How long can Democrats count on being rescued by the very people our government is failing?
Eskow gets it right, except for a couple things.
The Democrats don’t feel compelled to offer populist policies because they:
- Can still take the votes of a huge pool of brainwashed robots for granted.
- Are addicted to the sweet, sweet heroin called big donor money.
- Swing from losing then winning wave elections based on there being only two perceived choices.
Two of the above factors above are shifting. The first because there are some who are willing to take a page from the tea party playbook and punish Democrats for being corporate lackeys, or, even more likely, refrain from voting because it accomplishes nothing beyond supporting the oligarchy. The second because Bernie Sanders rewrote the fundraising game plan, one $27 donation at a time.
The third won’t change until more of us stop being suicidal lemmings and refuse to be taken for granted–we can build a third party, if only we muster the courage and determination.
Never heard of sellers, what rotted woodwork did he come out of. Barkley is so right as is Bernie, Elizabeth, Jeff Merkley, Mark Pocan, Sherrod Brown and others.
Shrum has been around too long and is a clintonite who should be shoved dust bin along with most of party elites.
The difference is, Barkley’s not a politician. The others, of course, are. Which means they are pandering. When push comes to shove, they will no nothing substantive, just as they have done nothing substantive in the past.
As much as you really, really, reeeeeeaaaallllly want to believe that they are on our side, the truth is that they are not.
" Democrats can’t take black voters, or poor voters of any race, for granted. "
Ask Ms. Clinton about that. Unless you are actively working to help people who lack that power to help themselves and unless you are speaking truth to power, you aren’t going anywhere. Drumpf won because he had a lot of people thinking that he was actually going to do something to help them, whereas Ms. Clinton did none of that and when you look at her record, there was very little there that a poor person or a racial minority could look at as a reason to vote for her.
“I love the poorly educated,” Trump proclaimed after decisively winning the Nevada caucuses.
What that particular faction of people “who thought he was actually going to do something to help them” thought he was going to do was run all the immigrants, especially anyone not white and Christian, out of the country. Then he would end taxes for the rich and their corporations, ensuring that new factories would be built and the good paying jobs that we all had in the sixties would return overnight, and they would all go to deserving white people, instead of the lazy blacks.
The other faction of course, was the aforementioned rich corporate class who would actually benefit financially from an oligarchy.
From the article:
"If any faction of the party places too much emphasis on Trump-Obama voters, it’s the so-called Blue Dog Democrats who lean right on economic issues ranging from the minimum wage to Wall Street reform. They consider the Sanders/Warren wing of the party their nemesis – and they’re right.
The so-called ‘centrist’ Clinton Democrats, aka “Blue Dogs,” are also the Democratic Party base. They are proponents of Reaganomics, or “Voodoo Economics,” as noted by G.H.W. Bush. The “trickle down” theory has been proven over and over to be a front for making the rich richer and the poor poorer, but still the Democratic party minions vote for it with the same enthusiasm as the most Republican of dupes.
The Democrats will not change. They will not be changed. They are the new Republican Party, while Republicans have moved so far to the right that they now represent about 1/3 of the country. This may be our last good chance to start a new Democratic party to go back to the principles of FDR.
Yeah, all the centrist/neoliberal dems have to do to win is just have the republicans nominate more child molesters. Easy!