General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy have Democrats embraced neoliberalism, anyway?
Last edited Sun May 28, 2017, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Full disclosure: I voted for Hillary in November (and have been a longtime DU supporter/lurker) but I think this article makes some powerful points.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate?CMP=share_btn_fb
EDITED TO NOTE:I forgot to point out that the Guardian ran this 11/9/16.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,110 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Did you even read the article?
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,110 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Leveraged. It totally ignores the Dem platform with crap like this: "Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. "
Deregulation and austerity? Oh please that's exactly the opposite of what most people think of with Dems.
You might as well have added "hawk" and claimed she'd start a war with Russia. What a load of bunk.
emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)Sadly it doesn't surprise me that some columnists are gonna try to project that on Democrats.
JI7
(89,289 posts)That's how they make money. Spewing the same shit for years and without evidence.
The fact they still do it with trump especially exposes them.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)Agreed, column entirely misrepresents HRC's policy positions.
nbsmom
(591 posts)As a party,what do Dems stand for, really? Infrastructure spending that would create jobs? Education spending to reinvent our badly outmoded approach to lifelong learning? Having choices to make, and an empowered society where you can make them? I watched Hillary's commencement address at Wellesley, and found myself wondering why THAT Hillary hadn't shown up more often during the campaign. I'll bet that Bernie Sanders wouldn't have happened at all, and Trump would have lost badly (even with help from the Russians) if Wellesley Hillary had just shown up.
mhw
(678 posts)Good question. Why didn't anyone hear what she had to say throughout the campaign?
Why was she censored by media & slandered by those within her own party?
She's always been THERE.
Klein is dead wrong to discount the first paragraph as though none of that had any influence.
It had EVERYTHING to do with why Hillary was silenced & why Trump & fascism won.
Klein is a perfect example of that.
Divide & Conquer was how the Dem Party was played.
And Klein stops by to lob another bomb just in case there's anyone out here trying to salvage the Party for the sake of humanity.
Klein's opinion is useless.
That's a pretty f'd up opinion.
A lot of the shitting on Hillary parties that seemed de rigueur there for a while from any number of directions, Klein being one of the more obnoxious ones, always bothered me a lot. Now we all pay the price
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Capable about listening. I listened last year- she's not changed a whit. You blew it by refusing to listen.
still_one
(92,526 posts)ass, and she would have seen what Hillary was saying all during the campaign, and read where Hillary was on the issues, but like a lot of those in the media, whether left or right, they are so caught up in the Hillary hatred they can't see straight.
Gee, I guess it had nothing to do with the double standard lies being facilitated by our illustrious media.
In fact, their final act was when Comey released the letter to the republicans in Congress, the media reported that the "email investigation was reopened" THAT WAS A LIE, and they knew it.
MSNBC, the Libural, network reported that LIE as "breaking news" on their news crawl, that the email investigation had been reopened, and for the next two hours paraded every right wing politician across their screen propagating that lie. The other networks shortly after joined suit with the same LIE.
Where was "that Hillary" Kline says?
How about where was Kline? She was out there distorting where Hillary stands on things, and spewing her "I really don't trust Hilary" mantra, all during the campaign last year.
I can see she can't resist continuing her distortions, and Hillary hatred
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)There were many times when they only covered his rally and not hers. It was disgusting.
emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)I think some of our more 'opionated' friends are a little too quick to call people they don't like 'neo-liberal', without any basis in the accepted definitions of neo-liberalism.
Do you honestly believe Clinton's policies were all about privatization and deregulation? I sincerely doubt you do, because that claim has no basis in reality.
That's what Trump ran on, not Clinton.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Time to look somewhere else.
I looked... Chump's supporters hate African Americans, Mexicans, Muslims, glbtq people, emancipated women, and liberals more than they love themselves.
There's your answer.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)still_one
(92,526 posts)Hillary.
Not surprised at all.
mhw
(678 posts)So Naomi says it had nothing to do with any on this list:
"They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry."
Think I'll stick with Louise & Claude. At least their mission is to take apart the real problem. Trump/Putin.
Naomi is clearly not a friend of the Dem Party.
Trump Fascist Party had a winning strategy when theyy set out to divide the Dem Party within itself via social, online, & mainsteam media. It worked. Klein is living proof.
This has no place on a Dem site.
Demsrule86
(68,825 posts)mhw
(678 posts)They won't stop until the only power left will belong to the corporate elite few.
Demsrule86
(68,825 posts)mhw
(678 posts)We know damn well what it really is about.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Maybe Klein has learned a few facts since then.
Demsrule86
(68,825 posts)R B Garr
(17,019 posts)with insane RW'ers and the true global oligarch mafiosos. Anyone who is okay with that alternative has absolutely zero credibility.
mhw
(678 posts)Who the f is Naomi Klein & who pays her to write this stuff that keeps the Party divided. Who does she speak for?
Koch's libertarians? Who.
This OP should be deleted from DU.
nbsmom
(591 posts)emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)Doesn't mean her 2017 OP-Ed should be taken as the gospel truth.
On Edit: now I see the op-ed is from 11/16.
How odd.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)practice a form of Shock Doctrine on liberal/left leaning voters. Essentially divide the left between "less leftist" and "more leftist" in order to ensure conservative/reactionary victories, which leads to more sales for their products, because they sell more when Bush and Trump are running things and less when Obama is running things (in fact they undermined Obama solely because they needed to keep the $$$$ coming in).
R B Garr
(17,019 posts)absolutely insane. Eight years of George Bush, and this is all they can come up with?? These people are just out to make a name for themselves and reality obviously doesn't have to factor in. Agreed it should be deleted. It's just absolute nonsense.
nbsmom
(591 posts)Not sure why your reply needs to request to shut down a legitimate thread.
emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)This is off topic of course, but it isn't right to attack new members based on their post count or join date.
nbsmom
(591 posts)And a desire to manipulate the discussion. Bot accounts on Twitter get high post counts quickly, too.
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)It isn't Republicans who are blocking their path to power, it's Democrats.
mhw
(678 posts)Klein has aided the Trump/Putin quest for total power as much as the repubs.
Divide & Conquer. Its a game plan as old as time.
Fascism wins when there are those like Klein willing to keep the people from unity by the drumbeat of division.
This has been going on from the start of the Campaign with the help of Klein & wikileaks etc.
It worked.
Fascism is our future.
Divided we fall..congrats Naomi for your part in destroying the great party that has always given voice to the people.
How damn proud you must be.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The solution to the 1988 loss was to raise more money. The goal was to get support from wealthy people and be business friendly. Likewise, the tough on crime platform was adopted to show that not all Democrats were like Michael Dukakis and unwilling mete out vengeance masked as justice. We did win, at the expense of the quality of life for many people.
I can't help but wonder what the aftermath of 2008 would have been with a strong safety net and bankruptcy options to cushion the blow. I understand why they embraced it, but find it discouraging that so many are unwilling to admit to either not foreseeing the flaws or dismissing them and the potential damage.
nbsmom
(591 posts)Instead of being held accountable for their 💩 Show of inattention and obstruction, they've been playing to a crazy small base of incredibly low-information voters. Dems can't counter that? Why?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Too many Ds defend the outlandish tax ideas of the corporations (e.g., these folks voted against taking carried interest as regular income: Bean, Homes, Klein (FL), Maffei, Mitchell, Taylor, Wexler, Schrader, Polis and Ron Kind has introduced a number of bills to make S-Corporations -- which IMO are really just people who have enough money to hire tax attorneys -- pay even lower taxes). Too many Ds voted to free telecoms from legal liability for wrong doing (e.g., Baucus, Bayh, Obama, Mikulski, Case, Whitehouse). Too many voted Ds to make it easier for companies to go bankrupt and harder for people to do so (e.g., Biden, Bayh, Baucus, Bingaman, Reid, Conrad, Carper). Too many Ds worked with the minority Republican Party to make sure that Dodd-Frank didn't go hard enough (e.g., Dodd himself).
the majority of elected Dems do the right thing. However, IMO, it is hard for Democrats as a party to stand for the right thing when so many of it leading members are wishy-washy on what the 99% need. Some Ds do not take bold action to uphold their stated values and move to undo the special benefits that the economic elites enjoy. Listen, Liberal is a great book that explains this idea cogently.
So, yes of course, we must hold Republicans accountable but it is also true that many voters do not know what the Democratic Party really stands for. People on DU think we do know what the party stands for, but most voters are not on DU.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The new left or neo-liberalism was basically concession to more right wing principles in order to regain power. It's annoying that despite it being the 'new kid on the block' in relative political terms, we're frequently told its the only way to get a left wing candidate elected. Although we're not allowed to run left wing candidates anyway apparently, and when it fails it's the lefts fault regardless.
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)The New Left is what put the Democratic party in the position to turn to 'neoliberalism' to finally win again.
The New Left essentially rejected the FDR/Truman/JFK wing and the new left's remnants (like Naomi Klein) rejected the Clinton wing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left#United_States
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Extremists never appeal to the masses.
nbsmom
(591 posts)Neoliberal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Results of 2011 Gallup Poll
http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/29/reason-rupe-poll-finds-24-of-a
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)every Democrat who has won a national election in the last 40 years (or got the popular vote) has been labeled a 'neoliberal' by progressives?
I've never understood the factual/historical revisionism of progressives when it comes to the Democratic party.
mcar
(42,474 posts)mhw
(678 posts)Keep on dividing the only party the people have had against the corporate GOP.
Klein probably hated Dems like Kennedy & the pro union fighters of that time.
Those who fought like hell for wage parity against corporate greed.
Equal rights are human rights.
Not to be dictated by a club full of billionares.
Thanks for nothing Naomi Klein.
Stfu
LenaBaby61
(6,979 posts)She's probably of the "Bernie with his popularity and huge favorables would have beaten trump easily" crowd (West, Sarandon, Jimmy Dore etc.) but who for whatever reason don't ever think that the SAME voter-suppression, voter-crosschecking, voter-purging tactics where MILLIONS of Dems were purged from voting rolls in *key* states like MI, WI., PA, AZ. NC. that tRump HAD to win to come from behind to win the presidency would have been flung onto Bernie also (And who knows what happens in Ohio and Florida since 2004 and 2000 respectfully as far as voter suppression is concerned with Dems). You seemingly can't reason with them on the voter-suppression issue. Not to mention, Bernie would have gotten more scrutiny, those favorables would have been driven down the more that lies were thrown at him, his wife's situation with the college drummed up, and that alleged 3 inch thick dossier trotted out @ him with tRumputin repeating ad nausea what was in there, and Bernie would have gotten little air time to counter the lies and twisting of what he said about various issues and ideas he held when a much younger person/man and about various parts of his personal life etc. Whipping tRumputin's ass on a debate stage 3 times wouldn't have helped Bernie either (Hillary who wiped the floor with tRumputin but uh), because we know tRumputin was given tons of free air time ($2 Billion dollars worth) to spew without being fact-checked on many an occasion courtesy of most in the so-called "liberal media," and over at CNN he was given quite a bit of air time to ramble on and on, and Les Moonves said that while he personally thought that tRumputin was a train wreck and wrong for country, he brings in huge ratings (Big ad buys). Yep he gave good face thanks to his train-wreck, racist, crazy pressers, and monkey holding a grenade and threatening to pull the pen persona etc., and folks who loved him and who hated him watched that fascist, dumb clown and ate it up.
But back to voter suppression, Bernie would have "enjoyed" all of this too just like Hillary did:
Crosscheck Removed 450K Voters in MI, 270 K in AZ and 590 K in NC!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/14/1599330/-Crosscheck-Removed-450K-Voters-in-MI-270-K-in-AZ-and-590-K-in-NC
This tactic would have been done to Pres. Obama if he were running in 2016 as Sen. Obama. Hell, NO Dem had a chance to win the 2016 General Election. And before says Bernie/Sen. Obama would have bought out more folks than Hillary to vote, that would have only meant that thuglicans would have adjusted their voter-suppression tactics to larger numbers IE: MORE voter-purging, MORE voter-crosschecking, MORE voter-suppression. thuglicans not only had voter-suppression humming on all cylinders mostly in 2016 but also KNOWINGLY had/enlisted the "help" of russia who meddled (And whose still meddles per Clint Watts and now Clapper) into our elections. I mean, tRumputin, Flynn, Kushner other thuglicans who knew what was happening are guilty of various forms of treason and collusion, but winning all of the branches of power mean more to them than country. Ryan, McConnell and others like them love and of course embrace Kleptocracy and voter-suppression, and we see per document dump starting last week from a Dem Scott Dworkin, that McConnell was receiving BIG monies from a group(s) connected to putin et al. We know that Ryan got himself some $$$$/help out of the deal also where voter-suppression, ruskie cyber-hacking tactics in WI. with thoughts down the road of course of securing those state houses which will give them and the Koch Bros access to changing the Constitution which is on their big thuglican screw this country's bucket list, and if we think things are bad now, just what'll happen if we have our Constitution amended giving us a one-party rule (thuglicans) where white, wealthy males turn this whole country into what they have over in russia--a Kleptocracy--and where those who protest/go against the government are at the very least arrested & jailed (Per tRumputin's own words allegedly to Comey), and at the very worst silenced forever: murdered/killed (putin).
WHAT in hell happens in 2018 and 2020 with voter-suppression on mega doses of 'roids when thuglicans go looking for those State Houses they need to get their treasonous, nasty, filthy hands on the Constitution? How will Dems counter ruskie hacking/meddling (Which we know tRumputin loves and will invite--he has no choice given the fact that he owes putin etc. so much for his WH installment)--even at the expense of and on the backs of those tRumpanzees who blindly, ignorantly and in massive fits of racism/hatred of minorities/Pres. Obama voted for him? We know top cop beauguard is in tight with tRumputin and has a few ruskie ties as well, and we also know that he's a racist little prick who doesn't want Dems (especially minority Dems) to be able to vote. We for sure know tRump's on board with the ruskies, know that pence is a rotten, right-winged, religious liar right there with them too in that he KNEW what Flynn was doing with the ruskies. McConnell and Ryan--all in bed with the ruskies too in one way or another, and even thuglicans who may disagree with the treasonous aspects of tRumputin's presidency aren't saying much as they either put party before country, or, are scared that they'll be the subject of blackmail by putin/russia themselves, because what's clear also is that even though the ruskies hacked and leaked Dem emails/materials, we know they got something on thuglicans also, and who knows what blackmail info they have on them?
I know investigations into tRumputin and russia are on-going and moving fast in some cases which is GREAT, but all of these investigations will take time because there's SO much to investigate properly and get right on the record if indictments/prosecutions are coming eventually and as far as those investigations go I'd be lying if I said I felt secure about their outcomes, especially given the fact that thuglicans are STILL in power over most investigative committees. Muller is said to be an extremely intelligent, thorough, straight-shooter, so we'll see where Special Counsel Muller takes us on this long journey on his end, so there's that. But for those of us dealing with and living and dealing with this REALLY hideous movie are I'm sure still hopeful but truthfully admittedly scared shitess, and especially so as the 2018 mid-terms approach under a tRumputin DOJ HEAVILY influenced by putin, the mastermind and man behind the curtain holding tRumps puppet strings with tons of blackmail ready to go if tRumputin doesn't do what putin wants him to do, and if those things weren't already enough, we have a man installed in the White House as president who we see with the remaining mental capacity he has left, is growing more paranoid, is starting up again with the tweet-storming which can't be controlled, he's blocking folks on twitter and lashing out like a hungry and very GUILTY AS HELL caged animal while at the same time, his health physically is getting worse (Gaining weight as an older person/bad diet habits), and we don't have to be doctors to SEE with our own eyes that through his actions/jumbled thought process and verbiage that he's suffering some type of NOTICEABLE mental decline/mental slippage daily, and who knows what'll happen with that unstable situation as the days, weeks play out.
mhw
(678 posts)Absolutely nailed it.
Their original mission continues. It gave us what we have today. Which will turn out to be a f'king lot less than we had 4 months ago, unless Trump & his cabinet & congress are somehow stopped.
The next step from socialism is communism.
We get only what they give us.
No more no less. And they will have destroyed all democratic avenues for negotiating power to improve on the sorry assed lot in life that was sold to fools under the guise of prosperity.
QC
(26,371 posts)I have it on good authority that she used to catch flies and tear their wings off when she was a kid.
Then she moved up to puppies and kittens.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'll post an excerpt, the bolding mine:
We've certainly seen all of this; some of the blame started before election day, and it certainly began blanketing the nation in an attempt to deflect blame away from the neo liberal establishment the morning after.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
The solution? In my view, the solution is to dump neo-liberalism and embrace the democratic socialism that the nation craves.
nbsmom
(591 posts)But I'm wondering how on the one hand people on this board and elsewhere can be so disparaging of centrist/corporatist/Blue Dog/DINO/neoliberal Dems AND still vilify people like Naomi Klein (who is Canadian BTW and has been chronicling this topic on a global level for some time now), because she's pointing out the issues as she sees them. Hers is more of a global political take, but it's on the same spectrum as Barbara Ehrenreich ("Nickled and Dimed" or Arlie Hochschild ("The Second Shift" or even Elizabeth Warren ("The Two-Income Trap" .
Definitely not Glenn Greenwald territory, ugh.
Demsrule86
(68,825 posts)It is against TOS. They will get a hide...I assume you are familiar with such a thing... Naomi Klein is an idiot...and acts like she understands the common man (white common man not Black) when in reality she drips with white privilege. She is definitely in Greenwald territory. She wrote poisonous articles about Hillary and being as she is Canadian, she doesn't live with the consequences...You post and old article bound to divide with a controversial writer and then announce you are 'one of us'. If you say so...
QC
(26,371 posts)That's the best explanation for the more hysterical behavior in this thread.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I don't think this is true.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)Look at her first paragraph.
"They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry."
She says this as if every one of these things didn't matter. Had any one of them not occurred, Hillary would be president. She lists all the reasons that the Democrats lost, and then says never mind those things. She thinks it's because well-off white people need to be more well-off. She dismisses racism as a fact. She ignores numbers by saying that third party candidates didn't matter. She negates the entire whoring of American media for spectacle ratings.
With the evidence right in her own words, she ignores fact and reality for the dream of unhappy, disgruntled white yuppies. She has the effrontery to say that her needs are the same as the working white class. (Again ignoring the working black class.)
If we continue to listen to people like this, if we continue to do that kind of shallow thinking, we will keep trump and trump-like presidents in power forever.
Ignore this ignorant person.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JI7
(89,289 posts)how the fuck are you NOT going to consider that . republicans are always trying to pass laws preventing blacks and other minorities from voting.
and she wants to ignore Comey and the Russian Trolls ? fuck that.
betsuni
(25,815 posts)nbsmom
(591 posts)Whether you call it centrist, Third Way, or Corporatist, it's clear that the DNC is playing by the neoliberalism textbook.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
For example, at the last meeting of the DNC (the one where Tom Perez was elected) one of the last votes that Donna Brazile presided over was the vote to allow continued corporate donations. Please explain to me how that wasn't neoliberalism in action.
betsuni
(25,815 posts)Campaigns cost money. Money buys things like advertising, rent, salaries, etc. Corporations have lots of money. They donate to both parties, the arts and other things. Why do ordinary people have to donate money for campaigns for years, it's a kind of tax. Ordinary people don't have that much disposable income. Not fair. The way to stop money in politics is to change the laws, which will only happen when Democrats are the majority. Neoliberalism = bullshit.
Demsrule86
(68,825 posts)Naomi Klein is part of the reason we lost...you should delete this...divisive and why?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)nbsmom
(591 posts)And your point is?
The op-ed ID'd a key issue for the Dems (that others elsewhere have also made): Dems do need to stand for policies and advocate for positions and people they believe in.
Say Dems get the House back in 2018, then what? Do the Dems become the new party of No? I get that because I live in a progressive part of the country, I will be impatient with how long it takes for people who live elsewhere to catch up. But that doesn't make me any less of a Democrat, does it?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)out there that aren't progressive--do we ignore their wants and needs? Do we tell them our tent isn't big enough for them because they aren't where we are politically?
Yes, the Dems have a problem and that problem, often for many, is being too inclusive and trying to govern for all the people not just some.
Volaris
(10,281 posts)Forced or enforceable min wage standard. If you're building anything for an American company in another country, you should be able to collect an AMERICAN minimum wage (not the living equivalent for your country) in US dollars if you want to.
As practiced, neoliberalism doesn't lift All Boats. It lifts All Yachts and that's it. THATS its fundamental flaw, imho.
Greybnk48
(10,182 posts)It's failed Reaganomics practiced by Ronnie, Bush 1 and 2, and the Newt Gingrich Congress; privatization, tax cuts for the wealthy will "trickle down" ha! It has failed the economy for 3 decades. It is not associated with liberal political theory.
nbsmom
(591 posts)ne·o-lib·er·al·ism
ˌnēōˈlib(ə r(ə liz(ə m/
noun: neoliberalism
a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
"social and political issues surrounding neo-liberalism"
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that the market delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."
And does this sound familiar?
"Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk."
QC
(26,371 posts)where the term originated. There is means more the libertarian sense of things--free markets and such. The term neoliberalism just confuses people here in the U.S. That's why I prefer to call these people market fundamentalists.
JHB
(37,166 posts)Inflation was high, foreign competition was on the rise, computerization was beginning to have real impact on traditional trades (e.g., typesetting), etc. The New Deal framework had become creaky in places and clearly needed updating. The framework needed some modernizing, and to portions of the Democratic establishment, some degree of deregulation and privatization seemed like a more flexible structure.
Add to that the fact that relations with unions had become strained, over the Vietnam War and other things, and they were a major source of resistance about changing things.
There was also a geopolitical aspect: the economy of most ex-colony nations was resource extraction, in which most of he population was poor peasants ripe for revolutions the Soviets were happy to encourage. If they had some form of industry and a middle class dependent on it, there would be more internal stability and less volatility. Or at least, so the thinking went.
Then also consider the Democratic Party's internal structure and how it was evolving at the time. Coming off the blow-out of McGovern by Nixon, dealing with the New Left who attacked the Democratic establishment for its role in supporting the war in Vietnam, demographic shifts away from traditional centers of Democratic power, changes to the primary system to get away from the "men in a smoke-filled room" method of selecting candidates (or perception thereof), the rise of television advertising, etc.
Heap on top of that changes to what was allowed in terms of campaign financing, both from new laws and court decisions.
Those began a shift toward a more open method of choosing candidates than had been the case, with TV advertising and exposure rising in importance. Politics has always been a money game, but TV ads added rocket boosters to it, and that means more backing from wealthier donors, most of whom are ok with neoliberal changes that improve returns on their portfolio.
Enter 1980, when fifteen years of conservative efforts to pry apart the Democratic coalition come into full flower with the "Reagan Democrats" who give Reagan a blow-out win.
To avoid droning on even further, suffice to say that the intellectual climate, political math, incentives, and disincentives for charting a more "pro-business" neoliberal path outweighed the comparable factors arguing not to do so.
Very informative post. I lived through the time but rarely think of the political upheaval that's still unfolding.
I know I wasn't the only one who was amazed when Jerry "We the People" Brown had to go hat in hand to get Bill "I signed welfare reform into law" to campaign with him when he ran for governor in 2010.
WellDarn
(255 posts)I've read the platform and it does not seem that "neoliberal" at all.
Now my opinion may not count for a hill of beans on this subject because I didn't get behind Hillary Clinton until after the primary, but I see plenty of folks on here that can pretty well provide proof positive how wrong this is.
Is there anyone here who believes strong corporations and a high DJIA are important to a strong America? Is there anyone who doesn't believe that social support networks should provide more than subsistence and should provide it until the need ends? Is there anyone who doesn't realize now that the Omnibus Crime Bill and the AEDPA were wrong and racist? Is there anyone on here who doesn't believe that the only purpose of trade is to better the life of American workers?
My bet is on no, but I'll let the long timers really show how wrong this is.
Let's shut this talk down with facts, not with denials.
QC
(26,371 posts)Hedge fund guys have a hell of a lot more money than union workers.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Reagan gave them a credit card and did not tell them about the debt that will be due.
Bush the elder won by bashing Democrats on taxes and crime.
I never held it against Clinton that he had to be moderate (just as Eisenhower was in the middle as America did not want failed right wing policies in the 50's.). The country became selfish. The generation that lived through the depression/WWII was getting older.
The younger people had no memories of those struggles.
Obama began to move the dial to the left, the next Democrat will move America to the left just as Reagan moved us to the right.
Conservatism has run it's course.
For the record, I supported Carter and Kennedy deregulating the airlines and trucking companies, allowing them to compete
in a larger market.
At the same time, I never supported allowing commercial banks getting into high risk debt investments.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)I don't trust this article's strawman assessments and I don't trust anyone who uses the term neoliberalism. In fact, neoliberalism and identity politics are the dogwhistles of this previous election term and they're still being used in desperation. The reason for the desperation is not up to me to dissect or point out.
nbsmom
(591 posts)From Uncle Joe's speech today:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/335514-biden-blasts-dems-for-ignoring-working-class-concerns
QC
(26,371 posts)Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)That's the better question.
jpak
(41,761 posts)More shit stirring aimed at shit stirring Democrats.
Yup
alarimer
(16,245 posts)And to some extent, it worked. But it left millions behind in the process. And, for all Trump's alleged populism, he is not governing as one. If that budget passes (it won't, not as it stands now) we are in for even more austerity and pain. The problem with that budget is that whatever passes instead will STILL contain too much austerity, too many program cuts, too much of an increase in the military budget and too much pain.
Noami Klein is correct here; too much Davos, too many Ivy-League out-of-touch functionaries in the Democratic Party. It is the party of the managerial classes and out of touch with much of the working class. The good thing is that the Davos crowd appears to be losing influence globally because the free market cannot possibly solve all our economic and social problems.
The Nation recently (May, 2017) had an article on neoliberalism and what it would take to kill it.
https://www.thenation.com/article/what-will-kill-neoliberalism/
(quote) Left populism, if organized, could end the neoliberal order: As espoused by leaders like Pramila Jayapal and Keith Ellison, left populism demands public control as well as redistribution; it is pro-regulation, pro-state, and anti-privatization. These values are inherently at odds with the small-government, anti-regulatory tenets of neoliberalism. If an aggressive left-populist agenda is successfully implemented, neoliberalism would be defeated. The barrier to implementation is the lefts inability to be consistent and organized. (End of quote)
I don't think anyone here will argue in favor of MORE deregulation or privatization of government services. Maybe what we are heading towards is a kind of post-capitalistic society in which there is some sort of guaranteed basic income and a less market-based approach to everything, in the long-term anyway. The Democrats will do themselves no favors if they continue to cling to outmoded ideas. But there are people who are on the right track within the Democratic Party. Rep. Jayapal is one, mentioned in the paragraph above.
nbsmom
(591 posts)Wonder how this thread would have gone if this had been part of the OP?
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)Jimmy Carter failed to win re-election and Reagan stormed in. Not wanting to be in the minority party forever, Bill took a "third way."