Matt Taibbi

the argument isn't that people don't support republican policies. the argument is that, from the standpoint of their own self-interest, they're not benefiting from those policies (and actually harmed by them), and that there are reasons they are convinced otherwise (including anti-immigrant nativism, etc).

okay but how will the democrats being more left-wing convince them otherwise which is what we're actually discussing here

so happy you were elected chair of what we are actually discussing

Mordy, you want it both ways - the Democrats were "powerless for decades" (because they didn't have the White House for 12 years, despite having part or all of Congress that entire time) so they had to crash to the center and adopt welfare reform/etc. to prop up Clinton, now Obama gets a pass for not doing anything because the Republicans have Congress. Of course, both Clinton and Obama had Democratic congresses for parts of their first term and didn't make use of them - and the Democrats had Congress for half of Dubya's terms and didn't accomplish anything (well, unless you count happily endorsing wars of aggression, hey-o).

You seem to be saying that Democrats can't be held accountable for anything, politically, unless they control Congress and the White House, which is silly.

talk about obtuse. look up and see what the entire conversation has been about. whether the problem is that the democrats compromise too much and whether they would gain electorally if they moved further to the left. xp

i agree that right-wing policies are harmful and that their voters are hurting themselves. so why would we be arguing about that? bc it's an easy strawman to knock down?

milo, i'm saying that the system was designed to stymie progress without consent from at least 2 but really all 3 branches of government. that was a feature not a bug. that means sweeping change when you only control the executive or only control the legislative, is hard to do.

A side issue is that what positives we can attribute to Democrats - ie winning on social issues - have fuck all to do with the Democratic Party. They don't lead on gay rights or women's rights or police reform or criminal/drug or anything else - they're led by grassroots movements that would be decried if they were economic movements. The Democrats are the party of DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell and leadership too scared of the right and electability to openly endorse the real reforms that would make life better for a lot of Americans.

i think in the past they've been scared of losing their jobs if they campaigned too far from the left but i think that is changing as they see that there is a constituency for those policies. when the voters move the politicians follow - i think the complaint that politicians just flow w/ the popular opinion and don't have principles of their own is age old. iirc solomon mentions it in kohelet.

i'm not sure what quote i was thinking of - possibly an interpretation i heard of these two that suggested that the dog metaphor was chosen bc they pretend to lead like a dog who runs ahead but look behind to make sure their owner is following behind them (but can't google it up):

"Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep. They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, they seek their own gain.” (Isaiah 56:10-11)

Obama didn't have FDR's majorities

― Οὖτις, Friday, July 1, 2016

FDR's majorities were a menace after 1937 after court packing. The Southern Dems made peace with the GOP to block any social program and attempt at war preparation. Got even worse after the 1942 congressional elections.

A side issue is that what positives we can attribute to Democrats - ie winning on social issues - have fuck all to do with the Democratic Party. They don't lead on gay rights or women's rights or police reform or criminal/drug or anything else - they're led by grassroots movements that would be decried if they were economic movements. The Democrats are the party of DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell and leadership too scared of the right and electability to openly endorse the real reforms that would make life better for a lot of Americans.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, July 1, 2016 2:58 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think in the past they've been scared of losing their jobs if they campaigned too far from the left but i think that is changing as they see that there is a constituency for those policies. when the voters move the politicians follow - i think the complaint that politicians just flow w/ the popular opinion and don't have principles of their own is age old. iirc solomon mentions it in kohelet.

― Mordy, Friday, July 1, 2016 3:02 PM (

You're...both right? I've read and seen enough the last 25 years to tell that Something Has Changed in the last five years.

However, I wish Obama had used executive powers for more anti-trust prosecutions. The Carter administration had 60+ its last year in office (and Carter began the deregulation program!); Obama has...far less than that.

They don't lead on gay rights or women's rights or police reform or criminal/drug

most of these are issues decided in the courts, ie with favorable rulings from judges typically appointed by Democrats, ie people elected by Democrats

xp

i think the difference is whether you see the party as a conduit through which to express your own political wishes or a company that should win your business by catering to your needs. in the former context you vote bc that's how you pressure politicians to do what you want. in the latter you withhold your vote until you get better service.

i think in the past they've been scared of losing their jobs if they campaigned too far from the left but i think that is changing as they see that there is a constituency for those policies.

Are we not saying the same thing here?

yes but you're suggesting that this is not how the system is supposed to work but i think in a democracy politicians are supposed to do what their voters want

seems like a truism that an elected legislator will not advocate for policies that are not popular with their constituents - ie legislators are not leaders, in general, and they never have been

xp

occasionally you have crisis points (wars, economic threats) that will require a legislator to convince the public of a particular course of action but that's really the only time "leadership" comes into it

shall I link to that Greg Lemieux post again

er, Scott Lemieux

Ok, if I understand your punctuationless sentence fragment correctly, you are happy with politicians as followers rather than leaders. I guess that's our disagreement. X-post

idk happy but this is a taibbi article about how democracy is the best even when the people demand things that are bad for them like trump so i think there's maybe an inconsistency here

I shouldn't be surprised anymore about Dem (and GOP) faith in people. I've got a few friends posting nasty E. Warren shit because she endorsed Hillary. When Sanders eventually endorses Clinton, are these people gonna kick the dirt and stay home? We have a repugnant candidate who's gonna endorse the most liberal Democratic Party since 1984, itself a pallid version of 1972's. Grassroots work is hard. The movement creates candidates, not the other way around.

you are happy with politicians as followers rather than leader

well I definitely don't prefer fascists or other leaders who don't have to answer to constituents, if that's what you mean

not sure what Lemieux post yr referring to Alfred

I dug Chris Lehman's reaction to that Atlantic piece as well:

http://thebaffler.com/blog/political-class-struggles-lehmann

Shakhey: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/the-party-left-me-and-other-complaints-of-the-voter-as-atomistic-consumer

Voting for Johnson, as we’ve discussed, was a classic “lesser evil” vote in the sense that he means it. So was FDR, given the many compromises the New Deal had to make with the white supremacist faction of the party. So was Lincoln, an incrementalist on an issue of the utmost moral urgency. Major progressive reforms are almost always the result of lesser-evil voting and coalition-building, and are virtually never the result of dramatic flounces out of the coalition, as the same-sex marriage movement shows. Did movement conservatives take over the Republican Party by voting third party if they didn’t win? They did not. They try to get their candidates elected in the primaries, they won some and they lost some, but they kept pushing. It’s not complicated, but it works.

Refusing to support Hillary Clinton from any point on the democratic left and trying to persuade others not to do so, although this election presents one of the widest gaps between the parties of any presidential election in American history, can mean one of two things. One is that all of the horrors that would flow from at least four years of a President Trump almost certainly joined by 4 years of a Republican Congress are a price worth paying to “punish” the Democrats (note: it is not Democratic leaders who would actually bear the brunt of the punishment, but people of much less privilege). This is a monstrous position, in my view, given that the horrible things are certain and the speculation that the bad things would lead to better things implausible in the extreme, but if it’s your position at least own it.

oh right, yeah I did see that

you are happy with politicians as followers rather than leader

well I definitely don't prefer fascists or other leaders who don't have to answer to constituents, if that's what you mean

Come on.

The point I keep trying to make is that left-wing policies are popular, much more popular than right-wing ones, and it doesn't take a fascist to see that and be a leader, rather than waiting for a huge grassroots uprising to force them to do the right (and popular!!!) thing. I mean, ignore the Bernie stuff, and look at this polling data:

http://reverbpress.com/politics/datalog/americans-agree-bernie-sanders/

seems like the bigger question is if those individual policy positions are really so popular, why don't majorities vote for politicans that support those policies

or why don't they pressure sitting politicians to support them, or threaten them with primary challenges if they don't

I suspect the answer is partly that many people don't vote based on individual policy positions (tribal identification much more significant), partly that support for some/all of those policies is soft (as compared to, say, gun nuts' belief in gun ownership), and partly that support for those specific policies is concentrated in certain geographic areas/portions of the population (as opposed to dispersed evenly throughout the country)

dispersed distributed

I think the answer to why people don't vote for politicians that support these ideas is that almost no politicians have had the guts to run as straight-up liberals. As for why people don't pressure them/primary them from the left is that they are up against a huge amount of money and power, and many feel powerless and disenfranchised. Alls I keep saying is that I don't understand why more dems aren't trying the straight-up liberal route, even without pressure from their constituents. If a cranky old jew from Brooklyn can almost win the presidential nomination running on an extremely liberal platform, imagine what someone with an ounce or two of charisma could do...

i think you're underestimating bernie's charisma. it wasn't the classical kind but it was a straight-talking authenticity that a lot of ppl responded to. a more polished candidate couldn't have conveyed precisely what resonated w/ ppl in bernie. i think that had at least as much to do w/ it as his platform (lots of articles suggested he drew supporters from across the political spectrum).

i think mordy is right about sanders. edwards and even o'malley were running as populists but their obvious oiliness didn't mix well with that ethos.

There's a different between populist and progressive, imo.

I've been reading a biography of Henry Wallace (the third one of the family, Henry Agard Wallace, who was Secretary of Agriculture under Roosevelt and later VP). At that time, even the original drafting of New Deal policies, which were definitely progressive government action, were not aimed at the problems of the agriculture sector, which were the main concern of the rural base. It took some wrangling to get congress on board, and this was when the portion of the population in rural areas was much higher.

Much of that was recognizing the difference between the manufacturing industry, which is more restricted by strict supply and demand economics and agriculture, which has a relatively constant demand curve relating to population but is cyclical in supply due to the boom/bust cycle of crop production.

Agriculture is relatively stable due to the controls put in at that time (although the financial markets still speculate ignorantly on research companies), but the urban/rural divide parts of the narrative are too familiar. At the time, masses of farmers would crowd auctions for foreclosed properties and strong-arm them into "penny auctions" where the land would be sold to the original owners. Officials who were enforcing the extant laws were targeted for attack.

There's a new underclass that's not specifically rural but identifies with the same sentiments in that they feel particularly underserved by the economic bailouts that targeted large industry, the diminishing value and increasing cost of education, and what they see as the displacement of jobs.

Looking at the 1930s, there was a similar paradox in perceived causes versus economic reality. In our time, there are a lot of people who think that jobs are being taken or displaced, whether it's recent immigrants doing low-paying jobs or manufacturing occurring overseas. The truth is that many of those jobs no longer exist due to factory efficiency initiatives, mechanization, or industries becoming obsolete. In the 30s, agriculture was knocked out not by the financial downturn but by a series of boom years where production and prices were very high, followed by a huge surplus and the bottom falling out of the market.

At the time, political affiliation was less of an issue. I'm naive to the larger trend, but in the scope of rural issues and agriculture, a number of republicans decided to side with large industry and banking and ignored cyclical agriculture and former republicans joined Roosevelt's administration.

There's a disconnect now, although more polarized. I should find the republican party platform of southwest Iowa that was published in the last year -- from a national standpoint, it looks absolutely schizoid. It's half strong conservatism on social issues (abortion, minority rights, sexual discrimination) and cheering on the austerity of a small national government. The other half is exhortations to strongly subsidize wind energy, ethanol production, and agriculture, all of which are local industries.

Oh yeah, and even with the renewable energy subsidy support, I think they still threw in something about global warming being fake

"Trump ... is considered so dangerous that many journalists are beginning to be concerned that admitting the truth of negative reports of any kind about the Democrats might make them complicit in the election of the American Hitler.

"There's some logic in that, but it's flawed logic. When journalists start acting like politicians, we pretty much always end up botching things even more politically and crippling our businesses to boot."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi-on-the-summer-of-the-media-shill-w434484

We now have one set of news outlets that gives us the bad news about Democrats, and another set of news outlets bravely dedicated to reporting the whole truth about Republicans.

he's ... not terribly bright sometimes

Taibbi needs to get a fresh take on this election other than his weird false equivalency meme bc it makes him sound like an idiot. The new batch of State Dpt emails was on the NYT front page. The MSM has covered every new Hillary scandal dutifully. Maybe not hysterically but pretending like anything involving her server is comparable to Trump's offenses would make them like Taibbi - unable to weigh offenses against one another and confused about what constitutes important journalism. Nothing published by the right wing echosphere is valuable journalism. There is certainly important journalism that Democrats would hate but you won't find it on Fox News. Maybe on The Intercept.

calling what he's advocating "false equivalency" is silly but hey, there are messageboard shills too.

Nothing published by the right wing echosphere is valuable journalism

yeah I think this is really the key thing. It's debatable how much of a pass various outlets give Clinton (I don't think the WaPo and NYT are torpedoing stories for ex.), but when you're talking about Fox and Breitbart etc these are outlets that literally do not do anything resembling the job of journalism. Investigative reporting, fact-based analysis, carefully vetted sources, shit even just basic editing - these are not things right wing media outlets bother with.

xp

He's advocating reading right wing media to learn what mainstream media is suppressing. That's why the comparison to Russian v American media. But that is dumb as hell for reasons I already gave.

Reading IS dumb.

nah it's easy you just ignore what the article actually says and call the author stupid

standard ILX (neo)liberal tactic

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Tennieldumdee.jpg

Reading Is Dumbdamental