Gather round, boys and girls! The New York Times has a fairy tale it wants to tell you—about the magical land of Centrism and how it needs to be saved from the sinister Lefties….
Looking for anything but Corporate Framing in the NYT has long been a Fool's Errand.
FAIR and Noam Chomsky have done a superlative job of deconstructing the Times' elitist propaganda for decades now.
Applying a "left/right" lens to this neoliberal shift is just another way of obscuring what has actually happened over the past three or four decades. This is wealth transfer, from poor and working people to the extremely wealthy, by cutting social spending, offshoring jobs, cutting regulation and privatizing, while beefing up military, police and correctional spending.
I don't suppose that's why working people abandoned the Democratic party. Because they have been lied to, squeezed dry and utterly demoralized by "centrist" party policies for twenty-five years. I guess it's just a coincidence that at the same time these policies were in place we watched the insanely wealthy get even richer while working and poor wages stagnated and they lost wealth.
Everything you need to know about the D-party was summed up during the election of Tom Perez as DNC Chair. The biggest party donor called the tune, the D-Party centrist establishment danced like nice little puppets on their strings, the status quo emerged unaltered. That Mark Penn is given a platform to punch DFHs from is SOP.
Here's your reality: The Ds would rather lose with centrist candidates than win with Bernie Sanders style candidates who call out the corporate paymasters who control our country from on high.
The Republicans have an advantage in winning elections because there are a lot of smaller largely rural states. The Democrats have poor odds in winning elections in those states not named Vermont. On the other hand a majority of the country lives in metropolitan areas and Democrats do very well in local elections in those areas. The Democrats are doing so well in these local elections that states are passing laws to take power away from the cities. So the power of Democrats in largely in cities and they are dominant around the country in larger cities. But the country was formed by states agreeing to have a federal government so cities have limited power. So you have this odd situation where the majority of voters in the country favor Democrats but with a large number of rural states and the electoral college a minority is in control of most of the political power. This is clearly not a good situation since the majority of people in the United States are opposed to the ruling party.
And the destruction of unions by all these means.
Cue the inane "purist" comments...
The percentage of Murkins identifying as Democrats has been declining for the past half century with the biggest declines occurring during the Clinton and Obama regimes. "Purist" is therefore NOT germane to this conversation.
Note that when Clinton's zealous promotion and signing NAFTA resulted in the GOP taking control of the House of Representatives in 1994 it was the first time in 40 years that the GOP controlled the House.
The only reason Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 was third party candidate Ross Perot attracting a lot of historically GOP voters.
Clinton's perjury in the Lewinsky case gave the story the legs it needed for the GOP and their media to drive many of our local former Democratic voters into the GOP camp where they remain today. Had he not lied the story would have died and most Murkins would have forgotten it post haste. The media including NYT then spun Gore's 2000 POTUS loss as a Nader spoiler myth to distract us from Clinton's role in driving voters away from the Party.
The story would not have been allowed to die at all. It was pushed and a set up from the beginning. Where were you as the media harped on the story for months and months?
There are almost 2,500 comments at the NYTs on the Penn article today. The "readers picks" claim BS.
Yes, the Judith Miller wing of the Democratic Party still thinks the NY Times is the place to go for their " truthiness and adviciness ".
The Clintonistas are like your dog that drags home some old roadkill, then insists on rolling around on it. At some point, for the sake of the whole neighborhood, you've got to go out there, bag it up, and throw that stinking carcass in the garbage can.
Articles like this aren’t even worth commenting on. Dinosaur politics and the complete absence of coherent and critical thinking, tone deaf too. I think people like this just want to live in the 1990’s forever, and their politics have led us here and to Trump.
What I think is telling and damning is that one of these creeps was in charge of Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and that says a lot about how we got here and says a lot about how utterly rotten she, her husband and all that they represent are.
Visited by a bout of insomnia, I read this source article early on the day it was published.
Dumbfounding but not surprising and I immediately thought of the excellent book, "Listen Liberal!" by Thomas Frank.
Naureckas excellently orients us to just who the authors are and all falls into place BUT clearly someone is more than a little worried that the Democrats might actually wander back into the territory of representing the common man. "Keep those sheep on the straight and narrow!" is what this article seems to say.
I will follow the party that talks the issues of the common working person. And the more of us that do that, the stronger the movement becomes.
Ah, the common working person is a white nationalist in orientation, often times. I think the author wants more diversity, less Wall Street, less old DLC triangulation. Just guessing.
No herding, there.
What purism? So-called "centrist" garbage arguments?
Mark Penn and Andrew Stein are nothing more than Disinformation Disseminators for the Corporate Controlled Democratic Party Establishment.
Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal.
I wonder what the New York Times paid these two shit shovelers.
Those white nationalists--who are not a majority of the working class--are persuadable voters. The D-party traded them in for what they hoped would be a groundswell of support from suburban moderates.
Of course, the D-Party is delusional. And all about the benjamins. And bordering on irrelevant.
I think it's our job to not fall into the trap of reducing people to cliches. I think that's the point of books like Hillbilly Elegy and Stranger in Their own Land.
The real commonality, in the language of Thomas Frank is that a number of people do what they are supposed to do and get nada for it.
The people who got the rug pulled out the earliest, blue collar workers, have been immersed in the change of fortunes longer than the disposable college educated person but clearly, the goal is to make everyone a minimum wage worker who will not complain and who will take what little they get happily.
But those blue collar workers are angry and disillusioned and they are turning to racism and nationalism. Some would argue that racism and nationalism is carefully nurtured. It worked in reconstruction times to keep poor whites and poor blacks from becoming the natural allies they arguably should have been.
Everyone should be "for" living wage jobs no matter what the job.
It is easier to go with failed strategy than actually tell corporate donors to tone down their greed.
You know the type.
"The ACA was just a warmed over version of the Republican Heritage foundation plan to make insurance companies richer and more entrenched than ever in our 'healthcare system.'"
"Oh, yeah? Oh yeah? Well what would you rather have, Republicans? ACA might not be single payer, but it's better than nothing. You selfish purists who won't compromise and keep wanting more gave us Trump."