Home | About | Donate

Will Trump’s PR Triumph At Carrier Mean The Democratic Party’s Demise?


Will Trump’s PR Triumph At Carrier Mean The Democratic Party’s Demise?

Les Leopold

President-elect Trump scored a remarkable PR victory by saving 1,000 of the 2,100 jobs that Carrier and it’s parent company, United Technologies, were outsourcing to Mexico from Indianapolis. During the campaign, Trump pledged to stop those jobs from leaving the country and he has come through. (Much credit should go to the United Steelworkers for keeping this issue alive.)


The bulk of factory jobs have been lost to automation not outsourcing. Neither party seems to be addressing this inconvenient fact. The basic problem is that too many people lack skills in an economy that requires a higher level of skills. This problem is likely to grow worse as advances in robotics and artificial intelligence make more and more workers' skills obsolete, including white collar workers.


The Dem party establishment did not listen to Sanders' and others warnings, or make any change in "strategy" after two mid-term ass-kickings by R'Cons/baggers - only hunkered-down, nominating the widely despised HRC with the predictable/predicted outcome. The re-appointment/election of Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader - a symbol (at least) of past failures and pandering to big-money and power, foretells the direction the Dem hierarchy will now take - choosing sell-out Howard Dean will be the absolute last straw - more of the same failed "leadership", political cowardice, corruption, collusion and craven "compromise" - not change, not return to the Dem/Progressive base issues, the Sanders/Warren "wing" (such as it is), or party legacy of FDR/Eleanor et al, but more of the same pathetic weakness and collusion.
The Dem Party is already dead for all intents and purposes as their blind "leadership", rigid structure and corrupt mechanisms are not capable of the needed change.
The answer, even as difficult as it will be, is a new mechanism, a new party dedicated to actual inclusive representation of, by, and for the 99%.


Recall the Democratic primaries in rust belt states where the 2008-2009 GM bailout was widely highlkighted despite the fact that GM used the taxpayer funded bailout money to 1) close US factories. 2) buy back stock, and 3) expand production in China to the extent that you can now see new Buicks made in China arriving in Buick showrooms all across the US.

While GM stockholders have benefited GM workers lost jobs.

Re-electing Nancy Pelosi as Democratic House Minority leader this week confirms that the Party is happy with the election results and sees no need to change.


How can the Democratic party go into demise when its already there? When the Democrats decided they prefered Trump over Sanders they had already gone into demise, because that is what it meant when they picked Clinton over Sanders, the clearly stronger candidate to defeat Trump. They were saying in no uncertain terms that they could live with Trump as president, one they knew would not challenge the elite of this country. And even though Sanders was treated like a marxist by them, he is far from that and yet still considered to radical to lead the country.


I don't believe that is true. Most democrats would now trade Trump for Sanders in a minute if they could. They just didn't estimate Clinton's chances correctly. I know some of them really believed Clinton was more electable than Ssanders. Sam Harris is still sticking to that line and I'm sure many others are too. I think they are wrong, and so do most of CD readers. We have to win now in this challenge to the direction of the party.


I kept saying to my Ex, why doesn't Bernie ever mention and explain what neoliberalism is; how every president has embraced it especially since Reagan.


Sanders can preach, rally, or rant till he is blue in the face, but he remains an outlier as far as the Democratic party is concerned. He does not represent the party core of senators and representatives. He is NOT the Democratic party. His continuing call to action for progressive change under the banner of the Democratic party is creating the illusion that the party actually gives a damn, when, in fact, the party has chosen to fight Trump not with populist energy, but rather its usual coterie of party hacks. By luring progressives down this dead end road and detouring energy away from the formation of a new party, Sanders is crippling, not advancing, any hope for real change. I respect the man for speaking up, but his loyalties are badly misplaced.


Because neoliberalism has become another empty totem for the left. Sanders himself worked to get tax breaks for the dairy industry in his state and other businesses. Is that neoliberalism? He voted twice for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the original version and the Gramm amended version that was included in the budget bill in 2000. This was the law that created the legal edifice for shadow banking, which cost us dearly in 2008. Several of his colleagues voted against it. Is Bernie a neoliberal? Of course, he has also supported a number of defense authorizations that were beneficial to his state, including getting a piece of the Lockheed controlled Sandia National Labs and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This at the same time he was playing anti-war hero. Sounds like a neoliberal, doesn't it?

Or, more realistically, Bernie is representing the interests of his state, like good Congressmen and Senators do. For progressives to win, we need a governing coalition. That means we may have to accept folks into the fold who aren't always on the same page. Screaming neoliberal isn't a great way to do that.


Sustaining its billion dollar annual infusion of corporate money has been the Democratic Party's highest priority since the 1985 formation of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Winning elections is a lower priority.

Nominating Sanders would have lost most of that billion. Nominating Clinton assured uninterrupted corporate money infusion. Re-electing Nancy Pelosi House Minority Leader this week confirms mission accomplished.and nothing will change.


Lrx, I think I often disagree with you, and I wish I could on this point as well, but I can't, and that's actually more depressing because means the problem is even more challenging. Do you see a solution?

I've heard people suggest a transition to a low-growth economic model that doesn't treat maximum profit as the only goal of business, and I've heard suggestions that we could transition to a 30-hour work week, and simply divide the remaining work among more workers (while retaining benefits and a comparable income). The gains in efficiency and productivity over the past 40 years make either of these approaches viable. I'd be interested in hearing other thoughts.


The neo liberal democratic party was carrying out the same policies that Trump is planning. Difference is, they were handing out the "we care about the American people line' in a more human PR shtick kind of way. Trump is being brutally [no pun intended] honest in his allegiance to Wall Street and their ilk in his cabinet picks.
One shining example is Obama going to Standing Rock for a PR photo op with his wife two years ago but now is turning his true back on the water protectors.
Let's face it, the capitalist empire is running out of running room, more brutal austerity is their only idea and I am sure we all know what that will bring as far as helping the working people of this country and the world.
How ironic the accolades of colonial people around the world for the revolutionary Fidel as the US gets a president, an ignorant man that knows nothing about the job he is taking on and will be the laughing stock of the world. Hey, but why worry, we have had pretenders in the oval office before. Ronnie Ray Gun comes to mind.


To give some political folks the benefit of the doubt, and we don't have to of course, the vast amount of wealth generated by globalization and tech changes may not have been fully appreciated, nor the impact on wages here. If appreciated politically much of that wealth should have been taken off the top for desperately needed work, real constructive work, here. The wealth piled up by globalization should have paid for infrastructure and sustainable projects here requiring trillions of dollars into the future and producing real national wealth. Instead what we will now see is the further dispensing of tax dollars to the same corporations profiting grandly from globalization.


Read up on articles written by Bill Black, L. Randall Wray, Michael Hudson and others about MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) for a start at: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/


On a slightly different subject, has anyone else noticed a drop in the volume of comments on CD since the election? Sure seems to me that it is down a lot. Are people in that much of a funk since the election? It may not be nice and pleasant in Amerika these days, but one could argue that opposition to oppressive policy from Washington will meet with more opposition under Trump than Clinton. The same happened when Obama took over from Bush. All the liberals were saying better not criticise the first black president. The shit is hitting the fan now and now its time to fish or cut bait as the saying goes.


The Democratic Party deserves to die. One way to save the name for traditionalist voters, a large section of the party, could be to change its name to Progressive Democrats. Follow that up by booting out the DNC DINOs and electing only those that take no Wall Street bribes or revolving doors, like Bernie.


Under capitalism, automation is used to displace workers rather than to make their lives richer and more fulfilling.

Under socialism, automation would benefit everone, including and especially workers.


and where has our government been to put policies in place to educate high schoolers and tech schools to meet these demands? No where, in dimwit party or repug party. We're going to leave the current young people behind and the upcoming.

This is not a government that works for we the people.


The two party system has been around for 100 years? or more? I think the Working Party, Progressive Party and Democratic Socialist Party should ban together and forget about sub topic difference. They should unite as one and take over the Democrat Party.


Has not Chuck Shumer been named minority leader in Senate by dimwits. Is that not a problem for Dem party or is because he is a man? Chuckie is a corporatist and Wall Street enabler.