Home | About | Donate

Neoliberal Democrats Need to Stop Blaming the Internet and Take Some Responsibility for 2016

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/05/neoliberal-democrats-need-stop-blaming-internet-and-take-some-responsibility-2016

From the article:

“…the neoliberal establishment running the Democratic Party has contributed to this nihilism by abandoning the working class and middle class voter.”

That would also help to explain the widespread disenchantment with unions, whose leaders have sold the rank and file to that same neoliberal establishment.

1 Like

the “neo-liberals” (a vague term of disapproval) surely made soe mistakes and so did Clinton, but so did the foolish progressives who did not help Clinton win in November 2016 (some duped, some nihilistic, some misogynistic…) and thus sold out the workers, environment, immigrants, consumers, advocates against gun violence, gays and other minorities who have all been so very hurt by that foolish decision, as are we all by the erosion of democracy, civility, reproductive freedom, and concern for the future. As the post suggests, some haven’t even learned from their disastrous mistake.

Which of these do you believe, barry?

A) Progressives are the biggest problem for the Democratic Party.
B) Voters should accept that voting for the LOTE is always their best choice.
C) Black voter turn out was down in 2016 because of progressives.
D) Democratic support for corporations is a good thing.
E) Medicare for All is a “better idea that will never, ever come to pass.”



“The Democrats and Republicans mainly differ only in the extent to which they are willing to represent the rich and corporate interests at the expense of the people’s interest.”

An alternative would let ALL the people make laws:

Direct Liquid Democracy.
Blockchain Cellphone Voting
Free the Weed
Mike Gravel Fan

1 Like

Try “Conservative” or “Republican passing as a Democrat”


Actually, we need some sort of indication that Mrs Clinton would have been better than the rot we have.

The whole insult + lack of support thing grew old.

1 Like

You are entirely incorrect. Neoliberalism is a distinct movement in ideology, economics and politics that arose in the 20th Century to remove all constraints from capital to operate as it sees fit, and to equate this liberation of capital with human freedom in general.

The primary recognized political icons of the ascent of neoliberal ideology were Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party) in the UK and Ronald Reagan (Republican Party) in the USA.

The Democratic Leadership Council (later rebranded as Third Way) famously took the Democratic Party into the neoliberal camp with the presidency of Bill Clinton, who thereby was positioned to successfully implement more of the Reagan agenda than Reagan had been able to: NAFTA, WTO, “end welfare as we know it,” etc. etc. etc. Tony Blair (Labour Party) played a similar role in the UK, with Clinton and Blair being the point persons for the corporate interests taking the “opposition party” in both countries into the neoliberal camp.

“Some haven’t even learned from their disastrous mistake.” Atcheson is absolutely 100% correct in his analysis of the horrific failure of the neoliberal Democrats to effectively oppose Trump. And you are blind to this fundamental truth.


You know, I have seen articles here sympathetic to this POV, but I think this is the first time I have seen this explicitly acknowledged after nearly 3 years, even with the DNC and MSM hard at rigging the next nomination.

Here’s a summation from the Wikipedia article on neoliberalism:

“Neoliberalism” is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as “eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers” and reducing state influence in the economy, especially through privatization and austerity.[7] It is also commonly associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[8] Some scholars note it has a number of distinct usages in different spheres:[ citation needed ]


John your story alludes to the theory that the dems wanted to win in 2016, yet their actions show the opposite. The party under Clinton did exactly what they had to do to lose to the worst candidate put forward by their cousins, the repugs in years. The parties spend thousands of dollars on political consultants for direction in campaigns, yet the dems created blunder after blunder during the race. Like a prefect storm they didn’t campaign in the most needed area of the country, the rust belt, they alienated progressive voters with the corrupt primary races, causing many progressive voters to vote for Stein or not at all, aligned themselves with Wall Street interests instead of their working class base. Are we to assume these blunders were done at the direction of the consultants they paid so much money to? Or is it more plausible they were done on purpose, to propel Trump to the WH. Trump is a golden goose for the left wing of the party, he enriches the parties monetary supporters as well as many in congress, while convincing the 99% they oppose him and are on our side, effectively corralling a large voting bloc, and keeping them from organizing an effective counter-party.
2020 will be the defining moment for the dems. Trump is an easy target, who can be easily defeated by almost any dem candidate, except a neo-liberal. If the party corrupts the primaries, there will be no doubt, they don’t want to win the election.


Pretty much another word for “Tory” or “Cavalier” once you cut through the incidental details, so far as I can tell. So many different words for perpetuating oppression.

Passing almost entirely without notice last month, a terrible 400th anniversary:

In August 1619, the first recorded slaves from Africa to British North America arrived in what is now Old Point Comfort near the Jamestown colony, on a British privateer ship flying a Dutch flag. The approximately 20 Africans from the present-day Angola had been removed by the British crew from a Portuguese slave ship, the “São João Bautista”.

Maybe I’m too simple to discern the fine distinctions. Those British pirates who stained this continent four centuries ago, it’s those folks who stand to benefit from the development model, ideology, and public policy objectives outlined above. What can I say? Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.


Atcheson sez:
“Ever since the 2016 elections, neoliberals have been looking for reasons to explain why Hillary Clinton lost and why Donald Trump won.”

Heck, we know those reasons; Sec. Clinton wrote an entire book about them.

(Spoiler alert — it’s not her fault)


Agreed, with one of the worst “etc.” being the repeal of Glass-Steagall with entirely predictable results, and another being the auctioning off of the broadcast spectrum (what used to be known as the “public airwaves”). But to call it “Reagan’s agenda” gives Grandpa Caligula too much credit—the “Koch Brothers agenda” would be closer to the mark.


The sellout to Trump occurred when the DNC and the supporters of Hilary Clinton conspired to ensure Sanders could bot win and cast their ballots in the primaries for a candidate that did not earn the right to the progressive votes.

Why on Earth should a progressive vote for a Neoliberal?

The foolishness started with and ended with the supporters of Hilary Clinton. A person should cast his or her vote for policies they want and not for crap they do not want and if the DNC is going to put forward a candidate that progressives do not want they are idiots for thinking this entitles them to the peoples vote.


“It’s obvious that the Russians didn’t create Hillary’s trail of corporate friendly emails; rather they exploited what was in fact a real issue.”
So Atcheson has breathed in so much Kool Aid that he simply cannot drop the “Russians” from his narrative.
John: there is no evidence that “The Russians” intervened in the 2016 Presidential Election.
Or do you have some?
There was plenty of outside interference-a trick that the US taught the world- but most of it came from the UK. Then there were hundreds of millions from the Gulf States. And hundreds of millions more from supporters of the State of Israel.

1 Like

No bones about it, you are a fuckwit.

Actually, there was roughly $100,000 worth of paid social media posts verified to have been paid for by Russian operatives. Of course, considering that literally billions were spent on the 2016 campaigns, that spend was a rounding error.

But that won’t stop the Rachel Maddows of the world from pointing fingers everywhere but at the feckless, corrupt d-party and Hillary. And from the looks of things they’re repeating every mistake and getting ready to blame hippies, Bernie Bros, the Green Party, Russia, and deplorables all over again.


You are right of course. And some of that money was spent before the election, too. And much of that was pro-Trump as well. And the company posting them was based in Russia, though there is no evidence that it was working for the Russian state. And that didn’t “stop
the Rachel Maddows of the world from pointing fingers everywhere but at the feckless, corrupt d-party and Hillary…”
And, as you say, it probably won’t again.

1 Like

Well the last three words of this article really blew it.