybe that’s a place to start].
Thank you for your further context. It does matter. Yes, Obama did NOT cause it, but as you pointed out, I would say he was "in over his head", and just relied on those around him for guidance and apparently, NOT asking the tough questions. So much for good slogans, "Yes, we can" turned out to be more like, "No, we didn't" because he apparently did NOT want to upset the monied interests who he had already made commitments to when begging for cash, directly or indirectly (DNC). Bernie proved campaigns can be funded on millions of small donations (I donated), but it is much easier to rely on the big DNC machine who agrees to do whatever those few monied interests want. They learned this well from the RNC. And, as in the Great Recession, when there are NO CONSEQUENCES FOR BAD DEEDS, future bad deeds will only be amplified. That is why Trump MUST be indicted. Even if he is found "Not Guilty" (and he better not be) his bad acts will be exposed for all to see. And NO PARDONS!! We want PRISON TERMS!! It is time we sent a STRONG MESSAGE that we actually care about OUR DEMOCRACY!! I have been AGAINST this Presidential Pardon crap for a long time. These people's dirty dog lackey's (ex: Roger Stone) get a "Get out of Jail Free" card This is crap brought to us by the corrupt monied interests. You want to clean up America, PUBLICLY FINANCE ELECTIONS and BAN ALL PRIVATE BRIBES (DONATIONS)!!
It is possible that Hillary's loss and Trumps terrible four years have acted as a cleanser to our system. We should know at midterms. Just thinking with a blue wave we could have the government and society that we have imagined.
I wish I could be more sanguine about that. I have political PTSD from the 2016 election night when Hillary did not pull ahead in the Electoral College. I’m not the only one afraid to hope … and yet, I do.
Because of James Comey’s meddling a week and a half before the 2016 election, we had to endure four years of orange hell. Comey has tainted his name and reputation for life and deserves all the condemnation he gets. Though Trump was defeated in 2020, there’s still the monumental task of defeating ‘Trumpism’. Hillary was right all along. She repeatedly warned us but too many people kept dwelling on her ‘e-mails’. Now we have a much bigger problem. Trump's ‘espionage’.
Trump may have already sold info to the bad guys. I think we all watched the truck being loaded as it happened and no way Trump has safely held that information for this long.
I don’t believe Sanders would have won in 2016. Despite his positive messaging, Trump, Putin, Kris KKKobach and many other foreign and domestic colluders would still have attempted to sabotage the election. Sanders would have fallen victim to the tired, ridiculous Republican label of a socialist. The goal of the international and domestic saboteurs was to split the Democratic Party into a ‘Hillary’ camp and a ‘Bernie’ camp and cause an inter-party feud. They succeeded in doing exactly that. The attempt at electoral sabotage would have failed if James Comey hadn’t interfered a week and a half before the election. Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and would’ve won the electoral college as well.
Sadly, I agree, but with the Dem Party nomination, and SUPPORT, I think he could have made it. He is not the best public speaker but he is one savvy smart man.!
polling said otherwise per other poster and I disagree. Part of the reason using socialist works as a scary term is because people labeled that react like it is and dont embrace it like Bernie would and throw back at the fascists (everybody loves socialism but doesn't know it-garbage collection, social security, libraries, schools....all socialist) The other problem is the media paints reasonable pols like AOC as radicals-if you actually read ANYTHING she says its all very reasonable and within the mainstream of society but it is socialism.
Yes! This is what I mean when I say people don’t want a lecture — to push back on the “socialist” thing, you have to explain the difference between a classic socialist and a modern Social Democrat [aka, Bernie]. And people’s eyes glaze over. For many years, the charge of “commie” or “pinko” was all that was needed to sink a person. Our electorate does not like to — or has forgotten how to — or has not been taught — to think beyond the sound byte and th meme.
I must admit that I did not vote in 2016 simply because it seemed to me that voters were being offered a chance to choose the worst President ever. I was planning to vote for Bernie, but when the DNC screwed him over like they did I decided not to vote, simply because neither candidate was acceptable to me.
A little over 20 years ago I took a 400-level Psyc course, Advanced Perspectives on Psychopathology, during which the prof gave us a very interesting lecture entitled Psychopaths Say Things Like .... Every single quotation she used in that lecture was from Donald Trump on his TV show. So nothing that Trump has done or said since his political career started has surprised me.
As to why I did not want to see another Clinton in the White House, I could go on for quite a while, but Vince Foster and Bill Clinton are the 2 most important reasons.
Foster most likely shot himself, probably in his office in the White House. But his body was moved, most likely with the knowledge Hillary Clinton, and this fact was covered up by moving the body to a National Park, and then assigning the case to a National Park Service investigator who had never investigated a homicide before and did not understand the significance of there not being any blood on the park bench where the body was found. This fiasco caused me to decide there is a shortage of honesty in the Clinton family.
And of course I did not want to see Bill Clinton lurking the hallways and closets of the White House again. Once was more than enough. I could go on for a while about why I think Hillary was not suitable to be President, but I will skip all that.
With respect to the current situation. I think the Democratic Party is largely responsible for the Trumpist mess because they pushed Bernie aside, and so I have a great deal of trouble trusting them to fix the current situation.
And I am not sure it is fixable anyway. I see the two-party system that has been allowed to fossilize in the US as being a fatal flaw that has allowed the current situation of political divisiveness to become so severe. I personally have no optimism whatsoever about getting out of the current mess and expect there to be a civil war soon.
I hope you are wrong about the civill war thing, Gregory.
The whole voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils things is fraught with peril — if one side thinks it has captive voters who don’t dare vote for the opposition, there’s little incentive to do better for them. BUT, if one side is a fascist, authoritarian bunch of outright racists, and the other is a bunch of feckless elitists in thrall to corporate America and condescending to minorities — mmmmm, which side can we survive and have time to change our direction, and which side is going to take us literally generations to upend?
If we don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils, what do we do in the off-time to change our options? Republicans spent 40 years positioning themselves to take over state legislators, local representatives, school departments, etc., to put themselves in a position that will be IMMENSELY difficult to unseat. If we stand back, refuse to vote, and let them take it because we are angry about choosing a snake over a serpent, we may be lost — our children may be flushed donw the drain.
Hillary was and is a bad choice for me. Her husband was a creep and his Wall Street administration and anti-lower-class attitudes enraged me, but he was not as bad as the Cheney admininstration that followed him. Al Gore was boring, but he would have been so much better, we would probably have stayed on Al Qaeda’s case and they would not have crashed the Towers, and we’d have done a little somthing about global warming.
I don’t know how to look at this as one side being as bad as the other, even with some of the awful foreign policies and economic skullduggery the Dems pulled off. The Democrats were ending the war in VietNam when Nixon sent people over the scuttle the Paris talks. We had years more of war and devastation until Nixon’s criminal behavior caught up wit him. The Democrats would NOT have invaded Iraq and blown up the MIddle East [Gore wouldn’t not have chased Bin Laden into Afghanistan, if the Towers never went down]. And who know what shape the world would be in — I suspect NOT worse — if people voted for Dems and not Repubs.
And if we do not like the Dems [for the record, I’m not a Dem, and I find them perennially frustrating and hypocritical, but not as venal as the Ultra-Right Republican Party], what should we be doing about that in the space between elections, or right here at home across the country, not just in Washington, to change that!!?? Bowing out of the struggle strikes me as the wrong choice.
im in this camp. Bernie would have won one not just because people are misogynists(they are) but because Hillary and Bill were part of the neoliberal shift in the dem party-this let the overton window be shifted so far right. People are sick of neoliberal and "conservative" aka fascists nonsense. Both these groups are trying to push as back into the 1890s, some more than others.
Regardless, it’s already been shown Clinton won the popular vote. The Republicans have only won one popular vote in the last eight elections. Al Gore won the popular vote. The election process is flawed. There needs to be positive changes and once again, the Supreme Court is an obstacle to progress.
Bernie is not the answer: He is too old and too unlikely to be elected because of his often-repeated phrase of "social democrat." The Republicans and many Democrats think this means "socialism."
Thanks. You're right. But I was really trying to snark a bit about attention span and short-term - and even long-term - memory. More than half of what the Tweety-tossers toss relies on nobody really paying too much attention, or remembering anything for more than a few days if they do. Hell! The news outlets know that too. Have you ever noticed that the news tends to latch on to a story they want to promote like a pit-bull with a bone, and will bring it up daily for days and days, and reference it for weeks? Hell! it works the same for >any< advertising campaign - keeping that forgetful collective consciousness refreshed.
Bernie Sanders came very close to winning. Had it been a level playing field we could have had two terms of Bernie. His demise came from his own party establishment, from the top down. I observed and noted this in the campaign in Colorado.
For some reason it seems to me the Democrats have not done a great job of “advertising”their successes and repeating them over and over until people understand what they have accomplished and what they stand for. The Republicans have repeated the big lie over and over and over again until people, many people, tend to believe it.
Robin, you say they have not done a great job of "advertising" their successes, I would say you are very kind to the party. I say they have done a BAD job of advertising their successes. Just to name two, if it weren't for the democrats, the elderly today would be in very bad shape. They would not have Social Security, nor Medicare. Two major benefits for the elderly that if it were not for the democrats the Republicans would have already reduced or outright eliminated these benefits.
Absolutely! The big lie is a simple refrain. In that vein I would suggest that the Democrats talk about one of the things they have done over and over again. Then talk about another thing they’ve done over and over again etc. We need an advertising exec.
I like the idea of a message that includes not only "but what have you done for me lately" response, but focuses on what would likely have been without Democrats fighting for it. Citing what's going on in red states and the SCOTUS would make a good counterpoint to that approach as proof.
Re: your quote, “Voters respond to candidates who have vision, who speak the truth and take the higher moral ground …” I fear you give voters too much moral credit. Too many are on survival mode, which has no moral standard. I do not say this in a condescending way. They do what they must - and vote - to protect themselves from their fears.
You’re welcome Nancy. The other adjective about a successful candidate, which I thought of later, is “inspiring.” As others have pointed out, people won’t remember what you do or say, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel.
Excellent analysis and commentary. So many times these pundits and operatives are dead wrong. I remember Harris Wofford campaign for the Senate in Pennsylvania. Wofford took a strong position in favor of Universal health care, and the operatives said drop it. But Wofford persisted. I was at his election eve rally and watch party, and as the returns came in, Wofford was winning the Philadelphia suburbs by huge margins. He was invading previously Republican territory, and he was winning. I think he won all five of the suburbs. This started the Democratic wave in the formerly Republican suburbs as middle class people with liberal views became the major demographic. There is no alternative to hard campaigning, and we desperately need firm, well thought out campaign positions and not the wishy washy variety which will never get anyone elected. Democratic candidates need to both describe their political goals and issues, but they also need to light a hot ad searing attack on all these Republicans who follow Trump’s lies and seek to undermine our precious democracy and convert it into an autocracy and in Trump’s case a kleptocracy.
Yes Harold, I remember the campaign you described and was one of those suburban voters who liked Wofford. He was honest about what he stood for and did help a lot of people get out to vote who hadn't voted before. We need more like him all over the country. Unfortunately, courage is not in great supply these days either on the part of candidates or voters. "Go with what you know" has allowed people to vote against their family's interests and has kept us from making the positive changes we need to improve life for our nation and begin the process of ending global warming. How do we nurture the courage needed?
Wonder how Republicans would feel if the Democrats began circulating some big lies about them to damage their credibility e.g. have you heard that tRump golf clubs are being turned into prison camps to detain people who refuse to sign a loyalty oath to America's Hitler? Wonder how Republicans who use the Big Lie to hold onto power would like to get onto an airplane where the pilot "lied" about his ability to fly, undergo surgery from a doctor who lied about being properly licensed, eat at a restaurant where the operators lie about serving contaminated food? Sooner or later, lies can prove fatal and no amount of power can save the "liars" from the karma they ultimately deserve. I think Democrats should put up big billboards on every interstate in America, each showing a picture of tRump, McConnell, McCarthy and other Big Lie Republican promoters with one simple word in bold lettering - LIAR! After all, seeing the same message repeated over and over again seems to be effective in brainwashing people
Dee Long, This needs to be on every tv station commercial but they are controlled by the right. The depth of damage from the right wing psychopaths is very difficult to undo. But I agree, we must repeat, repeat, repeat.
Well, that might work if Trump is the nominee, but what if it's deSantis? Or some other doppelganger? Reading Robert Reich's description of his campaign for Massachusetts governor should remind us that there is a cadre of Democratic consultants who make big bucks counseling caution and surrender to the highest bidder. We need a DNC who supports the candidates we choose. And if Democrats ever get a decent majority, campaign finance should be a a top priority.
One billboard would not be big enough to include all the liars. That would take a lot of billboards to include all the important liars in the Republican Party.
I was simply trying to point out the massive cost to do a thorough job on such a project. And what would be the point in doing it if it wasn't a thorough job?
True ; This would need organization. A trusted group would have to coordinate it. I would give donations if It was handled by, say Inequality Media. Even it if it was posted on social media, like Tik Tok, Face book or Snap Chat., it could be effective. The billboards would reach more people. Not everyone hooked on Fox is online.
But how? They believe the lies and won’t listen to any reasonable, rational explanation of the facts. Any actual fact that goes against their beliefs in the lies they yell “fake news.” How do you educate people when you’re challenging their core beliefs? I’ve had more success with beating my head against a brick wall.
Professor, When you asked, “Where is the ‘Center’? Halfway between democracy and fascism? Midpoint between social justice and oligarchy”?, I understood you rightly were indicating that “Center” is a meaningless term. In its stead, I believe voters typically perceive that their interests are best served by candidates who set a political and policy agenda that offers solutions to pressing issues in a way that builds confidence.
As for the importance of distinguishing oneself from one’s opponent, as stated previously, Dems need merely ask, “Who do you want here—somebody who doesn’t want to cut the price of insulin for non-Medicare people or those who do?” “Somebody who doesn’t want to expand the child tax credit or those who do?” “Doesn’t want to provide affordable, quality childcare and universal Pre-K or those who do?” “Doesn’t want to make investments in housing, in eldercare, in expanded ACA subsidies, in climate or those who do?”
Ultimately, I believe voters largely will support Party candidates who represent a broad range of interests and are viewed as engaged in serious discussions in an honest effort to arrive at compromises aimed at improving life for increasing numbers of people.
As a final point, I would add, aside from running on their accomplishments this fall, indeed critical, that Democrats, up and down the ballot, need to amplify the opposing Party’s lack of regard for the rule of law, for the balance of powers, and, last but not least, for truth itself.
Absolutely! I'm so tired of hearing people say Dems don't have a platform. We most certainly do, and you just stated it! Unfortunately, it gets drowned out by all the chaos and rhetoric from republican bs. We need to be stating loud and clear like you just did! Thank you!
3. In 1993, Trump signed a "use agreement" with the town of Palm Beach, that changed Mar-a-Lago's designation from a single-family residence to a private club and specified that guests, including Trump, could not stay there more than three non-consecutive weeks per year. In December 2020, neighbors of Mar-a-Lago delivered a demand letter to the town of Palm Beach, stating that the town should notify Trump that he cannot use the estate as his residence.[95][97] Trump argues that he can live at Mar-a-Lago permanently as a bona fide employee.
4. Many believe that Trump's club is comprised of lobbyists and foreign nationals. Equity is $200,000 and membership is $14,000 per year. A federal judge in 2017 ordered the DOJ to release "records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago," but the Secret Service said that there is no comprehensive process for tracking visitors.
5. The New York Times reported in 2017 that the "club's nearly 500 paying members include dozens of real estate developers, Wall Street financiers, energy executives and others whose businesses could be affected by Trump's policies.
6. Members as of 2017 include oil executive Bill Koch, financier Thomas Peterffy, New Jersey Democratic Party leader George Norcross, lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, real estate developers Bruce E. Toll and Richard LeFrak, media executive Christopher Ruddy, talk show host Howie Carr, talk show host Michael Savage's wife, and NFL coach Bill Belichick.
7. The club has been frequently cited for health code violations. In January 2017, Florida inspectors noted 15 infractions that included unsafe seafood, insufficiently refrigerated meats, rusty shelving, and cooks without hairnets. Since 2013, it has faced 51 health code violations.
8. Upon departing the White House in January 2021, Trump transported a large volume of presidential records to Mar-a-Lago, despite storage of such materials being subject to the Presidential Records Act.[99] Seeking to preserve presidential communications and correspondence with world leaders, the National Archives and Records Administration arranged to retrieve 15 boxes of material from Mar-a-Lago in January 2022.[100] These included documents clearly marked as classified, prompting the Department of Justice to restrict any details regarding the contents of the 15 boxes. Russian propagandists stated that if former President Donald Trump was indeed hiding classified documents related to nuclear weapons at his Mar-a-Lago compound in Palm Beach, Florida, the Kremlin has already seen them. https://www.rawstory.com/russian-propagandists-claim-moscow-has-been-studying-mar-a-lago-nuclear-documents-for-a-while/
9. In June 2022 the Justice Department sent Trump a grand jury subpoena, requesting any additional documents marked classified. A later subpoena requested surveillance footage from the club. On August 8, 2022, FBI agents presented a search warrant and searched Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago, part of the continuing investigation into the potential mishandling of classified documents. The Secret Service "facilitated access" for the FBI, and one of Trump's lawyers was present for the search and certified that there were no records remaining..https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/13/us/politics/trump-classified-material-fbi.html?fbclid=IwAR3CTY80ST4MclzanaVutT1KpxMKPZonq9knz1EdDTwsl_6iXayku-Mqpik
10. As a direct result of Trump's accusations that he is the victim of a witch-hunt, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart has been the subject of a massive right-wing social media attack after he signed off on a search warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate Friday (Aug. 5). The judge’s address and other personal information were shared online, and threats on his life were made.
11. Reinhart is Jewish and a member of Temple Beth David in Palm Beach Gardens, a Conservative synagogue where he also serves on the board of trustees. The synagogue frequently holds Friday night Shabbat services on the beach, described on the website as “the most spiritual Shabbat experience we’ve ever had.” . https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article264444421.html
Daniel, While registering voters and underscoring the issues that most engage Independent Floridians are critical factors that both everyday people and Democratic strategists should heed, I would note that the political and policy agenda I am promoting, in my view, appeals not only to Democrats but also, by and large, to Independents and, additionally, I dare say, to old school moderate Republicans.
The Dems should publicize the fact that Republicans are NOT the party of law and order. Democrats are the party of freedom (such as abortion laws, racial equality, freedom of teachers to teach the truth), etc.
Teresa, Because every MAGA Republican would dispute your perspective that they are neither the Party of law and order (think, for example, the southern border) nor the Party of freedom (think, for example, recent references to the FBI as gestapoI), I would avoid either distinction. When differentiating between the two Parties, I believe it more advantageous, as shown in my comment, to focus on indisputable differences between the two. That said, I believe your examples about choice, racial inequity, and the teaching of diverse ideas and voices are valid distinctions that relate to core beliefs regarding the protections of individual rights.
Barbara I totally and completely agree with you except for one thing. The voters you describe are us, here on this website, reading and discussing the issues. The vast majority of voters you haven’t described are those who are not here, those who don’t seek out the truth of the lies they’re being fed by the republicans. Who won’t seek out the truth and won’t hear the truth. Who don’t know what the issues are and cannot say what issues are important to them other than tRump was cheated, don’t raise taxes, don’t kill unborn babies, and don’t take my gun. These voters have been deeply deceived and refuse to believe anything reasonable and rational.
Gayle, In my view, the voters you have portrayed largely are MAGA Republicans, who comprise approximately 35% of the population. In contrast, I methodically and repeatedly aim to advance a political and policy agenda meant to appeal not only to Democrats, but also, by and large, to Independents and, additionally, I dare say, to old school moderate Republicans.
Laurie, Presuming you are referring to Republicans’ disregard for Constitutional democracy “of, by, and for the people,” I agree. I would note that I didn’t include it because its underlying structure is the rule of law and the balance of powers, plus, in my view, getting as close as possible to the verifiable truth.
Barbara Jo Krieger ; I mentioned Democracy even though it is far from perfectly functional, because the present Republican party has been invaded, taken over and is purging all those who are not sycophants to tRump. I understand your position and agree that it is damaged enough to be almost unrecognizable. But we must continue to defend and pursue "a more perfect Union", in spite of or because of the threat we now face to our form of governing. It is my belief that the majority of Americans of both parties want Democracy over Autocracy, and , given a free and fair chance to vote ; They will vote for Democracy and the rule of law!!
Laurie, While I thoroughly agree with your statement, I would note that I believe you misunderstood my previous reply. I merely stated that I didn’t include Constitutional democracy…in my original comment because, in my view, it was implied by my listing its 2 central underpinnings: the rule of law and the balance of powers.
But you can give people what they want and still get to a congenial society.
Arguably, the most important thing to do is raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. Put Reagan in full reverse. Everything else flow from this.
75% of Democrats want this, and 68% of ALL Americans (including presumably a lot of swing voters and independents) want it.
Similar results for universal healthcare.
Just say it.
There was a general election in the UK after WWII, and everyone knew Churchill would win, including senior members of the Labour Party. When Labour leaders were writing their manifesto, one of them suggested that, since they were going to lose anyway, why not write what they truly wanted, rather then tacking to the center as they always did.
The Manifesto was based on raising taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare. Churchill famously lost in a landslide.
Michael, I like your example of the Churchill defeat because the opposition stated what they stood for and wanted for the people of Britain. We need to push Democratic candidates in this Mid-term, then always, to do that. Let people know they have a representative who will actually represent them and the issues that matter to them.
History has many lessons for those who pay attention. Unfortunately many people either don't pay any attention to history, or swallow too many lies if they do pay attention.
By explaining your agenda and your principles in very clear and understandable terms, you at least have a chance of being elected and you will definitely remain true to yourself.
You should actually be rather good at doing this by now.
Randall Bowie ; Bernie wrote a few books to inform people of his views and experiences/ history of his career. He spoke about main stream media, and the role it plays in our political outlook. It worked fairly well for him. But the establishment owns the media, and the DNC.
Thank you Robert and I agree with everything you mentioned about Liz Cheney. I have actually started to respect her over this last year and in a small way am sad to see her go.
In a big way I hate to see her and some of her colleagues like Adam Kinzinger go because of a bully like tRump. He is already harming Democracy if he can destroy the Republican party by running legitimate candidates out of it. Imagine ; a party that threatens a man and his wife and Baby with death threats! They have GOT to GO away!
Hey Kaja, I agree with you. Lynn Cheyney has been truly admirable this past 20 months or so. I have read somewhere that women become less conservative as they grow older and men more conservative. Maybe, she will ease up on some of her conservative ideas and move a bit left toward more rights and getting the wealthy to pay their fair share. I would admire her even more then. Her stance in the January 6th hearings and willingness to speak up about Trump's misconduct should be a positive example for all politicians.
I don’t think anyone becomes more conservative based on sex of the person or anything else. This is all about who listens to Fox news and any of the large stations on tv.
I don't see her going anywhere. The woman has earned her stripes, and she should be rewarded for it. Maybe folks in Wyoming are disappointed, but keep in mind that it's a small state.
Paula B. ; I wonder if that could happen? Would Liz Cheney want to be in a Democrat administration? She did co chair the Jan 6 committee. Interesting. Some Democrats may not like it, especially if they feel passed over? It may depend on what the assignment would be. Something the rethugs cannot shut down? That would be cool.
What center? The Democrats should stop pandering to corporate interests and tend to the mess to which they contributed with the terrible policies put forth by Bill Clinton and continued by Obama which have resulted in extreme wealth disparity and opportunity disparity in this country. Biden promoted some good policies; we need to elect a lot more members of the House and Senate who will put those policies into effect.
I'm reading a book you mentioned: "Left Behind" by Lily Geismer, and finding it very instructive, filling in a lot of details. The misnomered "center" is not a winner. Many of us were misled by Clinton's smoke and mirrors and our misplaced Hope with Obama, but that isn't working anymore—the voters want their problems addressed effectively.
Let's just acknowledge that pandering to corporate interests and terrible policies, resulting in the great divide between the 1% and the rest of us, actually flourished during Reagan's presidency. We can lay the mess directly at his feet, as he offered trickle-down economics and the greed-is-good mentality as good policy. The result was the rich getting richer, which did not benefit the lives of ALL Americans. It's also disingenuous to blame two Democratic presidencies when Trump and his Republican sycophants were the purveyors of even greater disparity, handing out huge financial benefits to the wealthiest among us, and then gleefully bragging about it. So, have our lower- and middle-class problems been addressed? Not so much, but I remain hopeful that Biden can continue to turn this battleship in the right direction.
Reagan certainly was terrible and loathsome. Clinton, instead of leading to protect, extend, and improve the groundwork established by FDR, edged onto the Reagan bandwagon of attacking government and glorifying unregulated capitalism. He's to blame for that. It's not small, and it continues today to infect the Democratic Party. He moved right (in misleading parlance "to the center") and attacked/destroyed much of what the Democratic Party had achieved in the mid-twentieth century. He did not lead to extend and improve central parts of our society (such as regulation of banks and other financial institutions, provision of excellent public education from kindergarten through graduate school, extension of Medicare and Social Security, to quickly name a few).
I think Reagan was one of the few Presidents who was worse than Bill Clinton. And I think these 2 are far more alike than most Democrats would like to admit.
But sometimes bits of good news can be found mixed in with the bad news. For example, the only good thing I can say about Trump as President is that at least he saved us from having Bill Clinton lurking about the hallways and closets in the White house for at least 4 years.
Very disappointing to see that Bill Clinton just endorsed DCCC chair Sean Patrick Maloney against Alessandra Biaggi. He didn't have to. It's worth mentioning, I think, that as bad as Donald Trump's record with women is, Democrats have had their bad boys as well, and that's one handicap we should make sure we don't indulge any more.
I agree completely. In my opinion Clinton was one of the worst Presidents ever. I don't think Obama was anywhere near that bad, I do think he was highly disappointing.
I worked hard for Obama's first election knowing all the while how handicapped he was by his lack of experience. It's much harder to be a Democratic president than a Republican one, because Democrats have an opportunity to make meaningful positve change while Republicans have a playbook that we've come to know since Reagan. Still, when Obama ran, I think he was the best possible president among the candidates.
If I may preach to a great economics and other disciplines professor…. You are expressing what is called ethics or integrity. To me integrity means all the pieces fit together to form a clear and sensible picture. Thank You. I must forward your words today to someone who just said the other day “Democrats cannot get elected unless they move to the center.”
Hey Ken! Awesome. Let's keep spreading the word that moving right is just plain foolish. Ethics (having a working moral compass) and personal integrity are for me, the most important qualities of a candidate for any office along with knowledge, curiosity, and courage.
Ruth Sheets ;It's true ; Why move right towards the party that has been overtaken by a destructive autocratic loser? How will that reflect the will of the majority? Moving towards the policies of our enemy?
Mary Houghton ; It shows how powerful the machine run by the bad guys is that someone as good for the common good as Bernie could not continue to victory. 'our own' DNC worked against him along with his opponent and the media. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down as Democratic Chair amid furor over an email leak that revealed a bias against Bernie Sanders inside the Democratic National Committee. Bernie Sanders called for Schultz to resign July 24, 2016- saying he is "disappointed" by what the leaked emails show, "but not shocked". The emails revealed DNC officials attempting to aid Hillary Clinton's campaign. Bernie had supported an opponent of Ms. Schultz in a previous election. This bias and action of Ms. Schultz prevented Bernie's primary win IMHO. We ended up with tRump!
I keep trying to "like" your comment, but the software and I seem to be out of synch. So this is meant to be the functional equivalent of a Like! Yes. The DNC is often the Democratic Party's own worst enemy.
Judy Bertelsen ; Thanks for the 'like'. I guess the DNC is as good as those running it, like most things. All I know is I do not give a dime to them. I am convinced that Bernie would have beaten tRump easily. He had huuuge rallies of young and old, non college and educated. The upper crust were quivering in their boots! To see him thrown under the bus by the 'left' was sickening. I think that was 'moving to the center'. We still pay for it.
All very true. I think it's very much to Bernie's credit that he did not give up but continues to work and fundraise for progressive candidates. His support for the far more progressive candidate in Vermont's Dem primary for US Rep was one factor in her success.
Mary Houghton ; I do not doubt that at all. Bernie was and still is the Real Deal. One of the first things that he wrote and I read that caught my attention/ influenced me was this ; "It blows my mind how people keep voting for those who will not give them what they need." This is a paraphrase, but basically that is what he said.
Yes, you have. I read Our Revolution in 2016, which had a history of Vermont politics and how Bernie was able to work with people from both parties. It told how long it took him to gradually build his support. I have three of his books and donated what was, for me, a lot of money, and well worth it.
Hey Clarence. I want to quote you because you summed this up so well in such a few words. I hope you don't mind. "Is it more important to win than it is to stick to your principles? If it is, then maybe you have the wrong principles." Every candidate needs to consider this. Thanks.
Robert Reich, in my household we would vote for you in a heartbeat and wish we had the opportunity! I wish you had a much more prominent role somewhere so that your voice and words would be heard by many more people. It is a voice of reason, intelligence, humanity, common sense and principle. We appreciate your writing very much. Carry on!
I think this about him and Heather Cox Richardson every single day.
Yes! Love HCR too
Yes, two honest brokers!
And I add Thom Hartman as well. There truly are such great Americans out there.
They are both the first things I read every morning
Same!
Not the first thing I do to be honest.
Thank you, Annie.
I always wonder if you send what you wrote to the 'subjects' you wrote about.
Annie, your appreciation of Dr. Reich's insights is right on point. I agree.
Morris was right. Trump took over the Republican party telling voters what they wanted to hear (Build a wall, trade war with china, drain the swamp).
It is 2022 and voters want a leader that is screaming as lout as Trump. But voters in both parties want a leader that is screaming "Medicare for All" as loud as Trump screamed to "Build that wall" As loud for "$15min wage" as Trump screamed for "Trade War with China". as loud to "Tax the Rich" as Trump screamed to "Slash corporate taxes"
The Dem view on these issues polls very very well with Dems and GOP. And Biden is virtually silent on all of them. Why is that? Because he has chosen donors over voters.
JUST HEARD ON LOCAL BROADCAST NEWS: (A Kristine Frazao report.)
Apparently, ol' Tweety & the Tweety-tossers are trying to compare recent FBI action under Garland with what they did to MLK under Hoover, and the same mentalities completely supported Hoover, at that time. Comparing ol' Tweety to MLK ‽ Give . . Me . . A . . Break! What-about-ism appears to be the >new< last refuge of the swamp-scum! I get it! Monty Python has moved into Politics! LOL!
Be forewarned: If the FBI can go after ol' Tweety for stealing Sensitive Compartmentalized Information and stashing in his unsecured basement, they can go after >you too< if >you< steal Sensitive Compartmentalized Information and stash in >your< unsecured basement! LOL! >You< may call that espionage and >highest possible< treason . . ., but >I< couldn't possibly comment! LOL!
DKZ
These are the same people that were convinced that Trump won the election but for local operatives only in swing states figuring out how to "rig" the voting booth...
Just to be fair, liberals fall for such non sense too.. They let CNN and MSNBC and the NYT convince them that Bernie was not electable even though he crushed Trump in every poll. They let CNN and MSNBC convince them that Trump was a Russian spy and Mueller totally refuted that nonsense.
Voters on both sides are being misinformed by the media.
Which serves to demonstrate how poorly we educate these students in critical thinking, I taught school for 19 years (science) The emphasis from the administration was on A) attendance, B) a quiet, orderly classroom and C) sports. This school was located in a solidly middle class neighborhood. Americans in general need to put more emphasis on teaching critical thinking skills and less on sports. Religion should be taught at home and in churches NOT in public schools, I'm not saying we should disrespect a child's (or adult's) personal religious views. We need to respectfully remind students and parents that if we teach one group's religious tenets we'd have to teach all religious tenets and when would we find time to teach reading, math, science, (truthful) history, civics, health, physical education, art, music, woodshop, automechanics, keyboards, critical thinking and all other skills needed to produce functioning employable adults.
The parents who are 100% certain that Trump won the 2020 election and that people like the Prosperity Gospel Minister are representing the word of God should be teaching their kids "ethics"???
I disagree. Schools don't have to push religion to teach kids ethics. How about we replace PE for a class in ethics and critical thinking?
I don't care how they do it, children deserve to learn ethical behavior and critical thinking, especially if the USA is to have any agreeable future. It wouldn't hurt to teach them the true meaning of fascism, authoritarianism and a representative democracy - but not until high school
Fay Reid
The only people that are going to school boards and demanding that these books get removed and that children not be taught about things like evolution or homosexuality are the same people that truly believe Trump won the election and and that vaccines are useless.
If we want to teach critical thinking and the definition and history of things like Fascism, Communism and Representative Democracy then people that believe need to also get in front of school boards. They are winning because they are organized and engaged and active. And the vote
What-about-ism, has been around for a long time. It is the typical response for the ill-informed, he under-educated, and cowards.
Well, that can't very well feign patriotism, now, could they? That's new!
What "what about ism" are you referring to?
I have been suggesting that for months, but I think Bob is too intelligent to try. And after reading his governor's campaign trail story, I do not blame him.
Raw
The Dem party in California refused to vote on a Medicare For All bill for all Californians. The Dems in California are just as controlled by big corp interests as the GOP and DEMS are in Washington.
Dr. Reich would get crushed in fund raising because (a) he knows policy (b) his policies favor the poor and middle class over corporate profits. HE would suffer the same fate as Elizabeth Warren..
I totally agree with your comment.
Thank you
the sketches are priceless and hilarious sometimes
There are lots of good economists and journalists saying what Dr. Reich is saying. Republican voters wont listen to him because they disagree his identity politics. Its that simple.
Most Republican voters agree with Dr Reich's economic ideas but not his identity politics.
Put it this way if there was someone on Substack that supported Trumps views on race, immigration and trans and gay issues but they were arguing for the same economic agenda as Dr Reich would you subscribe to their substack?
Right, Allison.
I think it would be a serious mistake strategically for Democrats to “move to the center” in this election cycle. Bernie Sanders has rightly pointed out that the country is far more liberal than we think and will support Medicare for all, a much more aggressive approach to the climate crisis, higher taxes for the rich and corporations, and closing the gap between rich and the rest of us, and even the economic and social gap between whites and non-whites. Upwards of 75% also support choice for women, as well as the ERA. I also think Dick Morris and your campaign manager were cowards. Voters respond to candidates who have vision, who speak the truth and take the higher moral ground — candidates whose words are congruent with what they truly believe.
Peter, you are so right! Moving to the right is ridiculous. Dr. Reich's comment about that being halfway between democracy and fascism is apt here. Republicans have bought some kind of line about certain people not being worthy of basic rights and the insanity that fetuses are of more value than the women who host them. That is really flawed reasoning, but has enough of a following that they are imposing it on a whole lot of people who don't want it. That is not democracy and moving right moves us into that kind of selfish, my beliefs are more important than your rights thinking. Your examples of what a majority of Americans want is spot on.
Do we ever consider the possibility that men, once they impregnate a woman, might feel an attachment to that potential person? Men might be so unable to face or admit their own softness, they can only dream up laws that will force their will on women as a response to this bond they might feel toward the fetus. Is this thought naive?
Most people I know would not discount that, but they might wish the men would take a deeper interest in the woman who will bear their child.
False dichotomy.
First expand our base and out vote the Republicans. On December 17, 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 25% identified as Republican, and 41% as Independent.
Millions of potential voters remain unregistered and most of those folks trend Democratic. Field Team Six has a database of unregistered women who trend Democratic. Contact Mervis Reissig
merv4peace@gmail.com
Second, instead of the moral high ground, emphasize that Democrats are the Party of success. A series of legislative victories highlighted by the Schumer-Manchin budget-reconciliation agreement (now known as the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA), we win. Republicans must not get diabetes, Republicans must not want babies to have formula, do not want to prosecute price fixing and price gouging, etc.
Hmmm....."emphasize that Democrats are the Party of success" Sounds good to me.
Visual imagery is arguably even more important than verbal messages. For example, "The Stations of the Cross" you find in any Roman church, depicts ol' JCs story as icons, and the practice dates back to preliterate days in the early Christian church, before the days of Gutenberg. It's how the illiterate Romans learned the core New Testament story. How's that relevant?
A few days ago I saw a car sporting a rampant elephant - the Republican mascot - much like just the elephant part of the following image: https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/republican-elephant-political-mascot-vector-id924344656?k=6&m=924344656&s=170667a&w=0&h=5JM_TIxVmqWLiDd7ZvdiFsnTG9oOmU73_yzKsY4Ixl4=
From it's head to the top of it's lower legs it was emblazoned with the "motto":
HONOR
STRENGTH
POWER
WISDOM
It's a compelling message to >anyone< who doesn't know damn well better!
On the other hand, the Democratic mascot is a jackass:
https://modernfarmer.com/2014/12/democrats-jackasses/
It appears to date back to ol' Tweety's favorite president - Jackson.
I'm thinking that among the first things the Democrats should do is update its mascot - I mean, where's a positive message in an image of Democrats as a party of jackasses ‽
It's a side issue to the messaging discussion here, but an important side issue.
DZK — I think this is a CENTRAL issue. The meme, the sound byte, the quick and slick answer gets through. People don’t want a lecture.
And ridicule is a strong mover of emotion — if they can ridicule the Dems, accurately or not, they win support. That is a sad bit of reality.
I think your thoughts on this are highly pertinent, and I wish Dems would take this issue more to heart. George Lakoff talked about “framing.” We ignore that issue to our peril.
Thank you.
A jackass is a cross between a horse and donkey, like interspecies marriage. We democrats push for multiculturalism and diversity. This means we might consider keeping our mascot.
I doubt the Dems will try to “rebrand” at this time in history — you never know about the future, but the Elephant and the Donkey [I don’t call it a jackass] are deeply entrenched. I’m not crazy about all the easy ways one can disparage the Donkey, but we should think about it, not just concede.
Have you ever been kicked by a donkey? It delivers quite an effective punch and ya remember it for a looooong time. Just sayin'. (It really does hurt like a somabitch.)
Besides, I wasn't really suggesting rebranding. What I said was "the Democrats should do is update its mascot." That doesn't even imply abandoning it or rebranding. I mention elsewhere that they should clearly define what it represents, suitable for current times - not what it represented at the time of Andrew Jackson.
I doubt it too, but any discussion must start >somewhere.< It'd be better if ideas start getting discussed. BTW: The opposition >definitely< make it out as a jackass. I'm not talking about conceding. I'm talking about adjusting. In Jackson's time, the jackass had a very different connotation than it has today. Here we get back to the "originalist" thinking trap.
FURTHER THOUGHT: The image of a rampant elephant I mention elsewhere clearly defines what the Republi-wankers would have us all believe about them.
Why not a human being? A native American, for example - sort of like on the old nickel - to remind us we're >all< immigrants in this land? (And honors native Americans, as well.)
Indeed, why not the Indian Head Nickel itself?
Liberty, equality, fraternity.
I can't make up my mind whether the French would be be flattered or offended! You can >never< tell!
HAH
How 'bout: Valor, Vision, Vitality
My favorite pic of my step-father, Joe Schierberl (Democratic County Chair) is of him standing next to a fine-looking donkey in front of an old barn in PA.
The Party of Success, although sufficiently bite-sized, strikes me as a bit weak. Look for something "catchier" the >means< exactly the same thing. Just a personal impression, here.
Maybe "The Party of Progress." It embraces as virtue what they're accused of being - although to be fair, even that strikes me as a bit weak.
Used to be:
"The Democratic Party is for you and you and you.
It is for all the people and not for just a few!"
Sing it to the tune of The Yellow Rose of Texas.
Agreed: Visual Images: YES; Donkey/Jack-arse: NO
But, which images? A split-screen:
(Left side) Rosie the Riveter w/ expanded Obama motto: YES WE CAN, YES WE MUST, and YES WE DID* (with I.R.A. images of wind turbines & solar panels)
(Right side) An elephant sitting on helpless women holding hangers and ballots
*Or somewhat more akin to Caesar's VENI, VIDI, VICI - We Came, We See [the needs], We Conquered [Delivered, and want to Deliver More]
Just the kind of discussion I intended to instigate - the outcome yet to be determined by those possessing a genius that's not mine to possess.
don't sell yourself short!
How about some permutation of non-denominational images to emphasize policies favoring:
Feeding the hungry & financially-struggling;
Clothing/Sheltering/Housing those in need;
No usurious corporations that profit from others' misery & desperation
Caring for Animals (No trophy-hunting [ala Trump Jr]; Family Farms that can provide a living to farmers, rather than BigAg oligopoly Factory Farm cruelty that's provides no money to indentured farmers)?
Y'know: things Jesus actually spoke about, rather than the anti-abortion myths that power-hungry religious charlatans promulgate (to support the Dark Money, tax-cutters' political alliance)
A lot of people don’t seem to like the idea of progress, as it means different things to different people. Unfortunately.
Progress can mean change and that is scary to some . When you get old change can be frightening.
I was just spit-ballin' the example she replied to. I'm not one bit committed to it. I even mentioned I thought it was weak, but it's a starting place for discussion. Your exception is a fair enough consideration.
Yes. That’s partly what I meant.
True enough. Fair enough! Perhaps that's a problem that needs addressed, as well.
A large part of the problem is that “they” twist everything. We need to call them on that.
"Progress" is the root word of "progressive." It's like wearing the costume, but not the mask. I think we should call ourselves "Liberals." That's the basis of the Constitution: liberalism. It's a beautiful word, with its root word meaning "freedom" and its American version calls it "generosity."
All grist for the discussion mill.
Somewhat bootstrapped.
Agreed.
Daniel is correct. What we(democrats) can do and still tell the truth is to keep telling the Republican truth…. Tell exactly what it is they have voted against, tell exactly what it is that they are trying to impose on all of us, tell exactly the truth about every lie they mutter, and then ask the voter if that is what they want? Because you are here to see to it that the voter gets …… health care, freedom of privacy, taxes that reflect a sane fairness, an improvement in our infrastructure so Americans can once again feel proud of their roads and bridges and transportation, and a freedom to converse in a legally protected atmosphere to a fair wage and safe working environs. Tell the Republican truth about all this and then ask the American voter if that is what he/she is willing to accept. No one losses sleep about living by ones moral code. Just be honest and tell the facts over and over and over and prove we can stay the “honest” course.
207 House Republicans voted against the price gouging bill.
206 against the infrastructure bill.
195 House Republicans voted against birth control!
187 voted against lowering prescription drug costs.
187 against the chips and science bill.
157 House Republicans voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, protections for gay and interracial marriages into federal law.
More than a dozen House Republicans voted against a resolution that expressed support for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Not to mention that Republicans senators support sunsetting all benefits - Medicare, Social Security, VA, Black Lung, etc.
YES, why are the Democrats not publicizing this list more often??
its the medias fault. They like to cover carnage not success
The Democrats need to pay for ads which remind people of their successes
Because the media is bought and paid for by those same Corporations that fund the “centrist Dems”.
Because they think they have to tell their truth. They have to tell the Republican truth and ask again how many want that truth.
It is not unlike the old “socialism” issue that the Republicans use over and over again....even when asked what that means to them not one can answer . So, throw them under the bus with their own “truth”! People feel better when we use the word truth. Especially Republicans because they can’t describe that anymore than they can describe Socialism.
Facts such as these are necessary.
Or vice versus
Virtually none.
Thanks. Replicate yourself. Register new Democrats and make sure they vote.
Mervis Reissig
merv4peace@gmail.com
Write letters to the editor. Post signs.
Democrats have been doing deals since FDR. For the 21st century, the People's Best Deal party? America's Best Deal?
The Real Deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua51JVOqrPM
What a treat! Flatt & Scruggs before noon on a Monday morning. Thanks, Daniel!
Didn't someone use Real Deal a general or two ago? It really does become a blur
wanna deal?
have I got one for you!
-No, thanks. Too close to Art of..., or the RealDump
Increase voter turn-out. Republicans have been waging a war on voting since 2008. Last election, only 18% of voters in Texas voted.
Thank you for this, the medias hysterical polling NEVER includes the numbers just %. If there's only 10 republicans and 100 dems, who cares what 90% of republicans want? So many young people are also unregistered and dont identify with this toxic tribalism
Yes! That drives me nuts in most "statistical" calculations ..... % of what?!?!? How was the poll conducted? What were the questions and choices of answers? On and on....
Spot on again
Proof of your last statement is that Bernie was immensely popular and some of us think he would have won in 2016. He should have worked harder for Hillary Clinton although he was right to be embittered by actions of the DNC.
Bernie WOULD have won. As early as the Spring of 2016, the website 538 was publishing daily national polls which compared Bernie v Trump and Hillary v Trump. Every single day, in every poll, Bernie beat Trump about 2:1, whereas Hillary and Trump were level. This was through early 2016, until Bernie was sandbagged by the DNC. Sure, Comey should not have put his thumb on the scale, but the point is Hillary never managed to distance herself from the orange clown. The appalling election result in November could have been predicted months earlier.
Yes, Berrnie stayed the course on his principles and had the people behind him. The “centrist” faction of the Dem Party— the Big Money guys— put their thumb on the scale. And still, principled AND pragmatic Bernie encouraged his people to vote for Hillary, because she was still not the toxic mess that Trump is. The vast majority of the American public wants to vote for someone who honestly tells voters what that politician supports. But it’s tough to get the whole picture out when a meme can bring someone down these days, and no one wants a lecture or a history lesson to help them understand. They succumb to slick sound bytes. I want the Democratic Party back that believed supporting the people— all the people— is good for our entire society and system. Charles Wilson’s comment that what is good for General Motors is good for the country is said to be a misconstruction of his intent. He intended to say what is good for the people is good for General Motors AND vice verse. Both! I don’t want us to destroy our economic engine; I want the engine to keep running strong in service of the people, not to grind us up. I am a (tiny) business owner from an entrepreneurial family. Business is good, and our system should enable it for its success and ALL of our success. But business exists for a society to function— society is not here in the service of business. It needs to be symbiotic, not parasitic.
That is Bernie’s position, too. He should have won.
I hope it is possible to be a principled, savvy, knowledgeable and skilled person who can support policies that promote the general welfare of our people— including the economic sector that generates our economic strength In partnership with labor and consumers and those who need our help to survive—and still tell the truth, and win elections across the country.
Yes, one has to get elected to be able to bring one’s principles to the job of governing, but I hope we have not reached a point where we have to choose between a snake and a serpent. I hope people are capable of perceiving what side their bread is buttered on, We will always have some citizens vulnerable to the cults of personality and celebrity—-and destroying our educational system, abandoning critical thinking skills makes that a greater danger—but I would be devastated if our future is more Trumpian than it was when we all still believed that man was a clown.
I would vote for you in a heartbeat, Professor Reich.
I like tiny businesses, Pat. I think we’d be a lot better off with a lot more of them. 👍
Me, too, Paula. Me, too. When they get so big they forget who is making them function, that’s when the toxicity sets in.
I really miss a lot of the small businesses that have disappeared. It’s like franchise row everywhere you look. We’ve lost so much with all this consolidation.
This is the dilemma of the Democratic Party. When we FINALLY have a candidate that truly believes in the PEOPLE, Bernie (who knew better and is registered as independent), the Corporate and elite owned DNC "put their thumb on the scales", organized their political puppets (Obama, Clyburn, etc.) to crush the "person for the people". Why do you think the "Build Back Better" failed so magnificently by THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? They have PROVEN to so many people to have LOST THEIR WAY demonstrating NO backbone or even being able to recognize what "Doing the Right Thing" means. Money talks. Now they are just another corporate owned party with much better social policy vision than the totally backward moving, Freedom Party Caucus, I mean Republican Party. The Democratic Party has demonstrated that their economic policies are NO different from the dismal Republican Party. "Too Big to Fail???" Obama (D) giving U.S. Taxpayer BAILOUTS to the Wall Street gang that primarily caused the 2008 recession. (I question WHY JPMorgan's Jaime Dimon continues to be CEO of a publicly held company when that company, under HIS watch, has been fined $920 MILLION dollars for metals market manipulation? Laws MUST be changed in order to STOP or at least reduce the "open" corruption that exists in business today.) In Capitalist government, businesses FAIL!. Even if OUR tax dollars were going to go to Wall Street to SAVE THEM, WHY were their NO STRINGS ATTACHED to the money? I would have demanded an American Taxpayer percentage of OWNERSHIP with future profits sent back to the U.S. Treasury! In addition, the CEO and his lackey Board of Directors MUST be removed before any funds are provided.) And to pour even more salt into the wound the A.G. did NOT press charges against anyone running these Wall Street institutions!! Meanwhile millions of hard-working people LOST their jobs AND homes. No bailout for them. And you wonder why horrible Trump was elected?? Obama then gets his hundreds of millions from Netflix. What kind of a country have we devolved into? The Democrats MUST FIGHT TO GET BACK THEIR MORALITY AND SOUL OF THEIR OWN PARTY BACK and BELIEVE IN THE VALUES THEY ORIGINALLY BELIEVED IN if they expect people to believe in them again. (However, I think that ship has been purchased and sailed.) Until then, we search for a valid 3rd Political Party that truly demonstrates that they care and will NOT be "bought off" by monied interests (ex: Sinema). In the meantime, at least vote the FASCISTS (Republican Party) OUT OF OFFICE!!
OK, some of what you say, I agree with, but just to set your story into actual context [because context matters], Obama didn’t give us the crash — that was done by the Republicans who did nothing to slow it down when they inherited the seeds of it from Clinton [when Bush was ushered in by the Supreme Court, instead of the rightful winner of the 2000 election - Al Gore]. Economists talked about the overheated real estate market all the way back at the end of the 90s, while Clinton was oveseeing a flourishing stock market and a surplus in the national economy. I have no idea if Gore would have continued Clinton’s attitude or not, but Bush did nothing to deal with the “impending crash” that the real estate industry was cruising toward — and remember, it was Clinton who let the Glass Steagall Act go away so banks could behave badly and bring on that crash and Republican moguls just ran with it [it was not poor borrowers who caused the crash — it was out-of-control bankers with their insane investment “products” and bundled mortgages that eventually brought them down and destroyed the lives of millions of mortgage holders who couldn’t even renegotiate a loan because nobody knew who owned it anymore … ]. Then when we crashed into The Great Recession at the end of 2008, the Cheney Administration got the bank bailout approved by Congress, and passed it on to Obama, who was not even in office yet. I agree, Barack did not do enough to mitigate that awful thing, nor did he find a way to help homeowners, as well, but he didn’t initiate that monstrosity, either. But I was aghast at his cabinet full of Clintonian Wall-Streeters and Chicago types. Not people for the people, that’s for sure. It’s not too surprising that no one said, “Let’s help Americans get through this, too.”
So, yeah, if people want a party “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” we’ll have to take the Democratic Party back, or find a third one. But right now, Washington is parceled out the R’s and D’s, so taking the D’s back sounds like our best bet.
Maybe we need some strategies to do it, along with anger that they’ve been bought. [i’m hearing a lot about the strength of millions and millions of small-dollar donations these days — maybe that’s a place to start].
Thank you for your further context. It does matter. Yes, Obama did NOT cause it, but as you pointed out, I would say he was "in over his head", and just relied on those around him for guidance and apparently, NOT asking the tough questions. So much for good slogans, "Yes, we can" turned out to be more like, "No, we didn't" because he apparently did NOT want to upset the monied interests who he had already made commitments to when begging for cash, directly or indirectly (DNC). Bernie proved campaigns can be funded on millions of small donations (I donated), but it is much easier to rely on the big DNC machine who agrees to do whatever those few monied interests want. They learned this well from the RNC. And, as in the Great Recession, when there are NO CONSEQUENCES FOR BAD DEEDS, future bad deeds will only be amplified. That is why Trump MUST be indicted. Even if he is found "Not Guilty" (and he better not be) his bad acts will be exposed for all to see. And NO PARDONS!! We want PRISON TERMS!! It is time we sent a STRONG MESSAGE that we actually care about OUR DEMOCRACY!! I have been AGAINST this Presidential Pardon crap for a long time. These people's dirty dog lackey's (ex: Roger Stone) get a "Get out of Jail Free" card This is crap brought to us by the corrupt monied interests. You want to clean up America, PUBLICLY FINANCE ELECTIONS and BAN ALL PRIVATE BRIBES (DONATIONS)!!
Thanks for being informative and correct about it.
It is possible that Hillary's loss and Trumps terrible four years have acted as a cleanser to our system. We should know at midterms. Just thinking with a blue wave we could have the government and society that we have imagined.
@Frankom. I hope you are right!
I wish I could be more sanguine about that. I have political PTSD from the 2016 election night when Hillary did not pull ahead in the Electoral College. I’m not the only one afraid to hope … and yet, I do.
In addition to my previous comment:
Because of James Comey’s meddling a week and a half before the 2016 election, we had to endure four years of orange hell. Comey has tainted his name and reputation for life and deserves all the condemnation he gets. Though Trump was defeated in 2020, there’s still the monumental task of defeating ‘Trumpism’. Hillary was right all along. She repeatedly warned us but too many people kept dwelling on her ‘e-mails’. Now we have a much bigger problem. Trump's ‘espionage’.
Trump may have already sold info to the bad guys. I think we all watched the truck being loaded as it happened and no way Trump has safely held that information for this long.
yep what was kushners 2billion from the saudis for? Certainly not his competence or experience-he has never been successful at anything.
Yes. I think this is true. There’s an investigation. Kushner might be cooperating with authorities. This didn’t happen in a vacuum.
I fear that is true. Can’t prove it, but one must wonder what he thought he was going to do with the compartmentalized critical info …
I don’t believe Sanders would have won in 2016. Despite his positive messaging, Trump, Putin, Kris KKKobach and many other foreign and domestic colluders would still have attempted to sabotage the election. Sanders would have fallen victim to the tired, ridiculous Republican label of a socialist. The goal of the international and domestic saboteurs was to split the Democratic Party into a ‘Hillary’ camp and a ‘Bernie’ camp and cause an inter-party feud. They succeeded in doing exactly that. The attempt at electoral sabotage would have failed if James Comey hadn’t interfered a week and a half before the election. Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and would’ve won the electoral college as well.
Sadly, I agree, but with the Dem Party nomination, and SUPPORT, I think he could have made it. He is not the best public speaker but he is one savvy smart man.!
polling said otherwise per other poster and I disagree. Part of the reason using socialist works as a scary term is because people labeled that react like it is and dont embrace it like Bernie would and throw back at the fascists (everybody loves socialism but doesn't know it-garbage collection, social security, libraries, schools....all socialist) The other problem is the media paints reasonable pols like AOC as radicals-if you actually read ANYTHING she says its all very reasonable and within the mainstream of society but it is socialism.
Yes! This is what I mean when I say people don’t want a lecture — to push back on the “socialist” thing, you have to explain the difference between a classic socialist and a modern Social Democrat [aka, Bernie]. And people’s eyes glaze over. For many years, the charge of “commie” or “pinko” was all that was needed to sink a person. Our electorate does not like to — or has forgotten how to — or has not been taught — to think beyond the sound byte and th meme.
Mr. Lakoff, help us frame our story … PLEASE!!1
I must admit that I did not vote in 2016 simply because it seemed to me that voters were being offered a chance to choose the worst President ever. I was planning to vote for Bernie, but when the DNC screwed him over like they did I decided not to vote, simply because neither candidate was acceptable to me.
A little over 20 years ago I took a 400-level Psyc course, Advanced Perspectives on Psychopathology, during which the prof gave us a very interesting lecture entitled Psychopaths Say Things Like .... Every single quotation she used in that lecture was from Donald Trump on his TV show. So nothing that Trump has done or said since his political career started has surprised me.
As to why I did not want to see another Clinton in the White House, I could go on for quite a while, but Vince Foster and Bill Clinton are the 2 most important reasons.
Foster most likely shot himself, probably in his office in the White House. But his body was moved, most likely with the knowledge Hillary Clinton, and this fact was covered up by moving the body to a National Park, and then assigning the case to a National Park Service investigator who had never investigated a homicide before and did not understand the significance of there not being any blood on the park bench where the body was found. This fiasco caused me to decide there is a shortage of honesty in the Clinton family.
And of course I did not want to see Bill Clinton lurking the hallways and closets of the White House again. Once was more than enough. I could go on for a while about why I think Hillary was not suitable to be President, but I will skip all that.
With respect to the current situation. I think the Democratic Party is largely responsible for the Trumpist mess because they pushed Bernie aside, and so I have a great deal of trouble trusting them to fix the current situation.
And I am not sure it is fixable anyway. I see the two-party system that has been allowed to fossilize in the US as being a fatal flaw that has allowed the current situation of political divisiveness to become so severe. I personally have no optimism whatsoever about getting out of the current mess and expect there to be a civil war soon.
I hope you are wrong about the civill war thing, Gregory.
The whole voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils things is fraught with peril — if one side thinks it has captive voters who don’t dare vote for the opposition, there’s little incentive to do better for them. BUT, if one side is a fascist, authoritarian bunch of outright racists, and the other is a bunch of feckless elitists in thrall to corporate America and condescending to minorities — mmmmm, which side can we survive and have time to change our direction, and which side is going to take us literally generations to upend?
If we don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils, what do we do in the off-time to change our options? Republicans spent 40 years positioning themselves to take over state legislators, local representatives, school departments, etc., to put themselves in a position that will be IMMENSELY difficult to unseat. If we stand back, refuse to vote, and let them take it because we are angry about choosing a snake over a serpent, we may be lost — our children may be flushed donw the drain.
Hillary was and is a bad choice for me. Her husband was a creep and his Wall Street administration and anti-lower-class attitudes enraged me, but he was not as bad as the Cheney admininstration that followed him. Al Gore was boring, but he would have been so much better, we would probably have stayed on Al Qaeda’s case and they would not have crashed the Towers, and we’d have done a little somthing about global warming.
I don’t know how to look at this as one side being as bad as the other, even with some of the awful foreign policies and economic skullduggery the Dems pulled off. The Democrats were ending the war in VietNam when Nixon sent people over the scuttle the Paris talks. We had years more of war and devastation until Nixon’s criminal behavior caught up wit him. The Democrats would NOT have invaded Iraq and blown up the MIddle East [Gore wouldn’t not have chased Bin Laden into Afghanistan, if the Towers never went down]. And who know what shape the world would be in — I suspect NOT worse — if people voted for Dems and not Repubs.
And if we do not like the Dems [for the record, I’m not a Dem, and I find them perennially frustrating and hypocritical, but not as venal as the Ultra-Right Republican Party], what should we be doing about that in the space between elections, or right here at home across the country, not just in Washington, to change that!!?? Bowing out of the struggle strikes me as the wrong choice.
Just my take on it.
im in this camp. Bernie would have won one not just because people are misogynists(they are) but because Hillary and Bill were part of the neoliberal shift in the dem party-this let the overton window be shifted so far right. People are sick of neoliberal and "conservative" aka fascists nonsense. Both these groups are trying to push as back into the 1890s, some more than others.
Regardless, it’s already been shown Clinton won the popular vote. The Republicans have only won one popular vote in the last eight elections. Al Gore won the popular vote. The election process is flawed. There needs to be positive changes and once again, the Supreme Court is an obstacle to progress.
Bernie is not the answer: He is too old and too unlikely to be elected because of his often-repeated phrase of "social democrat." The Republicans and many Democrats think this means "socialism."
Doesn't anyone remember that we are post "right vs left," and are now in the post truth "democracy vs oligarchy" era, as discussed here recently?
DZK. The media has let us down since 2015 or before by not making it clear what you say about post truth.
Thanks. You're right. But I was really trying to snark a bit about attention span and short-term - and even long-term - memory. More than half of what the Tweety-tossers toss relies on nobody really paying too much attention, or remembering anything for more than a few days if they do. Hell! The news outlets know that too. Have you ever noticed that the news tends to latch on to a story they want to promote like a pit-bull with a bone, and will bring it up daily for days and days, and reference it for weeks? Hell! it works the same for >any< advertising campaign - keeping that forgetful collective consciousness refreshed.
Bernie Sanders came very close to winning. Had it been a level playing field we could have had two terms of Bernie. His demise came from his own party establishment, from the top down. I observed and noted this in the campaign in Colorado.
For some reason it seems to me the Democrats have not done a great job of “advertising”their successes and repeating them over and over until people understand what they have accomplished and what they stand for. The Republicans have repeated the big lie over and over and over again until people, many people, tend to believe it.
Robin, you say they have not done a great job of "advertising" their successes, I would say you are very kind to the party. I say they have done a BAD job of advertising their successes. Just to name two, if it weren't for the democrats, the elderly today would be in very bad shape. They would not have Social Security, nor Medicare. Two major benefits for the elderly that if it were not for the democrats the Republicans would have already reduced or outright eliminated these benefits.
Absolutely! The big lie is a simple refrain. In that vein I would suggest that the Democrats talk about one of the things they have done over and over again. Then talk about another thing they’ve done over and over again etc. We need an advertising exec.
I like the idea of a message that includes not only "but what have you done for me lately" response, but focuses on what would likely have been without Democrats fighting for it. Citing what's going on in red states and the SCOTUS would make a good counterpoint to that approach as proof.
>EXACTLY!<
Peter Converse MDiv,
Re: your quote, “Voters respond to candidates who have vision, who speak the truth and take the higher moral ground …” I fear you give voters too much moral credit. Too many are on survival mode, which has no moral standard. I do not say this in a condescending way. They do what they must - and vote - to protect themselves from their fears.
And the Republi-wankers' mission is to insure it >remains< that way.
I disagree. The left and right are both louder and less numerous than you think.
It's so refreshing to hear a candidate say what they really think and want to do... unless of course it's someone like MTG, ugh.
I soooo agree!!!
Nancy Z
Hah! That’s for sure!
Thanks Peter. You've said it all!
Nancy Z
You’re welcome Nancy. The other adjective about a successful candidate, which I thought of later, is “inspiring.” As others have pointed out, people won’t remember what you do or say, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel.
Excellent analysis and commentary. So many times these pundits and operatives are dead wrong. I remember Harris Wofford campaign for the Senate in Pennsylvania. Wofford took a strong position in favor of Universal health care, and the operatives said drop it. But Wofford persisted. I was at his election eve rally and watch party, and as the returns came in, Wofford was winning the Philadelphia suburbs by huge margins. He was invading previously Republican territory, and he was winning. I think he won all five of the suburbs. This started the Democratic wave in the formerly Republican suburbs as middle class people with liberal views became the major demographic. There is no alternative to hard campaigning, and we desperately need firm, well thought out campaign positions and not the wishy washy variety which will never get anyone elected. Democratic candidates need to both describe their political goals and issues, but they also need to light a hot ad searing attack on all these Republicans who follow Trump’s lies and seek to undermine our precious democracy and convert it into an autocracy and in Trump’s case a kleptocracy.
Yes Harold, I remember the campaign you described and was one of those suburban voters who liked Wofford. He was honest about what he stood for and did help a lot of people get out to vote who hadn't voted before. We need more like him all over the country. Unfortunately, courage is not in great supply these days either on the part of candidates or voters. "Go with what you know" has allowed people to vote against their family's interests and has kept us from making the positive changes we need to improve life for our nation and begin the process of ending global warming. How do we nurture the courage needed?
Ruth Sheets ; We nurture the courage needed by looking at what the other side of the aisle is doing and 'offering'.
Courage is harder to come by these days, with Doxing and threats of violence from people who think that's the best way to change minds
Wonder how Republicans would feel if the Democrats began circulating some big lies about them to damage their credibility e.g. have you heard that tRump golf clubs are being turned into prison camps to detain people who refuse to sign a loyalty oath to America's Hitler? Wonder how Republicans who use the Big Lie to hold onto power would like to get onto an airplane where the pilot "lied" about his ability to fly, undergo surgery from a doctor who lied about being properly licensed, eat at a restaurant where the operators lie about serving contaminated food? Sooner or later, lies can prove fatal and no amount of power can save the "liars" from the karma they ultimately deserve. I think Democrats should put up big billboards on every interstate in America, each showing a picture of tRump, McConnell, McCarthy and other Big Lie Republican promoters with one simple word in bold lettering - LIAR! After all, seeing the same message repeated over and over again seems to be effective in brainwashing people
Dee Long, This needs to be on every tv station commercial but they are controlled by the right. The depth of damage from the right wing psychopaths is very difficult to undo. But I agree, we must repeat, repeat, repeat.
Drop leaflets. 😀
Well, that might work if Trump is the nominee, but what if it's deSantis? Or some other doppelganger? Reading Robert Reich's description of his campaign for Massachusetts governor should remind us that there is a cadre of Democratic consultants who make big bucks counseling caution and surrender to the highest bidder. We need a DNC who supports the candidates we choose. And if Democrats ever get a decent majority, campaign finance should be a a top priority.
Yessss!
Political campaigns are a variety of ad campaign-- treat it as such, knowing you need to positively impact a majority who will vote.
Some people will believe liars no matter what they say or do.
e.g.
Trump says he knew coronavirus was ‘deadly’ and worse than the flu while intentionally misleading Americans https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump/2020/09/09/0368fe3c-efd2-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html
Dee Long ; It is true that the rethugs are the party of the Big Lie, and liars in general ; at least under tRump.
One billboard would not be big enough to include all the liars. That would take a lot of billboards to include all the important liars in the Republican Party.
So there is room for a lot of billboards in America. and each state has its own people. So what is your point really?
I was simply trying to point out the massive cost to do a thorough job on such a project. And what would be the point in doing it if it wasn't a thorough job?
Maybe the cost can be shared by those in each state where the billboards are posted. There is power in numbers. Dee has a great idea!
If something like this was done on a large scale it might be effective, but I can't see doing just a few liars in a few places as having much effect.
True ; This would need organization. A trusted group would have to coordinate it. I would give donations if It was handled by, say Inequality Media. Even it if it was posted on social media, like Tik Tok, Face book or Snap Chat., it could be effective. The billboards would reach more people. Not everyone hooked on Fox is online.
👏👏👏
We must continue to educate the public about each and every example where the fascists are lying
But how? They believe the lies and won’t listen to any reasonable, rational explanation of the facts. Any actual fact that goes against their beliefs in the lies they yell “fake news.” How do you educate people when you’re challenging their core beliefs? I’ve had more success with beating my head against a brick wall.
I agree it won't be easy, but we can't just sit around complaining that stopping these fascists now will be difficult.
Professor, When you asked, “Where is the ‘Center’? Halfway between democracy and fascism? Midpoint between social justice and oligarchy”?, I understood you rightly were indicating that “Center” is a meaningless term. In its stead, I believe voters typically perceive that their interests are best served by candidates who set a political and policy agenda that offers solutions to pressing issues in a way that builds confidence.
As for the importance of distinguishing oneself from one’s opponent, as stated previously, Dems need merely ask, “Who do you want here—somebody who doesn’t want to cut the price of insulin for non-Medicare people or those who do?” “Somebody who doesn’t want to expand the child tax credit or those who do?” “Doesn’t want to provide affordable, quality childcare and universal Pre-K or those who do?” “Doesn’t want to make investments in housing, in eldercare, in expanded ACA subsidies, in climate or those who do?”
Ultimately, I believe voters largely will support Party candidates who represent a broad range of interests and are viewed as engaged in serious discussions in an honest effort to arrive at compromises aimed at improving life for increasing numbers of people.
As a final point, I would add, aside from running on their accomplishments this fall, indeed critical, that Democrats, up and down the ballot, need to amplify the opposing Party’s lack of regard for the rule of law, for the balance of powers, and, last but not least, for truth itself.
Absolutely! I'm so tired of hearing people say Dems don't have a platform. We most certainly do, and you just stated it! Unfortunately, it gets drowned out by all the chaos and rhetoric from republican bs. We need to be stating loud and clear like you just did! Thank you!
Lisa, As someone who repeatedly writes to Democratic leadership with advice about messaging, I deeply appreciate your validating reply.
could not have stated it any better!
Thank you, Celeste. I deeply appreciate the validation.
We already have the Democrats vote. As I said above first priority is registering more and getting out the vote.
How to demoralize Republicans? Biden successes.
In speaking to people in South Florida who are self identified "independents" here's some stuff that impresses them.:
1. Trump company hires foreign workers instead of Americans on his properties. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/20/the-foreign-workers-of-mar-a-lago
2. Most of the people who bought Trump properties have been Russian nationals. Welcome to "Little Moscow." https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-little-moscow-sunny-isles-miami-russian-money-real-estate-2022-3
3. In 1993, Trump signed a "use agreement" with the town of Palm Beach, that changed Mar-a-Lago's designation from a single-family residence to a private club and specified that guests, including Trump, could not stay there more than three non-consecutive weeks per year. In December 2020, neighbors of Mar-a-Lago delivered a demand letter to the town of Palm Beach, stating that the town should notify Trump that he cannot use the estate as his residence.[95][97] Trump argues that he can live at Mar-a-Lago permanently as a bona fide employee.
4. Many believe that Trump's club is comprised of lobbyists and foreign nationals. Equity is $200,000 and membership is $14,000 per year. A federal judge in 2017 ordered the DOJ to release "records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago," but the Secret Service said that there is no comprehensive process for tracking visitors.
5. The New York Times reported in 2017 that the "club's nearly 500 paying members include dozens of real estate developers, Wall Street financiers, energy executives and others whose businesses could be affected by Trump's policies.
6. Members as of 2017 include oil executive Bill Koch, financier Thomas Peterffy, New Jersey Democratic Party leader George Norcross, lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, real estate developers Bruce E. Toll and Richard LeFrak, media executive Christopher Ruddy, talk show host Howie Carr, talk show host Michael Savage's wife, and NFL coach Bill Belichick.
7. The club has been frequently cited for health code violations. In January 2017, Florida inspectors noted 15 infractions that included unsafe seafood, insufficiently refrigerated meats, rusty shelving, and cooks without hairnets. Since 2013, it has faced 51 health code violations.
8. Upon departing the White House in January 2021, Trump transported a large volume of presidential records to Mar-a-Lago, despite storage of such materials being subject to the Presidential Records Act.[99] Seeking to preserve presidential communications and correspondence with world leaders, the National Archives and Records Administration arranged to retrieve 15 boxes of material from Mar-a-Lago in January 2022.[100] These included documents clearly marked as classified, prompting the Department of Justice to restrict any details regarding the contents of the 15 boxes. Russian propagandists stated that if former President Donald Trump was indeed hiding classified documents related to nuclear weapons at his Mar-a-Lago compound in Palm Beach, Florida, the Kremlin has already seen them. https://www.rawstory.com/russian-propagandists-claim-moscow-has-been-studying-mar-a-lago-nuclear-documents-for-a-while/
9. In June 2022 the Justice Department sent Trump a grand jury subpoena, requesting any additional documents marked classified. A later subpoena requested surveillance footage from the club. On August 8, 2022, FBI agents presented a search warrant and searched Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago, part of the continuing investigation into the potential mishandling of classified documents. The Secret Service "facilitated access" for the FBI, and one of Trump's lawyers was present for the search and certified that there were no records remaining..https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/13/us/politics/trump-classified-material-fbi.html?fbclid=IwAR3CTY80ST4MclzanaVutT1KpxMKPZonq9knz1EdDTwsl_6iXayku-Mqpik
10. As a direct result of Trump's accusations that he is the victim of a witch-hunt, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart has been the subject of a massive right-wing social media attack after he signed off on a search warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate Friday (Aug. 5). The judge’s address and other personal information were shared online, and threats on his life were made.
11. Reinhart is Jewish and a member of Temple Beth David in Palm Beach Gardens, a Conservative synagogue where he also serves on the board of trustees. The synagogue frequently holds Friday night Shabbat services on the beach, described on the website as “the most spiritual Shabbat experience we’ve ever had.” . https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article264444421.html
12. The Proud Boys, a self identified racist group has infiltrated the local Republican Party. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/us/miami-republicans-proud-boys.html
Daniel, While registering voters and underscoring the issues that most engage Independent Floridians are critical factors that both everyday people and Democratic strategists should heed, I would note that the political and policy agenda I am promoting, in my view, appeals not only to Democrats but also, by and large, to Independents and, additionally, I dare say, to old school moderate Republicans.
Thanks for the list. I bet it could be made substantially longer with more digging.
Concerning
The Dems should publicize the fact that Republicans are NOT the party of law and order. Democrats are the party of freedom (such as abortion laws, racial equality, freedom of teachers to teach the truth), etc.
Teresa, Because every MAGA Republican would dispute your perspective that they are neither the Party of law and order (think, for example, the southern border) nor the Party of freedom (think, for example, recent references to the FBI as gestapoI), I would avoid either distinction. When differentiating between the two Parties, I believe it more advantageous, as shown in my comment, to focus on indisputable differences between the two. That said, I believe your examples about choice, racial inequity, and the teaching of diverse ideas and voices are valid distinctions that relate to core beliefs regarding the protections of individual rights.
Barbara I totally and completely agree with you except for one thing. The voters you describe are us, here on this website, reading and discussing the issues. The vast majority of voters you haven’t described are those who are not here, those who don’t seek out the truth of the lies they’re being fed by the republicans. Who won’t seek out the truth and won’t hear the truth. Who don’t know what the issues are and cannot say what issues are important to them other than tRump was cheated, don’t raise taxes, don’t kill unborn babies, and don’t take my gun. These voters have been deeply deceived and refuse to believe anything reasonable and rational.
Gayle, In my view, the voters you have portrayed largely are MAGA Republicans, who comprise approximately 35% of the population. In contrast, I methodically and repeatedly aim to advance a political and policy agenda meant to appeal not only to Democrats, but also, by and large, to Independents and, additionally, I dare say, to old school moderate Republicans.
Thank you Barbara. Sometimes I feel surrounded by the MAGAs with no hope in sight.
I agree. I don't know one Republican who watched any of the hearings.
Barbara Jo Krieger ; Democracy and self rule by the humans too!
Laurie, Presuming you are referring to Republicans’ disregard for Constitutional democracy “of, by, and for the people,” I agree. I would note that I didn’t include it because its underlying structure is the rule of law and the balance of powers, plus, in my view, getting as close as possible to the verifiable truth.
Barbara Jo Krieger ; I mentioned Democracy even though it is far from perfectly functional, because the present Republican party has been invaded, taken over and is purging all those who are not sycophants to tRump. I understand your position and agree that it is damaged enough to be almost unrecognizable. But we must continue to defend and pursue "a more perfect Union", in spite of or because of the threat we now face to our form of governing. It is my belief that the majority of Americans of both parties want Democracy over Autocracy, and , given a free and fair chance to vote ; They will vote for Democracy and the rule of law!!
Laurie, While I thoroughly agree with your statement, I would note that I believe you misunderstood my previous reply. I merely stated that I didn’t include Constitutional democracy…in my original comment because, in my view, it was implied by my listing its 2 central underpinnings: the rule of law and the balance of powers.
Thank you so much for your words of wisdom. You and Mary Trump keep me feeling as if we still have some hope as Americans. ♥️
And people should listen intently to Mary Trump. She understands her uncle very well. I strongly recommend both her books as often as I get a chance.
Laura, we now have Michael Cohen too! IMHO
I read his book (and both of MT’s!) but haven’t heard anything else from him lately. Where is MC speaking out now?
Cara Sadownick ; I just saw him on Lawrence O'Donnell's show on MSNBC last week.
But you can give people what they want and still get to a congenial society.
Arguably, the most important thing to do is raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. Put Reagan in full reverse. Everything else flow from this.
75% of Democrats want this, and 68% of ALL Americans (including presumably a lot of swing voters and independents) want it.
Similar results for universal healthcare.
Just say it.
There was a general election in the UK after WWII, and everyone knew Churchill would win, including senior members of the Labour Party. When Labour leaders were writing their manifesto, one of them suggested that, since they were going to lose anyway, why not write what they truly wanted, rather then tacking to the center as they always did.
The Manifesto was based on raising taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare. Churchill famously lost in a landslide.
Michael, I like your example of the Churchill defeat because the opposition stated what they stood for and wanted for the people of Britain. We need to push Democratic candidates in this Mid-term, then always, to do that. Let people know they have a representative who will actually represent them and the issues that matter to them.
Michael, Send this to democratic campaign managers and the DNC!
History has many lessons for those who pay attention. Unfortunately many people either don't pay any attention to history, or swallow too many lies if they do pay attention.
One way to resolve, at least partially,
the Dick Morris paradox, is to educate
your constituency.
By explaining your agenda and your principles in very clear and understandable terms, you at least have a chance of being elected and you will definitely remain true to yourself.
You should actually be rather good at doing this by now.
As Beto does.
Randall Bowie ; Bernie wrote a few books to inform people of his views and experiences/ history of his career. He spoke about main stream media, and the role it plays in our political outlook. It worked fairly well for him. But the establishment owns the media, and the DNC.
Thank you Robert and I agree with everything you mentioned about Liz Cheney. I have actually started to respect her over this last year and in a small way am sad to see her go.
How different things might be if the majority of elected Republicans had the guts of Liz Cheney, to call out Trump and keep doing it.
In a big way I hate to see her and some of her colleagues like Adam Kinzinger go because of a bully like tRump. He is already harming Democracy if he can destroy the Republican party by running legitimate candidates out of it. Imagine ; a party that threatens a man and his wife and Baby with death threats! They have GOT to GO away!
Hey Kaja, I agree with you. Lynn Cheyney has been truly admirable this past 20 months or so. I have read somewhere that women become less conservative as they grow older and men more conservative. Maybe, she will ease up on some of her conservative ideas and move a bit left toward more rights and getting the wealthy to pay their fair share. I would admire her even more then. Her stance in the January 6th hearings and willingness to speak up about Trump's misconduct should be a positive example for all politicians.
I don’t think anyone becomes more conservative based on sex of the person or anything else. This is all about who listens to Fox news and any of the large stations on tv.
I sometimes think about registering as a Republican with my state, so I can vote in the Republican primary for President and write in Liz Cheney.
If enough people did that it would get attention and might make a difference.
I don't see her going anywhere. The woman has earned her stripes, and she should be rewarded for it. Maybe folks in Wyoming are disappointed, but keep in mind that it's a small state.
I’m wondering if she will go. I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden appointed her to something.
Paula B. ; I wonder if that could happen? Would Liz Cheney want to be in a Democrat administration? She did co chair the Jan 6 committee. Interesting. Some Democrats may not like it, especially if they feel passed over? It may depend on what the assignment would be. Something the rethugs cannot shut down? That would be cool.
I think it absolutely could. It could even be something like an ambassadorship. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
It would be so good to see an end run around the people who would sabotage our self government dreams.
😀
☺ let 'em blacklist the faint of heart! But not the patriots.
How about Post Master General
Tina ; Liz Cheney would be the one to answer that.
What center? The Democrats should stop pandering to corporate interests and tend to the mess to which they contributed with the terrible policies put forth by Bill Clinton and continued by Obama which have resulted in extreme wealth disparity and opportunity disparity in this country. Biden promoted some good policies; we need to elect a lot more members of the House and Senate who will put those policies into effect.
I'm reading a book you mentioned: "Left Behind" by Lily Geismer, and finding it very instructive, filling in a lot of details. The misnomered "center" is not a winner. Many of us were misled by Clinton's smoke and mirrors and our misplaced Hope with Obama, but that isn't working anymore—the voters want their problems addressed effectively.
Let's just acknowledge that pandering to corporate interests and terrible policies, resulting in the great divide between the 1% and the rest of us, actually flourished during Reagan's presidency. We can lay the mess directly at his feet, as he offered trickle-down economics and the greed-is-good mentality as good policy. The result was the rich getting richer, which did not benefit the lives of ALL Americans. It's also disingenuous to blame two Democratic presidencies when Trump and his Republican sycophants were the purveyors of even greater disparity, handing out huge financial benefits to the wealthiest among us, and then gleefully bragging about it. So, have our lower- and middle-class problems been addressed? Not so much, but I remain hopeful that Biden can continue to turn this battleship in the right direction.
Reagan certainly was terrible and loathsome. Clinton, instead of leading to protect, extend, and improve the groundwork established by FDR, edged onto the Reagan bandwagon of attacking government and glorifying unregulated capitalism. He's to blame for that. It's not small, and it continues today to infect the Democratic Party. He moved right (in misleading parlance "to the center") and attacked/destroyed much of what the Democratic Party had achieved in the mid-twentieth century. He did not lead to extend and improve central parts of our society (such as regulation of banks and other financial institutions, provision of excellent public education from kindergarten through graduate school, extension of Medicare and Social Security, to quickly name a few).
Don't forget that Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress for most of his term. Do they share failure, or success?
I think Reagan was one of the few Presidents who was worse than Bill Clinton. And I think these 2 are far more alike than most Democrats would like to admit.
But sometimes bits of good news can be found mixed in with the bad news. For example, the only good thing I can say about Trump as President is that at least he saved us from having Bill Clinton lurking about the hallways and closets in the White house for at least 4 years.
Very disappointing to see that Bill Clinton just endorsed DCCC chair Sean Patrick Maloney against Alessandra Biaggi. He didn't have to. It's worth mentioning, I think, that as bad as Donald Trump's record with women is, Democrats have had their bad boys as well, and that's one handicap we should make sure we don't indulge any more.
How like him! (Clinton, that is.)
*Exactly*
Well said, Judy.
I agree completely. In my opinion Clinton was one of the worst Presidents ever. I don't think Obama was anywhere near that bad, I do think he was highly disappointing.
I worked hard for Obama's first election knowing all the while how handicapped he was by his lack of experience. It's much harder to be a Democratic president than a Republican one, because Democrats have an opportunity to make meaningful positve change while Republicans have a playbook that we've come to know since Reagan. Still, when Obama ran, I think he was the best possible president among the candidates.
If I may preach to a great economics and other disciplines professor…. You are expressing what is called ethics or integrity. To me integrity means all the pieces fit together to form a clear and sensible picture. Thank You. I must forward your words today to someone who just said the other day “Democrats cannot get elected unless they move to the center.”
Hey Ken! Awesome. Let's keep spreading the word that moving right is just plain foolish. Ethics (having a working moral compass) and personal integrity are for me, the most important qualities of a candidate for any office along with knowledge, curiosity, and courage.
Ruth Sheets ;It's true ; Why move right towards the party that has been overtaken by a destructive autocratic loser? How will that reflect the will of the majority? Moving towards the policies of our enemy?
Yes, they should get more quality information that is needed for integrity. We need ethics and integrity.
As far as I can recall, Bernie has never waffled or tried to hide his views, and he remains hugely popular in Vermont.
And throughout the entire county!
Mary Houghton ; And many other places.
But we've been voting for him for decades.
Mary Houghton ; It shows how powerful the machine run by the bad guys is that someone as good for the common good as Bernie could not continue to victory. 'our own' DNC worked against him along with his opponent and the media. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down as Democratic Chair amid furor over an email leak that revealed a bias against Bernie Sanders inside the Democratic National Committee. Bernie Sanders called for Schultz to resign July 24, 2016- saying he is "disappointed" by what the leaked emails show, "but not shocked". The emails revealed DNC officials attempting to aid Hillary Clinton's campaign. Bernie had supported an opponent of Ms. Schultz in a previous election. This bias and action of Ms. Schultz prevented Bernie's primary win IMHO. We ended up with tRump!
I keep trying to "like" your comment, but the software and I seem to be out of synch. So this is meant to be the functional equivalent of a Like! Yes. The DNC is often the Democratic Party's own worst enemy.
Judy Bertelsen ; Thanks for the 'like'. I guess the DNC is as good as those running it, like most things. All I know is I do not give a dime to them. I am convinced that Bernie would have beaten tRump easily. He had huuuge rallies of young and old, non college and educated. The upper crust were quivering in their boots! To see him thrown under the bus by the 'left' was sickening. I think that was 'moving to the center'. We still pay for it.
All very true. I think it's very much to Bernie's credit that he did not give up but continues to work and fundraise for progressive candidates. His support for the far more progressive candidate in Vermont's Dem primary for US Rep was one factor in her success.
Mary Houghton ; I do not doubt that at all. Bernie was and still is the Real Deal. One of the first things that he wrote and I read that caught my attention/ influenced me was this ; "It blows my mind how people keep voting for those who will not give them what they need." This is a paraphrase, but basically that is what he said.
Yes, you have. I read Our Revolution in 2016, which had a history of Vermont politics and how Bernie was able to work with people from both parties. It told how long it took him to gradually build his support. I have three of his books and donated what was, for me, a lot of money, and well worth it.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our Freedoms, it will be because we Destroyed Ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln
Never truer than it is these days.
Excellent points. Is it more important to win than it is to stick to your principles? If it is, then maybe you have the wrong principles.
Hey Clarence. I want to quote you because you summed this up so well in such a few words. I hope you don't mind. "Is it more important to win than it is to stick to your principles? If it is, then maybe you have the wrong principles." Every candidate needs to consider this. Thanks.
We cannot move forward to where we need to go without the clear light of the truth.