Can't we all just get along?
April 29, 2016 8:48 AM Subscribe
No Labels is an American political organization based in the United States, composed of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, whose mission is to "usher in a new era of focused problem solving in American politics." As the election draws nearer they have begun promoting their National Strategic Agenda; based on a nationwide survey conducted in the fall of 2013, it's billed as "A Policy Playbook For America's Next President."
(Wikipedia)
But then I'll have to do thinking and stuff. My motto is, once a [sports team name] fan, always a [sports team name] fan.
posted by amanda at 8:54 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by amanda at 8:54 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is the classic flaw of liberalism -- assume that the problem is lack of "reasonableness."
posted by wuwei at 8:56 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by wuwei at 8:56 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
Charlie Pierce says it best: Wolves In Creep's Clothing
It's the brainchild of Mark McKinnon, a Texas grifter and a former acolyte of C-Plus Augustus in the latter's rise to power. Having enabled a catastrophic presidency in such a way that he should be kept out of political life for the same reasons we keep toddlers out of the hand grenades, McKinnon's made a sudden retreat into bipartisan "problem-solving," perhaps the least-convincing transformation since Vladimir Putin abandoned the KGB for elective office.posted by zombieflanders at 8:58 AM on April 29, 2016 [66 favorites]
[...]
So you'll probably never guess who looked at Cory Gardner and saw, not a career extremist with a gift for rancid opportunism, but a man who can bring the nation together behind a National Strategic Agenda to Solve Our Problems the way President Jon Huntsman has over the past two years? I'm telling you, you'll never guess.
Dammit, how'd you guess? You guys are really smart.No Labels' move to more aggressively back the Colorado Republican seems uncharacteristic, however, especially since controversy involving Gardner already consumed the nonpartisan group earlier this year. No Labels endorsed Gardner in April, angering Senate Democrats. The backlash led the organization to clarify that any candidate could earn its endorsement -- including Udall. The No Labels Seal of Approval is awarded to members of the Problem Solvers Caucus who have worked across the political aisle and support a national strategic agenda of shared goals for the country," said Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to George W. Bush and a No Labels co-founder. "We are happy to award the Seal to people running in the same race.""Uncharacteristic," my arse. This is entirely in keeping with the organization's real agenda, which is to Bring The Nation Together behind the Republican platform of 2000, before the nation went entirely to the dogs by electing the guy who ran on it. And, of course, a deep concern for "civility" is one of the important elements of the con. Udall has been inconveniently pointing out, over and over again, the fact that Gardner is perfectly willing to pitch the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population overboard, and that Gardner's doing his damndest to conceal that fact. (This sent the editorial board of the Denver Post to the fainting couch, from which it produces the single dumbest editorial endorsement in American political history.) Alleged Democratic senator Joe Manchin (D-Anthracite), who is a co-chair of this passel of political bunco artists, at least has had the decency to stand by Udall. Of course, in this case, as in so many others, we defer further comment on Manchin's decision to Mr. Rock of Brooklyn.
No Labels' decision to get behind Gardner should be the final straw for anyone to the left of the Green Room of MSNBC. Gardner is not a reasonable man. He is a fanatic. He wants to solve problems, all right. One of the problems he wants to solve is a woman's reproductive autonomy. Another problem he wants to solve is the country's pale effort to deal with the greatest environmental crisis of our time, which he does not believe really exists.
Before I click, can someone let me know if this is just dressed up "you have to tolerate intolerance in order to be truly tolerant" nonsense?
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:59 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:59 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
Jim VandeHei: Bring On A Third Party Candidate, the "Innovation Party." VOX: We had questions for Jim VandeHei. He had answers. LGM: Being Here, and more Objection: Non Responsive.
Remember Third Way? "in struggle for Democratic Party's soul" Whatever happened to them? These looks like an attempt to form the West/FVEY's natural three party system, championing the ideology that dare not speak its name - see more.
DAMMIT Nox!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:00 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
Remember Third Way? "in struggle for Democratic Party's soul" Whatever happened to them? These looks like an attempt to form the West/FVEY's natural three party system, championing the ideology that dare not speak its name - see more.
DAMMIT Nox!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:00 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
Exactly. If we could just set aside this petty partisan bickering, we'd realize that all of us want to slash entitlements and pepper the country with even more charter schools. We need a real party of thinkfluencers who will usher in gov 2.0.
Carl Diggler speaks eloquently on this pressing need: America Needs a Third-Party for Disruptors. Here’s How to Do It.
posted by mcmile at 9:03 AM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]
Carl Diggler speaks eloquently on this pressing need: America Needs a Third-Party for Disruptors. Here’s How to Do It.
posted by mcmile at 9:03 AM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]
More choice bits from Pierce on No Labels: Honestly, Who Wants to Listen to Jon Huntsman and Joe Lieberman?
posted by zombieflanders at 9:03 AM on April 29, 2016 [32 favorites]
o make sure they reached the widest and most diverse audience as possible, they hooked up with that well-known populist pamphlet, Fortune magazine. It's pretty much what you might expect.Joe Lieberman's 'No Labels' Group Has Labeled Donald Trump a 'Problem Solver'
A bone gets tossed to the plain folks on capital gains, but you can say farewell to the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction of local and property taxes, and charitable donations. Also, the corporate tax deduction drops 14 points to 25 percent. And the ultimate goal, of course, is to "reduce the federal deficit" because a balanced budget is the Grail legend of this particular desert cult. They do not recognize the immutability of Blog's First Law of Economics: Fck the deficit. People got no jobs. People got no money.
There's a lot of technobabble stuff in the section about education and entrepreneurship that's worth skipping, although these folks seem to be the only people in the country who still believe in the golden dream of the online university. They want to tighten further the work requirements for people on public assistance, which is certainly an innovative idea that nobody ever thought of before. They also see the basic problem with the country's public infrastructure as the process' being over-regulated and not, as should be obvious to anyone not sleeping through the past 20 years, the refusal of conservative politicians to spend any money on the problem. And speaking of regulations, they'd like to "streamline" them and they suggest that some of them might be better handled at the state level. I don't know if they polled anyone in West, Texas.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:03 AM on April 29, 2016 [32 favorites]
I like this idea but here's their four goals that they feel like people need to get behind in a bipartisan way:
posted by amanda at 9:03 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
• Create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 yearsAnd as soon as I start thinking more than 10 seconds about the particulars of each one of those goals I can immediately see how various interest groups have nailed down their position and drawn lines in the sand that are partisan and somehow inextricably linked to "their vision" of the American way and "moral values" that I just throw my hands up. We should probably focus on breaking up our nation into more manageable pieces. I feel like that would be a more expedient solution than trying to get everyone together on a balanced budget. I mean, it works on a micro level – let's get divorced instead of going to endless couples counseling. Might work at a macro level.
• Secure Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years
• Balance the federal budget by 2030
• Make America energy secure by 2024
posted by amanda at 9:03 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
What about a No Labels/No Logos write in ticket?
posted by octobersurprise at 9:04 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octobersurprise at 9:04 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Before I click, can someone let me know if this is just dressed up "you have to tolerate intolerance in order to be truly tolerant" nonsense?
No Labels doesn't involve itself in the culture wars. That's about the best thing you can say about it.
posted by scalefree at 9:04 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
No Labels doesn't involve itself in the culture wars. That's about the best thing you can say about it.
posted by scalefree at 9:04 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
No Labels is faux seriousness. Nothing on that list speaks to the burning existential issues that matter to the left or right, such as the culture wars, racism, or climate change. Instead they choose "centrist" things that poll in a way that many Americans think we can all agree on, but this is a false sense of common ground. Look at a big issue there like the balanced budget; the political agreement ordinary democrats and republicans and independents on that is based on a false presentation of the mechanisms at work with macroeconomic spending levels. Instead, pushing for a balanced budget is a backdoor wedge on pushing a smaller government when it is far from clear that anyone in either party wants a "smaller government".
Calmly calling for a discussion of anything but how to put the fire out is not helpful when the house is on fire; its a useless or dishonest distraction.
posted by seejaie at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [26 favorites]
Calmly calling for a discussion of anything but how to put the fire out is not helpful when the house is on fire; its a useless or dishonest distraction.
posted by seejaie at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [26 favorites]
More technocratic neoliberal incrementalist baloney. Just what we need to fix America.
"We'll listen to any idea you have as long as it won't cost us, the rich people, any money."
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [24 favorites]
"We'll listen to any idea you have as long as it won't cost us, the rich people, any money."
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [24 favorites]
"It's the brainchild of Mark McKinnon, a Texas grifter ...My suspicion was that it was a gimmick and a con, but part of me wants to believe that it was invented just to troll the fuck out of metafilter.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
What about a No Labels/No Logos write in ticket?
Friedman/Brooks 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:16 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
Friedman/Brooks 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:16 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
I am I alone in finding both faux-centrism and the bilious response to it proof that actual consensus centrism is the only class of viable solutions?
posted by cromagnon at 9:24 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cromagnon at 9:24 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am I alone in finding both faux-centrism and the bilious response to it proof that actual consensus centrism is the only class of viable solutions?
Yes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
I am I alone in finding both faux-centrism and the bilious response to it proof that actual consensus centrism is the only class of viable solutions?
I too plan to vote Clinton
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016 [18 favorites]
I too plan to vote Clinton
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016 [18 favorites]
Washington Needs to Be Fixed. These Innovators Aren't Waiting for Congress to Do It. These group pop up from time to time, and yet never seem to be able to work together in their quest to free DC from divisive partisan politics. Political Groups Compete to Represent the Center
Bipartisanship vs Democracy The Third Way Fallacy. There is a real center, a real consensus in America but it isn't what these people are selling. The Myth of the Independent Voter.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016
Bipartisanship vs Democracy The Third Way Fallacy. There is a real center, a real consensus in America but it isn't what these people are selling. The Myth of the Independent Voter.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016
A lot of their policies just don't match actual facts. For example; tie benefits to job search. Benefits are often already tied to job search. But currently disability is very hard to get and the "easy" jobs that people without work are often supposed to get often involve menial labor and high stress work environments that those with moderate amounts of skill deficits or health problems can't complete.
A 57 year old with arthritis and a back injury might be able to get through a day of computer programming but put them in an industrial plant and they are in fact disqualified. Someone with adhd and high intelligence might be able to do great things in a job that offers morning flex time (they are reliably late) and understanding about their typos or forgetfulness since they overall do a lot of quality work and are clearly intelligent; but put them behind a cash register and the constant errors will lead to them being disqualified from a simple cash register job.
So this idea that tying all benefits to work or job training, doesn't match the actual issue if there ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS that desire the kind of work the person can realistically do and a workforce that is not willing to be flexible with the reality that most people are not perfect and they still need jobs to eat and survive.
What's more people with trauma, PTSD and invisible disabilities like fibrmyalgia and herpes shingles and difficult to diagnose pain disorders may literally not be able to lift items with passing out, hyperventilating or dealing with severe crippling pain- but that does not mean they can pay for the tests they need or that a doctor will see their pain as worthy of disability status.
So again tying benfits to work doesn't fix anything.
Tying benefits to work doesn't fix any of the problems at all and as I mentioned is already a prerequisite for most benefits and most adults do not qualify for any kind of benefit no matter how much they are unable to work because disability status requires getting lawyer and knowing how to fight for it too often something someone with emotional or mental handicap might not know how to do and someone to sick to work might not be up to fighting for.
Essentially all it does is make people who hate the poor feel more self righteous about cutting benefits. That's it. Nothing fixed.
posted by xarnop at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016 [36 favorites]
A 57 year old with arthritis and a back injury might be able to get through a day of computer programming but put them in an industrial plant and they are in fact disqualified. Someone with adhd and high intelligence might be able to do great things in a job that offers morning flex time (they are reliably late) and understanding about their typos or forgetfulness since they overall do a lot of quality work and are clearly intelligent; but put them behind a cash register and the constant errors will lead to them being disqualified from a simple cash register job.
So this idea that tying all benefits to work or job training, doesn't match the actual issue if there ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS that desire the kind of work the person can realistically do and a workforce that is not willing to be flexible with the reality that most people are not perfect and they still need jobs to eat and survive.
What's more people with trauma, PTSD and invisible disabilities like fibrmyalgia and herpes shingles and difficult to diagnose pain disorders may literally not be able to lift items with passing out, hyperventilating or dealing with severe crippling pain- but that does not mean they can pay for the tests they need or that a doctor will see their pain as worthy of disability status.
So again tying benfits to work doesn't fix anything.
Tying benefits to work doesn't fix any of the problems at all and as I mentioned is already a prerequisite for most benefits and most adults do not qualify for any kind of benefit no matter how much they are unable to work because disability status requires getting lawyer and knowing how to fight for it too often something someone with emotional or mental handicap might not know how to do and someone to sick to work might not be up to fighting for.
Essentially all it does is make people who hate the poor feel more self righteous about cutting benefits. That's it. Nothing fixed.
posted by xarnop at 9:26 AM on April 29, 2016 [36 favorites]
So, from as best as I can read French, it seems there's a guy named Emmanuel Macron over in France who's claiming to be neither right nor left. Which provides me with this quote, courtesy of Google translate:
posted by benito.strauss at 9:27 AM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
The only certainty, guaranteed by decades of French political life is that, in the past, those who claimed to be neither right nor the left have always pursued a policy of right or center-right.It's similar to the way that we all love Liberty, but any politician yelling about it is, nine times out of ten, trying to get you to go to war.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:27 AM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
Compromises are great! Look at that Missouri one we did. Worked out well.
posted by Miko at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Miko at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
I am I alone in finding both faux-centrism and the bilious response to it proof that actual consensus centrism is the only class of viable solutions?
No, you're not alone in believing viable solutions can arise from "let's aim for the geographic middle point between two extremes, i.e., where we all know the truth lies", because it's the kind of self-deception that's kept neoliberalism limping along for at least 2 decades now.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2016 [18 favorites]
No, you're not alone in believing viable solutions can arise from "let's aim for the geographic middle point between two extremes, i.e., where we all know the truth lies", because it's the kind of self-deception that's kept neoliberalism limping along for at least 2 decades now.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2016 [18 favorites]
I am I alone in finding both faux-centrism and the bilious response to it proof that actual consensus centrism is the only class of viable solutions?
The "consensus centrism" these jokers are talking about is the same brand so popular from the Bush the Lesser Administration: "Why oh why can't the Democrats simply agree to the Republican agenda?"
No, thanks.
posted by Gelatin at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2016 [31 favorites]
The "consensus centrism" these jokers are talking about is the same brand so popular from the Bush the Lesser Administration: "Why oh why can't the Democrats simply agree to the Republican agenda?"
No, thanks.
posted by Gelatin at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2016 [31 favorites]
But I am wise and clever enough to realize that a pox should be placed on both houses, how can I be sure this isn't the movement for me?
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:30 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:30 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Charles Peters already did all of this 33 years ago. It didn't work out so well.
posted by blucevalo at 9:30 AM on April 29, 2016
posted by blucevalo at 9:30 AM on April 29, 2016
Also, they don't disclose their sources of funding. They're not legally required to do so, but I'm not required to trust them either.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:31 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 9:31 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
But I am wise and clever enough to realize that a pox should be placed on both houses, how can I be sure this isn't the movement for me?
Because it's really just one of those houses in disguise.
posted by scalefree at 9:32 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because it's really just one of those houses in disguise.
posted by scalefree at 9:32 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is all very cynical, I mean maybe slicing the baby in half is the optimal solution
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2016 [28 favorites]
Can't we all just get along?
That kind of says it all, right? "All just getting along" works out pretty well for people who are already comfortable and benefitting from the status quo. It's somewhat less rosy for those who aren't.
posted by Krom Tatman at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2016 [32 favorites]
That kind of says it all, right? "All just getting along" works out pretty well for people who are already comfortable and benefitting from the status quo. It's somewhat less rosy for those who aren't.
posted by Krom Tatman at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2016 [32 favorites]
I am I alone in finding both faux-centrism and the bilious response to it proof that actual consensus centrism is the only class of viable solutions?
You can believe that consensus and compromise is the only humane and democratic way to achieve political goals—something I do believe; something that sets me apart from the revolution now! factions on the right and the left—without believing that every compromise is a good one or that this specific call to consensus is more than a gimmick.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:37 AM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
You can believe that consensus and compromise is the only humane and democratic way to achieve political goals—something I do believe; something that sets me apart from the revolution now! factions on the right and the left—without believing that every compromise is a good one or that this specific call to consensus is more than a gimmick.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:37 AM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
Balance the federal budget by 2030
And that, right there, is the tell.
posted by Gelatin at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [17 favorites]
And that, right there, is the tell.
posted by Gelatin at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [17 favorites]
Reading their policies makes me feel like I'm at a party but was just cornered by one of those kinda sorta liberal-seeming dudes who wants to tell me all about how the biggest stumbling block on the path to restoring America's true glory is, I dunno, our dependence on oil, and if the powers that be would just shift all their IR&D from the petrochemical industry to renewable energy, all the other truly important stuff would shake itself out.
He's the kind of guy who shrugs off attempts to maintain the right to reproductive healthcare and bodily autonomy as "hyper-partisan" and waves away concerns about the GOP's fervent desire to strip away the social safety net as "petty infighting," who would classify work to secure and enshrine voting rights as just another facet of the Democrats' "party-first agenda." He's the kind of guy who rolls his eyes at you when you dare to suggest that the war on women, the war on people of color, the war on access to food, shelter, and medicine, and the race to expand voter disenfranchisement are also problems facing the nation, because no one he knows has ever really had to worry about those things, so why are you pretending like they're so important?
You know this guy. We all know this guy.
I don't really like this guy.
posted by amnesia and magnets at 9:45 AM on April 29, 2016 [34 favorites]
He's the kind of guy who shrugs off attempts to maintain the right to reproductive healthcare and bodily autonomy as "hyper-partisan" and waves away concerns about the GOP's fervent desire to strip away the social safety net as "petty infighting," who would classify work to secure and enshrine voting rights as just another facet of the Democrats' "party-first agenda." He's the kind of guy who rolls his eyes at you when you dare to suggest that the war on women, the war on people of color, the war on access to food, shelter, and medicine, and the race to expand voter disenfranchisement are also problems facing the nation, because no one he knows has ever really had to worry about those things, so why are you pretending like they're so important?
You know this guy. We all know this guy.
I don't really like this guy.
posted by amnesia and magnets at 9:45 AM on April 29, 2016 [34 favorites]
he's slightly better than the guy who believes in the left-right political spectrum as an actual objective thing in which centrism is mathematically the most reasonable approach
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:48 AM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:48 AM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
Balance the federal budget by 2030
And that, right there, is the tell.
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:49 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
And that, right there, is the tell.
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
Nobody Cares About the Deficit
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:49 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
You know this guy. We all know this guy.
Patrick Bateman goes on a long centrist neolib soliloquy in the first chapter of American Psycho that practically embodies this guy.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:49 AM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]
Patrick Bateman goes on a long centrist neolib soliloquy in the first chapter of American Psycho that practically embodies this guy.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:49 AM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]
We should probably focus on breaking up our nation into more manageable pieces.
One of the oddities/miracles of the United States of America is that we've basically forced an entire continent's worth of disparate economies and cultures to agree we're "one nation, indivisible." I am wondering what happens if the U.S.A. is actually legally divisible. Would it make things better or worse?
posted by sobell at 9:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the oddities/miracles of the United States of America is that we've basically forced an entire continent's worth of disparate economies and cultures to agree we're "one nation, indivisible." I am wondering what happens if the U.S.A. is actually legally divisible. Would it make things better or worse?
posted by sobell at 9:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
metafilter: it was invented just to troll the fuck out of metafilter.
posted by el io at 10:01 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by el io at 10:01 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm at a party but was just cornered by one of those kinda sorta liberal-seeming dudes ... I don't really like this guy.
What kind of beer did he bring? Is he handing it out? Because as the Governor of North Carolina once said to the Governor of South Carolina, "It's a damn long time between drinks."
posted by octobersurprise at 10:02 AM on April 29, 2016
What kind of beer did he bring? Is he handing it out? Because as the Governor of North Carolina once said to the Governor of South Carolina, "It's a damn long time between drinks."
posted by octobersurprise at 10:02 AM on April 29, 2016
Me to self: "Oh, so they're talking about tax code changes. Let me go look at their facts." *click*
(Transcribed from their site, because of course they'd present their text as images with no fucking ALT text so it breaks screen readers. Nice accessibility work there.)
I don't think we should cast our lots with folks who fall into any of those three categories.
posted by introp at 10:02 AM on April 29, 2016 [20 favorites]
(Transcribed from their site, because of course they'd present their text as images with no fucking ALT text so it breaks screen readers. Nice accessibility work there.)
High corporate taxes diminish investment and job creation in the countries where they occur. But by almost any measure, U.S. corporate taxes are higher than in other countries.Anyone quoting trivially-disproven numbers about effective tax rates is one or more of: 1. too lazy to look up the actual effective rates, 2. stupid beyond belief, 3. lying to you.
39.1%
The U.S. total corporate tax rate, the highest in the developed world.
27.9%
The U.S. average effective tax rate (what a company typically pays after deductions, credits and other measures), the second highest among the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
I don't think we should cast our lots with folks who fall into any of those three categories.
posted by introp at 10:02 AM on April 29, 2016 [20 favorites]
I am wondering what happens if the U.S.A. is actually legally divisible. Would it make things better or worse?
it didn't go too well last time
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:05 AM on April 29, 2016 [20 favorites]
it didn't go too well last time
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:05 AM on April 29, 2016 [20 favorites]
Any organization purporting to have the solution to the nation's ills and changing Washington that doesn't at least pay lip service to overturning citizens United as part of the solution is not to be taken seriously. Putting make up on the tumor does not make the cancer go away.
posted by Karaage at 10:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Karaage at 10:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Ok, good. So centrism is espoused by charismatic fictional psychopaths. I guess I'm just a bit bored of the reactionary left today - we're having a bit of a meltdown in the UK today, and it's made me realise I've not heard anything - anything - for years from anyone that even had a semblance of a pathway from where we are now to any form of future. Aspirations, statements and restatements of ethical positions of varying degrees of coherence and obviousness, utopianisms (of which I'm a fan), and shibboleths all over the place. But not a hint of how to move even an inch towards an implementation that is even cognate of electoral reality, let alone compatible with it. Sokal, I think, said (roughly) that there's nothing left wing about saying anything that you will never be able to do. So is anyone thinking of getting out of their comfortable but ultimately irrelevant box?
posted by cromagnon at 10:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cromagnon at 10:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
So is anyone thinking of getting out of their comfortable but ultimately irrelevant box?
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. "Sensible centrism" was the whole rallying call of the Clinton/Blair Era, and the result in practice was the exact same economic policies the right had pushed for, only dressed in a different bow. Meanwhile, grassroots movements from the so-called "irrelevant boxes" of the more radical left are what have pushed and continue to push for actual real policies changes. Stuff like same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, campaign finance reform - these ideas weren't hatched by neoliberal centrists behind closed doors but by activists who did the legwork on the streets. Centrists love dismissing activists as being "irrelevant", ignoring the historical fact that all the social progress stuff we take for granted today was pushed ahead with great sacrifice from people who were labelled radical in their day.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 10:31 AM on April 29, 2016 [48 favorites]
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. "Sensible centrism" was the whole rallying call of the Clinton/Blair Era, and the result in practice was the exact same economic policies the right had pushed for, only dressed in a different bow. Meanwhile, grassroots movements from the so-called "irrelevant boxes" of the more radical left are what have pushed and continue to push for actual real policies changes. Stuff like same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, campaign finance reform - these ideas weren't hatched by neoliberal centrists behind closed doors but by activists who did the legwork on the streets. Centrists love dismissing activists as being "irrelevant", ignoring the historical fact that all the social progress stuff we take for granted today was pushed ahead with great sacrifice from people who were labelled radical in their day.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 10:31 AM on April 29, 2016 [48 favorites]
These "both sides are too shouty and ideological and serious" attitudes always remind me of this fantastic essay about "Jon Stewart liberals": Rally to Restore Vanity: Generation X Celebrates its Homeric Struggle against Lameness:
A century-old ideological movement, Liberalism: once devoted to impossible causes like ending racism and inequality, empowering the powerless, fighting against militarism, and all that silly hippie shit—now it’s been reduced to besting the other side at one-liners…and to the Liberals’ credit, they’re clearly on top. Sure there are a lot of problems out there, a lot of pressing needs—but the main thing is, the Liberals don’t look nearly as stupid as the other guys do. And if you don’t know how important that is to this generation, then you won’t understand what’s so wrong and so deeply depressing about the Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity.posted by dialetheia at 10:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]
That’s what makes this rally so depressing and grotesque: It’s an anti-rally, a kind of mass concession speech without the speech–some kind of sick funeral party for Liberalism, in which Liberals are led, at last, by a clown. Not a figurative clown, but by a clown–and Liberals are sure that this somehow makes them smarter and less lame–and indeed, they are less lame, because they are not taking themselves too seriously, which is something they’re very, very proud of. All great political struggles and ideological advances, all great human rights achievements were won by clown-led crowds of people who don’t take themselves too seriously, duh! That’s why they’re following a clown like Stewart, whose entire political program comes down to this: not being stupid, the way the other guys are stupid–or when being stupid, only stupid in a self-consciously stupid way, which is to say, not stupid. That’s it, that’s all this is about: Not to protest wars or oligarchical theft or declining health care or crushing debt or a corrupt political system or imperial decay—nope, the only thing that motivates Liberals to gather in the their thousands is the chance to celebrate their own lack of stupidity! Woo-hoo!
"No, No Labels is an organization of milequtoast technocratic centrists in the 1% who wonder why everyone hates them."
Well, I was going to call it a "neo-liberal sham whose 'consensus' is indistinguishable from Beltway washouts," but to each their own.
posted by klangklangston at 10:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, I was going to call it a "neo-liberal sham whose 'consensus' is indistinguishable from Beltway washouts," but to each their own.
posted by klangklangston at 10:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
it didn't go too well last time
That wasn't legal!
posted by asterix at 10:59 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
That wasn't legal!
posted by asterix at 10:59 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the oddities/miracles of the United States of America is that we've basically forced an entire continent's worth of disparate economies and cultures to agree we're "one nation, indivisible." I am wondering what happens if the U.S.A. is actually legally divisible. Would it make things better or worse?
Right now the USA is more divisible than Europe.
States can float scrip currencies to address budgetary problems in a Keynesian fashion. EU member states are stuck with the euro.
So local policy initiatives by centrist technocrats are totally a doable thing.
posted by ocschwar at 11:06 AM on April 29, 2016
It looks like lower corporate taxes, giving better profit to investors.
Keep the worker bees alive by shoring up Social Security.
Let big pharma do what it wants through negotiations with government workers.
Says little to nothing about defense spending, I guess those corps will pay less taxes on their absolutely ungodly profits, and misdoings to create the situations that insure their profits. IE warmongering.
Let the money run things.
Jobs are everything.
More jobs, more more jobs to run the planet murdering juggernaut.
Nothing specifically mentioned about alternative energy as radically important move.
Supporting the profit taking energy grid, when it should be broken up, and great portions of it replaced with renewable energy, and off the grid endeavors.
Basically it is a re-reading of, The Hollow Men, with the addition of pictures of women. Everyone suited up. Or ill suited for the current day. Visible desire for the abhorrent, current, norm.
If this were a box of chocolates, I would not buy it.
posted by Oyéah at 11:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Keep the worker bees alive by shoring up Social Security.
Let big pharma do what it wants through negotiations with government workers.
Says little to nothing about defense spending, I guess those corps will pay less taxes on their absolutely ungodly profits, and misdoings to create the situations that insure their profits. IE warmongering.
Let the money run things.
Jobs are everything.
More jobs, more more jobs to run the planet murdering juggernaut.
Nothing specifically mentioned about alternative energy as radically important move.
Supporting the profit taking energy grid, when it should be broken up, and great portions of it replaced with renewable energy, and off the grid endeavors.
Basically it is a re-reading of, The Hollow Men, with the addition of pictures of women. Everyone suited up. Or ill suited for the current day. Visible desire for the abhorrent, current, norm.
If this were a box of chocolates, I would not buy it.
posted by Oyéah at 11:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
States can float scrip currencies to address budgetary problems in a Keynesian fashion. EU member states are stuck with the euro.
Yep. I'm honest to god surprised that none of the southern states have issued fake dollars yet.
posted by Talez at 11:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep. I'm honest to god surprised that none of the southern states have issued fake dollars yet.
posted by Talez at 11:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Any organization purporting to have the solution to the nation's ills and changing Washington that doesn't at least pay lip service to overturning citizens United as part of the solution is not to be taken seriously.
disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer... But...
Look, I'm not a fan of CU either... But this talking point gets rolled out a lot, but CU isn't a law, it's a supreme court decision. So the a new president couldn't 'overturn' it, a new congress couldn't 'overturn it'. The best case for overturning it is the supreme court; but they don't easily or readily overturn decisions they've already made. Hell, I doubt they'd even take a case that would possibly overturn the decision (and it's hard to imagine a circuit court ruling in a way that contradicted CU).
So what exactly is the plan for overturning CU? The only thing that makes a ton of sense to me is a constitutional amendment. In my mind that's the only thing that should be discussed when people are talking about wanting to overturn that decision.
/citizens united rant derail
posted by el io at 11:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer... But...
Look, I'm not a fan of CU either... But this talking point gets rolled out a lot, but CU isn't a law, it's a supreme court decision. So the a new president couldn't 'overturn' it, a new congress couldn't 'overturn it'. The best case for overturning it is the supreme court; but they don't easily or readily overturn decisions they've already made. Hell, I doubt they'd even take a case that would possibly overturn the decision (and it's hard to imagine a circuit court ruling in a way that contradicted CU).
So what exactly is the plan for overturning CU? The only thing that makes a ton of sense to me is a constitutional amendment. In my mind that's the only thing that should be discussed when people are talking about wanting to overturn that decision.
/citizens united rant derail
posted by el io at 11:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
We should probably focus on breaking up our nation into more manageable pieces.
Having a starving, illiterate, disease-ridden theocracy of a Jesusdome (imagine what it would be like over time in those states if net federal inflow of funds wasn't being used to prop up their rudiments of infrastructure and social services while they yell about how redistribution of funds is biblically evil) right next door will not be great in the long run for the internal security of your liberal state.
posted by praemunire at 11:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
Having a starving, illiterate, disease-ridden theocracy of a Jesusdome (imagine what it would be like over time in those states if net federal inflow of funds wasn't being used to prop up their rudiments of infrastructure and social services while they yell about how redistribution of funds is biblically evil) right next door will not be great in the long run for the internal security of your liberal state.
posted by praemunire at 11:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
whose mission is to "usher in a new era of focused problem solving in American politics."
That trick never works. You cannot take politics out of politics and anybody who thinks you can is either a fool or selling snake oil to other fools.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:24 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
That trick never works. You cannot take politics out of politics and anybody who thinks you can is either a fool or selling snake oil to other fools.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:24 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
Look, we just have to stop worrying about social conservatism so we can get fiscal conservatism, and that's what we all want, right?
posted by Artw at 11:29 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:29 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
this fantastic essay about "Jon Stewart liberals": Rally to Restore Vanity: Generation X Celebrates its Homeric Struggle against Lameness
That piece is just the flip side of these so-called "calls to unity." Both of them are more impressed by rhetorical poses than the details of defining policies, electing candidates and passing legislation. The No Labelers want to appeal to those who want to be regarded as sensible and serious. The eXiles—and of course it's The eXiled—just don't want to be associated with those who aren't, like, real, man.
As with the "smug liberals" piece, there's no actual argument to be had here, anywhere, because the terms, "liberal," "centrist," "radical left," are all too vague to be anything more than place holders for platitudes, frustrations, and cons.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:38 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
That piece is just the flip side of these so-called "calls to unity." Both of them are more impressed by rhetorical poses than the details of defining policies, electing candidates and passing legislation. The No Labelers want to appeal to those who want to be regarded as sensible and serious. The eXiles—and of course it's The eXiled—just don't want to be associated with those who aren't, like, real, man.
As with the "smug liberals" piece, there's no actual argument to be had here, anywhere, because the terms, "liberal," "centrist," "radical left," are all too vague to be anything more than place holders for platitudes, frustrations, and cons.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:38 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
What would come of it, if you averaged out the ideals of everyone, the resources of everyone, the gender, the water available, the holders and controllers of capital worldwide? The temperature of the world, the rising shorelines, the holes in necessary bio systems, that are failing? Who is running the show? How could we, using all averages come up with the person whose desires make this whole thing run? Who is the poorest, who is the most dangerous to us all? Who will survive us, where to you have to be to survive when it all goes up? The last time it all went up was within the last fifty thousand years, according to geneticists, when we were down to a population of 1,500 humans.
Is it a couch potato on the California coast, who can be counted on to put in forty hours a week, and never complain what it consists of, o rrate of compensation, as long as they can lie on a couch and watch a two dimensional simulation of life, sports victories, and sexual relations?
Is it a Sheikh with a harem of 4, 20 concubines, an oil empire?
Is it a church leader who has it all, and manipulates with fear and scant, random rewards?
Is it a hedge fund manager, who has it all, and makes sure others also have it all, and their secret pleasures play out in third world hotels, on third world islands?
Is it a blonde family, two opposite sex parents, three children, with one on the way?
One exercise to combat this type of scam, is to stop caring, about anything they want us to care about, all non-survival oriented social anxieties, put aside random desire that makes us invest in the juggernaut. We don't need 25 million more jobs unless they counter our destructive use of this planet. Anyway, sorry, bye now, not buy now.
posted by Oyéah at 11:49 AM on April 29, 2016
Is it a couch potato on the California coast, who can be counted on to put in forty hours a week, and never complain what it consists of, o rrate of compensation, as long as they can lie on a couch and watch a two dimensional simulation of life, sports victories, and sexual relations?
Is it a Sheikh with a harem of 4, 20 concubines, an oil empire?
Is it a church leader who has it all, and manipulates with fear and scant, random rewards?
Is it a hedge fund manager, who has it all, and makes sure others also have it all, and their secret pleasures play out in third world hotels, on third world islands?
Is it a blonde family, two opposite sex parents, three children, with one on the way?
One exercise to combat this type of scam, is to stop caring, about anything they want us to care about, all non-survival oriented social anxieties, put aside random desire that makes us invest in the juggernaut. We don't need 25 million more jobs unless they counter our destructive use of this planet. Anyway, sorry, bye now, not buy now.
posted by Oyéah at 11:49 AM on April 29, 2016
hmm well I'd say I'm fiscally conservative but socially very liberal. the problems are bad but their causes...their causes are very good
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:51 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:51 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
As with the "smug liberals" piece, there's no actual argument to be had here, anywhere, because the terms, "liberal," "centrist," "radical left," are all too vague to be anything more than place holders for platitudes, frustrations, and cons.
Maybe you just didn't finish reading it, because it's laid out very clearly at the end. Here's the beginning of the argument, for your convenience. The "details of defining policy and getting legislation passed" are moot if that legislation never addresses the things that working people actually need - instead we end up with centrist-libertarian bullshit legislation like the crap suggested by the No Labels people. The first step toward getting legislation passed that actually addresses working peoples' needs is collective action, as anyone with a passing knowledge of history should know:
Maybe you just didn't finish reading it, because it's laid out very clearly at the end. Here's the beginning of the argument, for your convenience. The "details of defining policy and getting legislation passed" are moot if that legislation never addresses the things that working people actually need - instead we end up with centrist-libertarian bullshit legislation like the crap suggested by the No Labels people. The first step toward getting legislation passed that actually addresses working peoples' needs is collective action, as anyone with a passing knowledge of history should know:
Collective action is the only possible way to change shit. Large numbers of collectivized nobodies rallying to demand what they want–a better cut of the pie, and a better world to live in. It’s the only thing that power-elites fear and the only way to get them to negotiate. There must be thousands of billionaires’ unions—whether the Chamber of Commerce or the gazillions of libertarian networks [and now, smug "No Labels" technocrat centrists]—and the only thing they hope and dream about and invest their effort into is planting a seed into your vain Gen-X brain that makes you think it’s lame to collectivize. That’s it, that’s the only thing they care about while they’re plundering away. You’ll have to stomach being around people who are lame, and who say lame things, and you’ll feel lame—so you’ll have to decide which is lamer: the fear of being lame, or forming an alliance with people lamer than you in order to struggle against people far meaner, far more greedy and destructive than the lame people you hate—people who have no qualms about being lame when they collectivize, so long as they destroy you and grab everything they want. Tough choice, I know.posted by dialetheia at 12:15 PM on April 29, 2016 [14 favorites]
The demarcation for "the Center" is more a function of politics and media, rather than what we the collective public actually want the center to look like.
posted by kyp at 12:25 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kyp at 12:25 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
What Election Is Joe Lieberman Watching?
What’s infuriated so many observers about No Labels since its inception, though, and the reason why it’s not taken more seriously, is its glib belief that “politics” is an unserious distraction from the important work of think tank–led technocratic tinkering. The group’s pooh-poohing of politics as the ballyhoo of dingbats is what leads it to misinterpret the apoplectic tenor of the 2016 election and the rise of Trump and Sanders. This isn’t a “why can’t these clowns in Congress just put aside their differences and get things done?” sort of rage, as Lieberman and Huntsman seem to think. It’s a reaction against a governing paradigm that more and more voters have come to believe works for elite special interests rather than for them. [...]And don't forget the official No Labels anthem by Akon, with these inspiring lyrics:
Oh, there is a shared anger among Republicans and Democrats erupting this cycle. But it’s not about how politicians haven’t figured out a way to put their bickering aside and eliminate regulations that obstruct capital formation, or whatever. It’s a populist anger against a system that people believe is rigged in favor of elites and unresponsive to average voters. In this environment, the bipartisan sentiment isn’t a hope that the usual Washington players just get “something” done. It’s a fear of it.
See a man with a blue tieposted by melissasaurus at 12:26 PM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
See a man with a red tie
So how about we tie ourselves together and get it done
As a linguist, perhaps I can help with translations from the Plutocratish.
"Balanced budget" + "reduce taxes" = "eliminate social programs"
"Create jobs" + "balanced budget" + "guest worker program" = "Eliminate government jobs, but there will be more gardeners and fruit pickers"
"Condition public assistance on active job search" = "We still hate the unemployed"
"Sunset regulations" = "Stop protecting consumers and the environment"
"Would states do it better?" = "Ha ha no"
"Health insurance across state lines" = "Poor people don't need everyday health care"
"Balanced budget" + "create jobs" = "This has never worked in the past, but we don't care, we just want lower taxes"
"Joe Lieberman" = "Ha ha oh god no"
posted by zompist at 12:41 PM on April 29, 2016 [32 favorites]
"Balanced budget" + "reduce taxes" = "eliminate social programs"
"Create jobs" + "balanced budget" + "guest worker program" = "Eliminate government jobs, but there will be more gardeners and fruit pickers"
"Condition public assistance on active job search" = "We still hate the unemployed"
"Sunset regulations" = "Stop protecting consumers and the environment"
"Would states do it better?" = "Ha ha no"
"Health insurance across state lines" = "Poor people don't need everyday health care"
"Balanced budget" + "create jobs" = "This has never worked in the past, but we don't care, we just want lower taxes"
"Joe Lieberman" = "Ha ha oh god no"
posted by zompist at 12:41 PM on April 29, 2016 [32 favorites]
We can't expect the leadership of either political party to diverge from the Washington Consensus at this point; it's a set of economic 'rules' that were initially spelled out with the intention of influencing the weak economies of Latin American countries in the late 1980's. In case anyone has forgotten, this ideological package of 10 imperatives is as close as we've gotten to a formal declaration of neoliberal ideology; here it is:
1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
5. Competitive exchange rates;
6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
8. Privatization of state enterprises;
9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
10. Legal security for property rights.
There is more to neoliberalism than those 10 commandments, of course, and these were explicitly articulated in 1989 so of course some things are different now.
But overall, both parties now support all of these things for the USA. This echoes David Harvey's arguments about neoliberalism as a process of dispossession: while the Washington Consensus was originally meant to apply to developing nations with serious economic problems, it's been employed in many respects as a playbook for sucking the wealth of public coffers in America while potentiating unsustainable growth (e.g., lately, through "disruptive" economic patterns like what Uber has accomplished) that relies on improper deregulation to create wealth at public expense and for private profit. The Washington Consensus is simply one example of how completely neoliberalism has triumphed, and how long it's been state orthodoxy.
Americans are not unaware of the fact that our elites are economically colonizing our lives to extract capital earned during the post-war economic boom. There's just nothing we can do about it, because anything to the Left of the neoliberal consensus is impossible to vote for at the national level.
Wouldn't it be lovely if all we had to do was vote for the good party and oppose the bad one? The fact that so many Americans were content to do this for decades is exactly why we don't have a party that's on the side of the American people anymore, though. Wherever the coalitions and policy imperatives that will actually make Americans' lives better may manifest in the future, they certainly won't come from establishment figures, their paymasters, or their proteges.
posted by clockzero at 12:53 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
5. Competitive exchange rates;
6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
8. Privatization of state enterprises;
9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
10. Legal security for property rights.
There is more to neoliberalism than those 10 commandments, of course, and these were explicitly articulated in 1989 so of course some things are different now.
But overall, both parties now support all of these things for the USA. This echoes David Harvey's arguments about neoliberalism as a process of dispossession: while the Washington Consensus was originally meant to apply to developing nations with serious economic problems, it's been employed in many respects as a playbook for sucking the wealth of public coffers in America while potentiating unsustainable growth (e.g., lately, through "disruptive" economic patterns like what Uber has accomplished) that relies on improper deregulation to create wealth at public expense and for private profit. The Washington Consensus is simply one example of how completely neoliberalism has triumphed, and how long it's been state orthodoxy.
Americans are not unaware of the fact that our elites are economically colonizing our lives to extract capital earned during the post-war economic boom. There's just nothing we can do about it, because anything to the Left of the neoliberal consensus is impossible to vote for at the national level.
Wouldn't it be lovely if all we had to do was vote for the good party and oppose the bad one? The fact that so many Americans were content to do this for decades is exactly why we don't have a party that's on the side of the American people anymore, though. Wherever the coalitions and policy imperatives that will actually make Americans' lives better may manifest in the future, they certainly won't come from establishment figures, their paymasters, or their proteges.
posted by clockzero at 12:53 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
a new congress couldn't 'overturn it'
Completely within the power of Congress to write federal laws that significantly limit the impact of the decision or to ameliorate it's effects (I.e. Disclosure requirements).
But yes if we're going to miss the forest for the trees, overturn isn't the right word outside of a constitutional amendment. My point is that while we're talking about fixes, acknowledging how this has damaged our country and how we need to do something about is important.
posted by Karaage at 12:59 PM on April 29, 2016
Completely within the power of Congress to write federal laws that significantly limit the impact of the decision or to ameliorate it's effects (I.e. Disclosure requirements).
But yes if we're going to miss the forest for the trees, overturn isn't the right word outside of a constitutional amendment. My point is that while we're talking about fixes, acknowledging how this has damaged our country and how we need to do something about is important.
posted by Karaage at 12:59 PM on April 29, 2016
Maybe you just didn't finish reading it ...
I didn't, actually, because it's Mark Ames runing on interminably about a six year old TV event and fuming over the behavior of Tom Hanks' daughter.
and the only thing they hope and dream about and invest their effort into is planting a seed into your vain Gen-X brain that makes you think it’s lame to collectivize.
If the point here is something other than "politics is important"—not an assertion I disagree with, mind you—then I have no idea what it is. Collectivize to do what: vote, join a union, storm the barricades, get woke, what? I even scrolled to the end in hopes of a little more specificity where I got 1) collectivize; 2) stand for something Big, like, Life, Union, the Constitution, and General Welfare; and 3) identify the traitors, call them traitors, and spit on them.
Probably I could go through that piece more finely and pick out themes or declarations that I agree with or, at least, don't disagree with. But to repeat myself, I can't find anything worth arguing with because I can't find a point that's more than "What are you? Some kind of lamer who thinks it's lame to collectivize?"
posted by octobersurprise at 1:13 PM on April 29, 2016
I didn't, actually, because it's Mark Ames runing on interminably about a six year old TV event and fuming over the behavior of Tom Hanks' daughter.
and the only thing they hope and dream about and invest their effort into is planting a seed into your vain Gen-X brain that makes you think it’s lame to collectivize.
If the point here is something other than "politics is important"—not an assertion I disagree with, mind you—then I have no idea what it is. Collectivize to do what: vote, join a union, storm the barricades, get woke, what? I even scrolled to the end in hopes of a little more specificity where I got 1) collectivize; 2) stand for something Big, like, Life, Union, the Constitution, and General Welfare; and 3) identify the traitors, call them traitors, and spit on them.
Probably I could go through that piece more finely and pick out themes or declarations that I agree with or, at least, don't disagree with. But to repeat myself, I can't find anything worth arguing with because I can't find a point that's more than "What are you? Some kind of lamer who thinks it's lame to collectivize?"
posted by octobersurprise at 1:13 PM on April 29, 2016
No Labels has donors from across the country, some big, some small. We don’t reveal their names for a simple reason: We want the focus squarely on the issues that matter and the need for our next president and Congress to embrace a new National Strategic Agenda for America. The four goals of the National Strategic Agenda were decided with direct input from the American people, who were asked to identify their priorities in a number of national polls. That’s who is setting the direction for No Labels.*insert jpeg of Lying Cat here*
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 1:19 PM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]
See a man with a blue tieWhat? Did David Byrne sell them his rejected songs?
See a man with a red tie
So how about we tie ourselves together and get it done
posted by octobersurprise at 1:20 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
> We don’t reveal their names for a simple reason: We want the focus squarely on the issues that matter ....
It's nice when you can narrow down a fundamental lie to such a few words. Plus, this logic can be used to dodge so many other basic obligations:
"Bob, you gotta stop stealing other people's lunches from the fridge! Bring your own!"
"Sorry, Renee, I'm too busy focusing squarely on the issues that matter."
"Look, Bob, if you spill some soda, at least let the custodial staff know so they can clean it up right away. Or get Gene the admin to contact them for you."
"Steve, I've got no time to do that. I'm just so busy focusing on these issues that matter."
"Dammit, Bob, did you actually leave without flushing the toilet!?"
"Issues that matter, Frank, issues that matter."
/Apologies to all the good Bobs out there.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:49 PM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's nice when you can narrow down a fundamental lie to such a few words. Plus, this logic can be used to dodge so many other basic obligations:
"Bob, you gotta stop stealing other people's lunches from the fridge! Bring your own!"
"Sorry, Renee, I'm too busy focusing squarely on the issues that matter."
"Look, Bob, if you spill some soda, at least let the custodial staff know so they can clean it up right away. Or get Gene the admin to contact them for you."
"Steve, I've got no time to do that. I'm just so busy focusing on these issues that matter."
"Dammit, Bob, did you actually leave without flushing the toilet!?"
"Issues that matter, Frank, issues that matter."
/Apologies to all the good Bobs out there.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:49 PM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
Stuff like same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, campaign finance reform - these ideas weren't hatched by neoliberal centrists behind closed doors but by activists who did the legwork on the streets.
If we're looking at America here, it would be worth pointing out that there is no national recognition of gay marriage, corporate personhood is a thing in law, and the war on drugs is still very much in progress. Radical left activism has singularly failed to make any impact at all on the latter two, and the narrative that radical activism has been responsible for making same-sex marriage available to a lot of Americans is appealing but I think probably not that accurate. In fact I'd argue that it's precisely the fact you don't need an actual revolution to emancipate gay and lesbian people - because, guess what, a large number of people throughout society are gay or lesbian - that has led to the unprecedented democratic acceptance of being gay or lesbian today. It's a consequence of demographic frequency and the advocacy of legitimacy within existing structures.
Centrists love dismissing activists as being "irrelevant",
Not activists, certainly not on my part. But today, I'm happy to have a go at labelling tone deaf radicals with no game plan not just irrelevant but actively unhelpful.
ignoring the historical fact that all the social progress stuff we take for granted today was pushed ahead with great sacrifice from people who were labelled radical in their day.
In the UK, you won't find a modern figure with more of an influence on social justice than Clement Atlee - a major in the army who supported Churchill's Gallipoli tactics, and who was notoriously bad at inspiring anyone to follow him in person. Although much more charismatic, FDR probably occupies a similar role in C20 America. Neither were remotely radical and were never considered as such.
And even many of those who were labelled radicals and who did achieve significant change - MLK, Mandela and Gandhi spring to mind - did so by always having a popular/populist mechanism for change as part of their radicalism. And all of those three were absolutely able to compromise, to dilute their philosophies, and to take marginal gains if that's all that was available.
And it's the absence of those qualities from anyone prominent on today's left that worries me.
posted by cromagnon at 3:11 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we're looking at America here, it would be worth pointing out that there is no national recognition of gay marriage, corporate personhood is a thing in law, and the war on drugs is still very much in progress. Radical left activism has singularly failed to make any impact at all on the latter two, and the narrative that radical activism has been responsible for making same-sex marriage available to a lot of Americans is appealing but I think probably not that accurate. In fact I'd argue that it's precisely the fact you don't need an actual revolution to emancipate gay and lesbian people - because, guess what, a large number of people throughout society are gay or lesbian - that has led to the unprecedented democratic acceptance of being gay or lesbian today. It's a consequence of demographic frequency and the advocacy of legitimacy within existing structures.
Centrists love dismissing activists as being "irrelevant",
Not activists, certainly not on my part. But today, I'm happy to have a go at labelling tone deaf radicals with no game plan not just irrelevant but actively unhelpful.
ignoring the historical fact that all the social progress stuff we take for granted today was pushed ahead with great sacrifice from people who were labelled radical in their day.
In the UK, you won't find a modern figure with more of an influence on social justice than Clement Atlee - a major in the army who supported Churchill's Gallipoli tactics, and who was notoriously bad at inspiring anyone to follow him in person. Although much more charismatic, FDR probably occupies a similar role in C20 America. Neither were remotely radical and were never considered as such.
And even many of those who were labelled radicals and who did achieve significant change - MLK, Mandela and Gandhi spring to mind - did so by always having a popular/populist mechanism for change as part of their radicalism. And all of those three were absolutely able to compromise, to dilute their philosophies, and to take marginal gains if that's all that was available.
And it's the absence of those qualities from anyone prominent on today's left that worries me.
posted by cromagnon at 3:11 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
And even many of those who were labelled radicals and who did achieve significant change - MLK, Mandela and Gandhi spring to mind - did so by always having a popular/populist mechanism for change as part of their radicalism. And all of those three were absolutely able to compromise, to dilute their philosophies, and to take marginal gains if that's all that was available.
The examples you cite benefit greatly from hindsight--we know what these people accomplished, and we venerate them for their accomplishments. Perhaps you would have a more compelling argument if you could find some contemporary sources praising them for the reasonable, pragmatic qualities you desire. Maybe then your argument won't sound so much like an unqualified "kids these days...." rant.
Given that MLK, Mandela, and Gandhi all used civil disobedience to achieve their goals, I think you'll find far more criticism of their "radical" acts than praise for their ability to take marginal gains.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:12 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
The examples you cite benefit greatly from hindsight--we know what these people accomplished, and we venerate them for their accomplishments. Perhaps you would have a more compelling argument if you could find some contemporary sources praising them for the reasonable, pragmatic qualities you desire. Maybe then your argument won't sound so much like an unqualified "kids these days...." rant.
Given that MLK, Mandela, and Gandhi all used civil disobedience to achieve their goals, I think you'll find far more criticism of their "radical" acts than praise for their ability to take marginal gains.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:12 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we're looking at America here, it would be worth pointing out that there is no national recognition of gay marriage
wat
posted by mcmile at 8:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
wat
posted by mcmile at 8:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
Benito: I have totally worked with assholes like that. "Issues that matter" is an effective tactic for silencing and dodging responsibility.
posted by Banknote of the year at 8:20 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Banknote of the year at 8:20 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
And even many of those who were labelled radicals and who did achieve significant change - MLK, Mandela and Gandhi spring to mind - did so by always having a popular/populist mechanism for change as part of their radicalism. And all of those three were absolutely able to compromise, to dilute their philosophies, and to take marginal gains if that's all that was available.
Let's see what MLK had to say about the moderates of his day, shall we?
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 8:20 PM on April 29, 2016 [21 favorites]
Let's see what MLK had to say about the moderates of his day, shall we?
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.And using Nelson Mandela, who was *literally* a card carrying communist and who cofounded a *paramilitary* group when he saw non-violent action wasn't enough to decry the American or British left as *not moderate enough*? I find it hard to believe you're arguing in good faith here.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 8:20 PM on April 29, 2016 [21 favorites]
things would be so much better if washington politicians just stopped bickering and did what i want
Also: While the more elegant explanation of No Labels is that it's for mainstream center-right politicians who think they're above partisanship when they're really just intellectually inbred plutocrats, I chose to believe that it's a front group for Washington swingers, who put the bi- in partisanship and just want to keep it caʒ — no labels, baby. From that point of view, a modest, milquetoast agenda of reasonableness is the best cover since an airport bathroom and provides a far more compelling justification for their continued existence.
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also: While the more elegant explanation of No Labels is that it's for mainstream center-right politicians who think they're above partisanship when they're really just intellectually inbred plutocrats, I chose to believe that it's a front group for Washington swingers, who put the bi- in partisanship and just want to keep it caʒ — no labels, baby. From that point of view, a modest, milquetoast agenda of reasonableness is the best cover since an airport bathroom and provides a far more compelling justification for their continued existence.
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know what, I fucked up with the Obergefell ruling: I thought it didn't contain mutual recognition. But as you say, it does. So there's that.
But it doesn't really change anything other than diminish my authority with strangers. The establishment of gay marriage in the US has not been a process of revolutionary struggle by the committed few. There were already gay fifth columnists in every family in America, and always had been. Ellen, not Lenin.
And that's just my point - if you'll forgive me, I really do think you hadn't read it: MLK, Mandela and Gandhi absolutely were radicals, and labelled as such at the time. But all three had huge constituencies of people who were listening to them from very early on in their careers - partly due to their actions, partly their rhetoric, partly the situation itself. This constituency exists for the radical left today, but it's not listening: it's listening to Trump and to Pegida.
And again, in all three cases these men's actions were regularly adapted to take a gain even when the rhetoric was not. None of these men were afraid to compromise in order to succeed. I'll happily debate the degree of flexibility in Mandela's radicalism - look at his relationship to the Black Conciousness Movement in the mid-70s. He was de-radicalising BCM prisoners on Robben Island to avoid damage to the international constituency of support for change.
And yes, I'm arguing in good faith. Deadly serious faith, as I sit here in the run up to a referendum that decides the political direction of a country for at least a generation, watching the party of opposition in implode after two radical leftists had an argument in public over whether Hitler was a Zionist? Believe me, my utter contempt for radicalism today is very serious indeed.
posted by cromagnon at 1:13 AM on April 30, 2016
But it doesn't really change anything other than diminish my authority with strangers. The establishment of gay marriage in the US has not been a process of revolutionary struggle by the committed few. There were already gay fifth columnists in every family in America, and always had been. Ellen, not Lenin.
And that's just my point - if you'll forgive me, I really do think you hadn't read it: MLK, Mandela and Gandhi absolutely were radicals, and labelled as such at the time. But all three had huge constituencies of people who were listening to them from very early on in their careers - partly due to their actions, partly their rhetoric, partly the situation itself. This constituency exists for the radical left today, but it's not listening: it's listening to Trump and to Pegida.
And again, in all three cases these men's actions were regularly adapted to take a gain even when the rhetoric was not. None of these men were afraid to compromise in order to succeed. I'll happily debate the degree of flexibility in Mandela's radicalism - look at his relationship to the Black Conciousness Movement in the mid-70s. He was de-radicalising BCM prisoners on Robben Island to avoid damage to the international constituency of support for change.
And yes, I'm arguing in good faith. Deadly serious faith, as I sit here in the run up to a referendum that decides the political direction of a country for at least a generation, watching the party of opposition in implode after two radical leftists had an argument in public over whether Hitler was a Zionist? Believe me, my utter contempt for radicalism today is very serious indeed.
posted by cromagnon at 1:13 AM on April 30, 2016
Speaking of problem solving multipartisan PACs, former Sanders staffers and volunteers are working together to create Brand New Congress, which has the ambitious goal of creating a progressive House
Interestingly, their strategy doesn't preclude endorsing Republican candidates (or any other party for that matter):
Interestingly, their strategy doesn't preclude endorsing Republican candidates (or any other party for that matter):
Though it could be challenging to find Republican candidates who won’t flee from any affiliation with former Sanders supporters, the PAC hopes to recruit Republicans to run in districts hostile to Democrats.posted by kyp at 2:13 AM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
“We want a supermajority in Congress that is fighting for jobs, criminal justice reform and the environment,” Exley said. “Most Americans actually want that, and I think we get it by running Dems in blue areas, Republicans in deep red areas, and by running independents wherever we didn’t defeat incumbents.
I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.
(Written in 2009, but still very relevant today.)
posted by tonycpsu at 8:31 AM on April 30, 2016 [8 favorites]
(Written in 2009, but still very relevant today.)
posted by tonycpsu at 8:31 AM on April 30, 2016 [8 favorites]
And yet there's No Labels, there getting paid to stand behind you and tut-tut, "If you'd just be reasonable and try the anthrax first, the tire rims won't seen so bad in comparison".
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:44 AM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:44 AM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]
Here's the latest from radical centrist and No Labels spokesperson Jon Huntsman:
posted by mcmile at 9:33 AM on April 30, 2016 [11 favorites]
"We've had enough intraparty fighting. Now's the time to stitch together a winning coalition,” said Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah. “And it's been clear almost from the beginning that Donald Trump has the ability to assemble a nontraditional bloc of supporters. … The ability to cut across traditional party boundaries — like '80, '92 and 2008 — will be key, and Trump is much better positioned to achieve that.”Thank god for these people who are above partisan bickering. They certainly our nation's best interests in mind.
posted by mcmile at 9:33 AM on April 30, 2016 [11 favorites]
No Labels also ripped off a friend's artwork a few years ago.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 9:34 AM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by evidenceofabsence at 9:34 AM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
Here's the latest from radical centrist and No Labels spokesperson Jon Huntsman
Welp. I think we're done here.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:39 AM on April 30, 2016 [5 favorites]
Welp. I think we're done here.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:39 AM on April 30, 2016 [5 favorites]
About all this "MLK was a moderate and had majority (or close to it) public support" -- empirically false.
From Gallup:
Today's literal equivalent to Dr. King's program is found in the Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100) and its Agenda to Build Black Futures, which demands, among other things, a right to employment, guaranteed employment, and reparations.
BYP100 is active in organizing against police violence and for Black lives here's a statement from their website:
From Gallup:
In 1963, King had a 41% positive and a 37% negative rating; in 1964, it was 43% positive and 39% negative; in 1965, his rating was 45% positive and 45% negative; and in 1966 -- the last Gallup measure of King using this scalometer procedure -- it was 32% positive and 63% negative.Moreover, in the last years of his life, Dr. King attacked capitalism, advocated for a mass movement of poor people, and demanded government guaranteed full employment and/or income.
Gallup did not measure King in 1967 or 1968.
Link
Today's literal equivalent to Dr. King's program is found in the Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100) and its Agenda to Build Black Futures, which demands, among other things, a right to employment, guaranteed employment, and reparations.
BYP100 is active in organizing against police violence and for Black lives here's a statement from their website:
Recent events across the country have demonstrated that police murders, sexual assault and harassment continue with impunity. The fight for justice for families devastated by police who murder their loved ones is hard fought. As we struggle to fight for justice for loved ones like Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, and Rashod McIntosh, we cannot forget, and must fight fiercely for Mya Hall, Aiyana Jones, and Rekia Boyd. The police harass, abuse, murder and do not discriminate based on gender or sexuality.posted by wuwei at 10:09 AM on April 30, 2016 [10 favorites]
Link
I just have to take a moment and say "I love Metafilter." I come into political posts here and there's just so much sanity and intolerance for bullshit.
posted by threeturtles at 1:32 PM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by threeturtles at 1:32 PM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
wuwei - despite your quote marks, those words are the opposite of the ones I use a few posts above. And 32% of the American people is a huge constituency.
posted by cromagnon at 4:00 PM on April 30, 2016
posted by cromagnon at 4:00 PM on April 30, 2016
... the narrative that radical activism has been responsible for making same-sex marriage available to a lot of Americans is appealing but I think probably not that accurate. In fact I'd argue that it's precisely the fact you don't need an actual revolution to emancipate gay and lesbian people - because, guess what, a large number of people throughout society are gay or lesbian - that has led to the unprecedented democratic acceptance of being gay or lesbian today. It's a consequence of demographic frequency and the advocacy of legitimacy within existing structures.
... The establishment of gay marriage in the US has not been a process of revolutionary struggle by the committed few. There were already gay fifth columnists in every family in America, and always had been. Ellen, not Lenin.
But by the time Ellen Degeneres was on national TV, she had already benefited from several decades of radical activism from a committed few. If she had come out of the closet in 1965, could she have kept her TV show? 1975? '85?
You're right that the mainstream legitimacy of being gay was driven more by dinner-table conversations than "we're here we're queer"; more by Will and Grace than Queer as Folk. But the loud shouty activism is precisely what let mainstream queer people position themselves as relatively normal. The visibility of capital-q Queers is part of what gave people the confidence to have those dinner table conversations, and the community building gave them some safety to do so, knowing that if my family tells me to go, I have another family. Both methods have their time and place.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:06 PM on April 30, 2016 [13 favorites]
... The establishment of gay marriage in the US has not been a process of revolutionary struggle by the committed few. There were already gay fifth columnists in every family in America, and always had been. Ellen, not Lenin.
But by the time Ellen Degeneres was on national TV, she had already benefited from several decades of radical activism from a committed few. If she had come out of the closet in 1965, could she have kept her TV show? 1975? '85?
You're right that the mainstream legitimacy of being gay was driven more by dinner-table conversations than "we're here we're queer"; more by Will and Grace than Queer as Folk. But the loud shouty activism is precisely what let mainstream queer people position themselves as relatively normal. The visibility of capital-q Queers is part of what gave people the confidence to have those dinner table conversations, and the community building gave them some safety to do so, knowing that if my family tells me to go, I have another family. Both methods have their time and place.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:06 PM on April 30, 2016 [13 favorites]
Demagoguery? Mike Bloomberg, You're Part of the Problem.
But Bloomberg has to put the problem of demagoguery in these terms, because he's determined to demonstrate that Both Sides Do It (but those in the "sensible center" don't). He tells us that "candidates in both parties are blaming our problems on easy targets who breed resentment. For Republicans, it’s Mexicans here illegally and Muslims. And for Democrats, it’s the wealthy and Wall Street." Yes, but Bernie Sanders doesn't want to shut down Wall Street or deport all rich people. He wants to turn America into Denmark, not Democratic Kampuchea. By contrast, it's not crazy to think that Donald Trump really does want to turn America into Putin's Russia.posted by tonycpsu at 5:31 PM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bloomberg says, "We cannot solve the problems we face by blaming anyone." But we also can't solve the problems we face by blaming everyone indiscriminately. Some people are more responsible than others. When we grade on a curve to ensure that we ascribe demagoguery equally to each party, we lose the ability to tell which are the politicians who are genuinely endangering democracy and which are just the passionate defenders of ideas that are a bit outside the bounds of "respectable" politics. Bernie Sanders is in the latter category. Donald Trump is in the former. And Bloomberg is trying to make us unable to see the difference.
And that's just my point - if you'll forgive me, I really do think you hadn't read it: MLK, Mandela and Gandhi absolutely were radicals, and labelled as such at the time. But all three had huge constituencies of people who were listening to them from very early on in their careers - partly due to their actions, partly their rhetoric, partly the situation itself. This constituency exists for the radical left today, but it's not listening: it's listening to Trump and to Pegida.
What exactly do you characterize as the "radical left"? I am really confused as to what exactly the point is that you're making and why are you are so convinced that radical leftist activists are so common in America and that they refuse to compromise. It seems completely contradictory to pretty much everything I've seen in American politics for the entire time I've been alive. America's liberal party is not known for its radical leftist activism.
Your misconception about same-sex marriage makes it sound as though you don't really follow American politics very closely, as I can't see anyone who really follows it at all making that mistake. Have you received the impression that liberalism in America has been hijacked by radical leftist ideologues who refuse to compromise? This is not true. Democrats in America tend to be a very centrist bunch who live to accommodate and this has been true since at least the Clinton presidency.
So again, if you're worried that radical leftists are holding up progress in America by refusing to compromise, you can rest easy. That is pretty much the very opposite of our problem.
posted by armadillo1224 at 8:23 PM on April 30, 2016 [9 favorites]
What exactly do you characterize as the "radical left"? I am really confused as to what exactly the point is that you're making and why are you are so convinced that radical leftist activists are so common in America and that they refuse to compromise. It seems completely contradictory to pretty much everything I've seen in American politics for the entire time I've been alive. America's liberal party is not known for its radical leftist activism.
Your misconception about same-sex marriage makes it sound as though you don't really follow American politics very closely, as I can't see anyone who really follows it at all making that mistake. Have you received the impression that liberalism in America has been hijacked by radical leftist ideologues who refuse to compromise? This is not true. Democrats in America tend to be a very centrist bunch who live to accommodate and this has been true since at least the Clinton presidency.
So again, if you're worried that radical leftists are holding up progress in America by refusing to compromise, you can rest easy. That is pretty much the very opposite of our problem.
posted by armadillo1224 at 8:23 PM on April 30, 2016 [9 favorites]
Civil rights protests have never been palatable to white people. But please, keep explaining to us how the left in the 60's was so much less belligerent and unpopular compared to radicals like the UK Labour party.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 9:15 PM on April 30, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 9:15 PM on April 30, 2016 [5 favorites]
By coincidence, I started reading a book that Michelle Alexander (author of The New Jim Crow) recommended, and so far (from position of my relative ignorance) it seems well researched and does a good job of outlining the differences and strengths of both structured protest (Saul Alinksy) and mass protest (Frances Fox Piven).
Even more coincidentally, the 2 out of the first 3 examples of effective mass grassroots protest are about MLK and same sex marriage. The 3rd is about Otpor! and the Serbian resistance against Milošević , also fascinating in its own right. In all cases, grassroots activists were instrumental in radically changing public opinion and enabling more established organizations to take advantage of that shift.
The book:
This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century by Mark Engler and Paul Engler.
posted by kyp at 6:37 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even more coincidentally, the 2 out of the first 3 examples of effective mass grassroots protest are about MLK and same sex marriage. The 3rd is about Otpor! and the Serbian resistance against Milošević , also fascinating in its own right. In all cases, grassroots activists were instrumental in radically changing public opinion and enabling more established organizations to take advantage of that shift.
The book:
This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century by Mark Engler and Paul Engler.
posted by kyp at 6:37 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older My son is also named Borte | Even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:52 AM on April 29, 2016 [64 favorites]