Home | About | Donate

Clintonism the Future? NYT’s Political Science Fiction


Clintonism the Future? NYT’s Political Science Fiction

Jim Naureckas

Just before the New York primary, the New York Times (4/16/16) published an op-ed by Michael Lind called “Trumpism and Clintonism Are the Future.” It’s a good guide to how the wishful thinking of the pundit class will likely lead them to misread the clear message of the 2016 elections.


The New York times have been hitting Bernie hard lately. Must be getting worried. And yes, they are sadly mistaken if they think Bernie supporters will flock to Hillary. Not a chance and especially since we have seen a huge display of DNC/Clinton machine dirty tricks and vote rigging. Clintonism is dying and will not be the future. We'll be in the streets first.


I don;t know which way they things are going to go but I could definitely see much greater concern about climate change and a rebellion against an increasing surveillance state plus artificial intelligence and robots replacing both blue and white collar workers as growing in political importance.


The most concise and accurate forecast is that by derailing Sanders, the only lasting legacy of the corporations'. media's and their Democratic Party's 2016 performance will be that "Clintonism" enabled and accelerated the expansion of "Trumpism".


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Clinton seems like an angry incompetent.


Yes, capitalism "works" for very few. It is obsolete. Coops included in businesses are in or at least they should be- worker owned not wealthy investor owned businesses.


Clinton is hardly a uniter although some women feel that other females should feel obligated to her.


Here's a question: Why is the "ruling class" so in love with money? When is more not enough? Are they so devoid of lives that money and power are everything? Also, did they forget that we belong to the Earth not the opposite way around?


Hillary is a centrist who represents blue dog democrats who are republican light. Her husband signed Graham Leech Bliley into law which effectively deregulated Wall Street. We all know what happened after that. Apparently these "mature" individuals could not regulate themselves but were quick to blame everybody else.


Old Testament fear, hell, sin and damnation type fundamentalists.. well represented by the Repub. party:

"When asked by NBC News (1/12/16) to name the most important issue facing the nation, Democratic voters’ top choice was “jobs and the economy” (29 percent), followed by healthcare (17 percent), the environment (15 percent) and education (13 percent). (For Republicans, the top choice was terrorism, picked by 34 percent.)"

Also notable that the Gates Foundation and the State Dept. funded this study.

And guess what type of outcomes these entities would be seeking (validation for)?


Humans have been destroying themselves and their own environment for decades. Plus, check out the latest NRA influence in congress - the sportsman act which would permit the killing and importation of dead polar bears from Canada to the US- after all the outcry about Cecil the lion. Apparently some of the wealthy also like to "hunt" for fun to furthur demolish the Earth and demonstrate their "power" which I interpret as cowardice. Also, when a society considers money more valuable than the Earth which is home to all of us then that seems to be true insanity. Let's see: guns are more important, money is more important, robots and high tech replacing people is more important. What's next- swallowing a pill for food ( which was predicted several decades ago by the way). Most people I know do not like their private lives displayed on a computor for anyone to see by the way. How is that advantageous?


I agree, and by the way many older people favor Sanders as well. Are young people that savvy-well perhaps. However, commenting on a screen in your home does not influence change only getting out there in person does. Instead of separating by age, class, race etc. the generations need to unite and put aside petty differences and learn from each other. AARP had a great article about that several months ago including seeking the generation that came of age in the 1960s they knew how to organize and effect change without the help of a computor!


I agree. Remember people though Bernie is still a senator and he did not get this way five minutes ago- he's been an activist for over fifty years! Plus , do you actually think that a movement suddenly goes away? If you believe in something passionately enough, you keep going instead of putting your head down. Remember until 1920 women could not legally vote. Imagine if the suffrage movement just "went away". Over fifty one per cent of the population would not be voting today. Change does not come overnight. Also, many people talk the talk but do not vote. They are too "busy." Vote in national state and local elections, and run if you are qualified.


just cast my primary vote for Bernie and his pledged delegates as did my husband. But since I see little to choose from between Trump and HRC, I've already been accused of supporting Trump if I can't stomach voting for her. I'll vote green this year rather than for the "lesser evil". I'm not blind to Bernie's flaws as a candidate, but he's the best we've got. His $200,000 tax return v the $28,000,000 tax return of the Clintons' speaks volumes.

I'm sorry I voted for Obama in 2012. He should be tarred and feathered for his war games and his support for ruinous (for the 99.9999999%) trade policies. She's even worse. That Times article about her love for and deference to anything military should have crippled her beyond repair in the closed primaries. I guess we'll see...


Sanders or Trump. I, a life time progressive liberal and sometimes democrat now unafilliated (after baracks lies) will vote republican for the first time in my life. I will NEVER vote for a clinton or bush(including obama) again nor any of their friends. even if this means i must vote for republicans or green party.. or even for putin was he eligible.. then so be it. the only thing I am absolutly certain of in politics is the bush/cheny/clinton/obama/romney/all skull and bones people./ all bildenberger people are intentionally leading this nation to ruin. Imagine the odds.. of 2 skull and bone people just happening to be competing against eachother for the office of president. that was no coincidence. neither is the flushing of this nation down the toilet by those in who's care we have placed it and our selves. Most of our politicians dont belong in office .. they belong in jail.


The weakness of Lind's thesis assumes that once the dust settles, there must yet remain only two parties.

First, I sense that the dust is not going to settle much after November.

Second, the President-elect will suffer the worst support of any President since Gerald Ford, or maybe Hoover, because clearly there are four strong, distinct strains presenting their cases in the current campaign.

The theory behind our "great two-party system" is that the winner commands a majority of Americans. Twisted theory. When 28% of the electorate participates, then only 15% of Americans have chosen the president. When candidates get independent voters off their duffs, they raise the voter participation level. Which, while I haven't totaled the votes cast and can't possibly know the votes denied or prohibited in current campaign, seems to have happened this season.

Lind also reads the younger generation wrongly. Especially when he needs to sort them into races and locale. What I see of this group is increased interracial marriage, high mobility, and the abandonment of political and social borders. I'm puzzled by the means and speeds of their associations, but I trust they're going to figure out the right way to shape the future. Guys like me just need to keep smiling as they fly by-- and hope they won't forget that we gave it our best try in our own time.


The idea that people become more conservative over time is predicated on a system that benefits them. You don't show allegiance to a system that doesn't benefit you. People like Lind seem to think that even though the data shows that fewer and fewer people benefit from policies that Clinton supports, somehow by the time they are older they will none the less want to maintain the system. It makes no sense and is ahistoric. In previous generations, the economy did benefit enough people, it was equitable enough, that calls for radical change were able to be beaten back and people wanted to maintain the system as they got older. Can Lind prove that the economy is structured to benefit enough people for the populace to want to maintain the status quo? Of course not, which is why there has been a sharp turn to the left, which will continue if economic trends continue. A fifth grader can see this obvious logic. Then there is global warming. I would love to hear his silly theory on how we avoid ecological collapse, which becomes less likely as time passes, without radical changes to the economy and our society. Isn't possible.

This essay is something like Nicolae Ceaușescu giving a speech months before losing power about how the system was going to last forever. People that live in a bubble, benefit from the system and are cut off from the general public can;t see the anger bubbling from below. Lind hasn't a clue what is coming for him, and I can't wait to confront his system.


The idea of corporate-cozy, big-Ag cozy, Big Pharma-cozy, dirty-energy-industry-cozy Hillary nominating Supreme Court justices is just as scary to me as the thought of any other Republican nominating Supreme Court justices!


Brilliant take, Kaleckim. Thanks for a little light on a dim morning.