Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Instead of acknowledging gross failure and astounding errors, the party’s leaders and campaign professionals wallowed in self-pity and righteous indignation. Sample of Findings
Comments
Thanks Lulu. This is a good article. I read it when it came out yesterday. Here's a key segment:
“Autopsy” warns that “what ought to deeply worry Democrats moving forward…is the massive swing of white working-class voters from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 and the depressed turnout of black and Latino voters for Clinton relative to 2012 Obama…. To put it in marketing terms: the Democratic Party is failing, on a systemic level, to inspire, bring out, and get a sufficient majority of the votes of the working class.”
It's important to note that the authors recognize that the economic interests of the white working-class and working-class voters of color align closely. Accordingly, the Democratic Party must forcibly reject its prior failed strategy of trying to appeal to identity groups discretely with charged and divisive rhetoric like "deplorables," "hard-working Americans, white Americans," and "a woman running to be the first woman President [can't exemplify] the establishment."
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 1:36pm
So much bullshit, so little time. "We gathered the finest minds who think exactly like us and by an amazing coincidence they supported our original pre-set conclusions". The best part is that Bernie somehow owns the party's "base", the rank-and -file, while Hillary represents the "establishment" only, even though she beat Bernie like a bow-backed 3-legged mule.
Here's a clue - you can't really address the party if you ignore the majority's wishes. Of course these people weren't part of the party anyway, so it's kinda like Dem-splainin' for the kajillionth time. Thanks fir the advice, guys - we'll take it under consideration.
("Kneecapped the true progressive", eh Hal? Nice way of saying the "base" fucked up by voting for its preferred candidate. I know democracy has its faults, and all would be better in a socialist worker's paradise - just look at Cuba and Belarus - we should all be so lucky)
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 1:55pm
Given the results of last year's Presidential election and the fact that the Democratic Party is lost in the wilderness throughout our nation, don't you think it's time for a shift away from the neoliberal/neocon establishment? If you disagree, why do you think the American electorate will start buying what they have forcibly rejected since 2010?
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 4:06pm
What do you think of Russian bots and Republicans keeping millions from voting? And with that as background, how is winning the popular vote by 3 million "forcibly rejected"? You keep repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, you don't even notice how dumb it sounds anymore.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 4:13pm
The Democratic Party has had steadily diminishing success on every electoral level over virtually the entire country for some time now. The study introduced by The Nation which I linked to suggests that the Democratic Party should do some self-examination and consider making some changes. It, intelligently IMO, suggests what some of the problems are and have long been and some changes which they believe would help broaden and energize the Democratic base and thus lead to better outcomes. There is a lot there worth thinking about and even discussing which I think is the intended purpose of Dagblog. You offer nothing in direct response to anything presented. All you do is shout "bullshit". What an irony bomb that is.
You keep repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, you don't even notice how dumb it sounds.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 4:59pm
Oh sorry, "Consortium".almost rhymes with "Collusion" which sounds like "Confusion"...
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 5:08pm
Spot on commentary LULU. Thanks.
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 5:50pm
Republican voter suppression appalls me. Not sure what you're referring to regarding "Russian bots." How do you feel about the fact that Republicans have complete control of 32 states and both houses of Congress? What do you propose we do since you choose to disagree with my assessment in your typically insulting and dismissive fashion?
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 5:49pm
Russian bots via Politico::
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 9:01pm
you pull "facts" out of your ass. I'm sure that if by some fluke of nature, (such as Hillary being stabbed by a Bernie-bot), and Bernie had been the faux Democratic candidate, thereby giving trump a resounding Electoral College AND popular vote victory; you would figure out a way to blame someone other than yourself. You are not a a Democrat, in fact you are the worst possible enemy, because like Bernie, you pretend, and then strike from within, and then go back to hiding behind the fake words, "neoliberal," as though that is understood as horrid.
I am only now beginning to comprehend how disingenuous you are.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 6:24pm
The President is a Republican. Both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and 32 states are under Republican control. How do you propose we return power to the people if not by reforming the Democratic Party?
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 6:39pm
Well, one thing I propose is not to indulge in the hateful, anti-Democratic beuling that you do Day in and day out.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 6:49pm
We'll have to disagree on whether my "beuling" is hateful or legitimate criticism. Any other suggestions?
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 6:52pm
The article is interesting and presents challenges to what has been done in the last election.
Putting the fight against the suppression of the vote as priority number one is no brainer.
The need to address racial injustice certainly should be at the top. The article gets fuzzy about what the better platform looks like in that regard. The suggestion that it was something that did not make the to do list requires forgetting decades of history.
I don't understand why the Sanders candidacy is treated as something outside the party when he ran for the nomination.
I don't understand this passage:
And when I say I don't understand it, I mean to say that it cancels itself out. It deplores taking advantage of something and uses its utility to prove its point. My brain hurts.
And the parts about not being anti-war enough piss me off. I would like to see that be a thing. But it is not as simple as deciding not to kick dogs or quit smoking.
by moat on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 6:17pm
I think what the passage means is that Democrats can't regain true majority party status if they only pay lip service to broad social justice movements like Occupy and Black Lives Matter. Instead, the Party needs to embrace sincerely the principles underlying these movements. To the extent the Democrat Party views Occupiers and BLM activists as tools, rather than genuine change agents, its candidates will mouth platitudes designed to placate them but will forget about them as soon as the election season is over. What the Party must do, says Greider, if and when it regains power, is to enact legislation that addresses the economic, social, and racial justice concerns animating these groups.
Regarding your ambivalent reaction to Greider's call for Democrats to become an anti-war party, while it may seem counterintuitive, a recent study suggests that Clinton's pro-war record may have played a significant factor in her defeat. See my recent piece http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/democratic-opportunity-23347.
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 6:35pm
Hal, the "Democrat Party?" Really? Please stop pretending to want to make the party better. Your only desire is to blow it up, just like Bernie. The fact that you use the pejorative "Democrat" as an adjective, as do trump, Cruz, McConnell, and every other Dem-hating bloviator says it all.
And your insulting comment that "the Democrat Party" uses BLM and Occupiers as tools, is your own wet dream. You are blinded by your negativity.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 7:04pm
That was a terrible typo you caught me having made CVille. I apologize. I'd like to say I just messed up while typing but perhaps underlying animus caused me to leave out the "ic." In any case, I'll try to do better going forward.
If you reread my earlier comment, you'll see very clearly that I didn't say that the Democratic Party used/uses Occupy and BLM as tools. I was explaining to MOAT what Greider was saying that the Democratic Party cannot do if it wants to win.
Okay, now what steps do you recommend that the Party needs to take to regain power?
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 7:30pm
There are typos, and there are Freudian slips. My recommendation is that people like you stop pretending to be Democrats.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 8:45pm
It would have been nice if you could have accepted my apology in the gracious spirit in which it was offered but okay you didn't. I'm not sure what you mean by "pretending," I am a registered Democrat. I suppose that makes me as much of a Democrat as you or Hillary Clinton or anybody else
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 10:18pm
Oh! I said your wife was a whore? I apologize. I meant she was next door. Bad on you! What is your problem?
by CVille Dem on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 10:46pm
Do you honestly believe referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party on a blog is akin to calling a human being a whore? Is it possible that you are harboring such bitter anger at me that you have lost all objectivity?
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 10:59pm
Yes, the most sincere acknowledgement of a right is to make laws that require us all to accept the condition as necessary to our polity and provide the means to coerce those who disagree to comply. If one doesn't live in a system where such coercion is completed as a matter of policy in the course of a generation, then you are saddled by this other process that sucks but is not without merit.
In other words, what legislation is being proposed and who is willing to fight for it? We don't have to agree about who did what in the past to start with that question. The resistance to such changes doesn't belong to the people wanting to make the change. In some place or another, you will meet this resistance. It won't be like the arguments you have with friends. There is a world of struggle going on for generations about fundamental things.
In regards to the call to become an anti-war party, I am not ambivalent. You point to voters who are not interested in becoming the next cannon fodder. Fair enough. But if you are serious about giving up what this system has given you, then you will accept how much less will be available if the nation stops becoming a principal provider for the consumers. Reagan said that stuff was our right. When the conversation gets back to questioning that proposition, wake me up.
by moat on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 7:58pm
Occupy Wall Street was about taking power and money back from the financial and CEO class and guaranteeing a decent standard of living for all. It's easy to envision the type of legislation that would help bring about such a pass - much higher top marginal tax rates, single-payer health care, tuition-free public universities, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion". We all are coerced to pay taxes now. Is it your view that a more progressive populist nation would be a more coercive one. If so, how? Is it because many would be coerced to pay higher taxes. That is true but they would no longer be coerced to pay health care out of pocket or for a higher education.
Yes, there is a class struggle going on. But over the past few decades, leaders in the Democratic Party have often sat on their hands during the struggle or worse helped the wealthy and powerful.
Perhaps you can explain this statement as I find it very opaque:
"But if you are serious about giving up what this system has given you, then you will accept how much less will be available if the nation stops becoming a principal provider for the consumers. Reagan said that stuff was our right. When the conversation gets back to questioning that proposition, wake me up."
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 10:32pm
You mentioned the need to take groups like Black Live Matter more seriously. I am guessing that group wants something that directly addresses the frequency that people of color are gunned down by police, not just a plan that aims to decrease income inequality in general. More like what the Obama administration was trying to do to make police departments more accountable.
All laws have the element coercion in them. Implementing laws that change how we live pits the power of the state against those who don't want those changes. Consider the consequences of integrating public schools. I am glad those laws were made. But the use of them was not free. Making enemies is sometimes necessary. It is never pretty.
You mentioned Lakoff the other day. He associates the authoritarian ethos with conservative politics and the nurturing ethos with progressive and Liberal politics. That is an interesting analysis but loses sight of the fact that a hammer is still a hammer regardless of who is swinging it.
I will try to address the rest of your comment later on. I have to get back to addressing my own personal struggle with income inequality.
by moat on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 9:26am
Establishment Democratic Party members Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren vote with Trump less than Bernie Sanders votes with Trump.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
When we hear yammering about Identity Politics, we know we are talking to someone who wants to keep white folks in charge. While a BernieBros and someone who calls Hillary the Red Queen may bond, black women, for example, know these white guys are full of crap.
http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 9:19pm
The problem with identity politics is that it far too frequently pits people with similar interests against each other. Indeed, that's precisely why 1 percenters and corporatists, like Third Way and the Clintons, favor it. It keeps you locked in battles with white working class Americans rather than joining with them to take power back from the powerful and wealth back from the affluent.
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 10:21pm
Identity politics is a dog-whistle that keeps white people in power. Identity politics as you describe it is simply black people telling you that you aren’t listening. This is something you simply cant understand. Bernie does not address black people’s issue the way black people want them addressed. Black. BernieBros have to toe the line to stay in good stead with Bernie’s hardcore supporters. Sanders did outreach to white voters. He has never appeared to do similar outreach in minority neighborhoods. Keith Ellison is too ineffectual or too clueless to point this out to Sanders. Why would black voters trust an old white guy who has shown zero interest in reaching out to and responding to their desires. The Sanders approach to the black community is to point out that he has all the solutions they need so black folks should just shut up.Sanders offers white identity politics as the solution to black problems. Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll keep my black identity politics.
We have had this discussion 11,214 times before.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 10:50pm
How do black people want issues addressed differently than Bernie addresses them? For example, how would they prefer to discuss health care, jobs, tuition, taxes?
by HSG on Tue, 10/31/2017 - 11:07pm
Bernie can start by showing the taxes that he promised to show in 2016.
Other than that he should start by addressing his sexual predation of minors in his articles.
Black people aren't interested in dealing with the sexual disorders of another white male politician.
Bernie won't do. There must be a better candidate.
We're dealing with a senile old man with sexual disorders as we speak. It would be unproductive for us as citizens to put in another old geezer with sexual disorders.
Basically there is nothing that Bernie can do for black people but go away. He's not a Democrat. He doesn't like black people and should stay authentic to himself and stay away from black people. And hey Hal, let's see him win without black people.
by How Dare U (not verified) on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 3:58am
How can you be this dense? Bernie talks at black people. He talks to white people. His absence from the black community says it all. The fact that BernieBros cannot grasp this simple concept shows that they are worthless to black voters.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 7:57am
So in your view Bernie's major African American problem is that he doesn't speak to blacks directly. That is a huge problem. We agree. Which American politician(s), do you think, speak to and listen to African Americans and strongly support policies that will improve their quality of life?
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 8:05am
Hal, spend your your time getting Bernie to actually speak to black voters. Name the most recent piece of legislation Sanders got passed. Name Sanders best contact in the black community.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 8:10am
I thought your problem with Bernie was that he didn't speak to black voters. Now it's that he hasn't gotten legislation passed. Is it both? Either? Neither? You asked me if I was dense. I think each of us appears dense to the other because we have different ways of approaching politics and elections.
First and foremost, when deciding for whom to vote, I look at politicians to see which ones support the same policies that I do. Then I look at which ones I find most trustworthy. Effectiveness is important for sure. On the other hand, although I'm Jewish, I don't care in the least whether any of them have gone to synagogues to campaign.
I look at Bernie and I see a guy who supports the same things I do. I also see a politician who is more trustworthy than most. Although he is far more progressive than most Democrats, he has been effective as I have detailed in various posts here in the past.
Here is a good link from Addicting Info that details his accomplishments through 2016.
You asked specifically what was the most recent legislation Bernie got passed. I don't know if it was the most recent but Bernie and John McCain worked together to pass the 2014 bipartisan Veterans Administration Reform Bill which President Obama signed into law.
Veterans are so pleased with Bernie's work for them that in 2015 he, not McCain was named Best Congressmember by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Now, I get that the above may not matter that much to you. it seems, from what you've written, that what matters most to you is whether and how Bernie has spoken to black people. That's fine. I agree that it's really important that politicians speak to and listen to their constituents, especially their less affluent and influential ones, in a respectful ongoing dialogue. I share your concerns and the concerns of other African-Americans that Bernie has interacted problematically with their community and individual African-Americans. Nevertheless, I still support him for the reasons set forth above.
Since Bernie does not meet your test, I am sincerely curious who, if anybody, does. Is there or are there politicians who support the policies that you believe will lead to the best results for the African-American community and who speak to that community in a way you deem appropriate?
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 8:49am
Typical BernieBros. You explain to me why you, a white guy supports Sanders despite his refusal to reach out to the black community. You expect the black community to fall into line. Your every post confirms what black voters reject Sanders and BernieBros. You already know what is best for the black community, so there is no need for dialog.
Name Bernie’s best contact in the black community
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 9:25am
Who do I respect more than Bernie? How many Democratic Party members are there in Congress?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 9:27am
I do not expect the black community to fall in line. I set forth what I perceive to be the differences between the way I look at candidates and the way you do. I do not insist my way is the only or best way. I also asked for your opinion as to who, better than Bernie, speaks to and listens to the black community and supports policies that are favorable to it.
Such questions are the opposite of expecting you or anybody else to fall in line. That said, I do believe that it is important to engage in a good faith discussion of what policies and candidates are best for our country. I have repeatedly asked you to set forth your rationale for supporting various policies and candidates. I am genuinely interested and the fact is I am persuadable.
My sense is that you are not. You told me that your problem with Bernie is he doesn't speak to and listen to blacks. I acknowledged that is a legitimate concern. Although obviously he does speak to and listen to some African-Americans. Nina Turner is one of his closest advisors. He worked closely with Killer Mike during last year's primaries and many African-Americans supported his candidacy strongly. Ta-Nehisi Coates viewed him as the lesser of two evils running for the Democratic nomination.
Although you accuse me of expecting you (and other blacks) to fall in line, doesn't it seem RMRD that you expect me to fall in line? When I present various arguments in favor of Sanders, you accuse me of insensitivity to your community as though the one problem that we agree Sanders has should cause everybody to reject him. In fact, don't you believe that because the majority of African Americans voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, I should concede that she would be better for that community and, presumably, Americans in general.
Despite my recognition that Sanders has some blind spots when it comes to race, I also set forth reasons that I believe he still merits support. You responded by asking me to identify his most recent legislative accomplishment. I noted the 2014 V.A. Bill which won widespread praise, helpled African-American veterans, and which I assume you also view as a significant achievement. Yet you gloss over it just as you have glossed over very real problems in Hillary Clinton's record when it comes to race relations.
Ultimately, wouldn't we be better off if we acknowledged that most politicians have strengths and weaknesses and worked together to identify the best ones in each race and who most deserve to be our leaders.
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 9:54am
Regarding race, Hillary got 88% of the black vote. She got 94% of the votes of black women. It seems a number of black voters glossed over Hillary’s flaws. That comment is an insult to black voters. It again points out that BernieBros can’t identify with black voters. Keep talking and pointing out to black voters why BernieBros are not an option.
Blacks will look at individual candidates and decide who satisfies their criteria. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Deval Patrick, and Kirsten Gillibrand are among the possibilities. Asking blacks to decide who should be the standard bearer right now is ridiculous. Who saw Barack Obama coming?
Black voters will tell you who they want when we make a decision. We can tell you now that it won’t be a BernieBros.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 10:15am
You did not vote for Hillary, yet you now demand that black voters cast ballots for a BernieBros. Hypocritical.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 10:48am
I didn't say black voters gloss over her flaws. I said YOU gloss over her flaws - as was painfully obvious in your refusal to admit Clinton deserves some of the blame for Obama's failed Libya strategy. You, by contrast, put all of the blame on Obama. Regardless, your habit of taking extreme umbrage at every comment with which you disagree is extremely counterproductive. By contrast, I never take your insults, e.g., "dense" personally.
In two recent polls, Bernie earned a 73% approval rating among African Americans. Does that mean they gloss over his flaws or does that mean they recognize that, though imperfect, he supports policies that are in our nation's best interest? It's not just blacks, voters of color like Bernie. In an April 2017 survey, 68% of Latinos and 62% of Asian-Americans said they have a favorable opinion of him. By contrast, only 51% of non-whites said they like Hillary Clinton in a July 2017 Selzer/WSJ poll.
Right now, it seems that people of color like Bernie far more than they like Hillary Clinton. Does the fact that you still prefer Hillary mean that you are insulting them or does it just mean that you look at the candidates differently than many other non-whites do?
Regarding the various candidates you identify as better than Bernie, in what policy areas do you personally (not black voters) believe they are superior to Bernie Sanders?
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 11:59am
Hillary got 88% of the black vote. That is a better measure than a poll.
You keep asking about policy. What Bernie policy got approved? I know he voted for the 1994 crime bill.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:19pm
Didn't you read my previous response in which I identified Bernie's most recent legislative accomplishment as the Sanders-McCain 2014 Veterans Administration Reform Act which was so popular among the Veterans of Foreign Wars that they named Sanders 2015 Congressmember of the year? Bernie also played a pivotal role during the 2009 Obamacare debate when he and Representative Janes Clyburn pushed hard and successfully for up to $11 billion in funding for community health centers which have proven to be a crucial source of health care for poor and working-class Americans.
In June of this year, Sanders and Clyburn teamed up again in an effort to protect those centers. From CBS News: "Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina announced new legislation to help expand and make permanent federal funding of community health centers across the country as the Senate anticipates a vote on the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) that would impact the centers' financing."
How do you feel about these accomplishments?
Regarding the fact that Hillary got 88% of the black vote in the 2016 general election, what percentage do you think Sanders would have gotten?
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:36pm
Actually, I fell asleep.
Edit to add:
Bernie is not a factor
Regarding black votes, Bernie got 23% of the black vote
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/
BTW I’d vote for Clyburn over Bernie anytime
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:45pm
So how do you feel about the fact that Bernie worked successfully with Clyburn in 2009 to fund community centers and is working with him now to protect them? How do you feel about the fact that Bernie was chosen in 2015 as the VFW Congressmember of the Year? Do you believe these accomplishments reflect positively on him? Did they benefit the African-American community?
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:48pm
I don’t take Sanders seriously.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:58pm
Maxine Waters
Kamala Hartis
Corey Booker
by How Dare U (not verified) on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 11:55am
Kamala Harris
Ted Leiu
Adam Schiff
Pick Any Dem from California and we will all be better off than with Bernie.
by How Dare U (not verified) on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 11:58am
Sanders: “ordinary Americans” are “not staying up every day worrying about Russia’s interference in our election.” Instead, he said, “They’re wondering how they’re going to send their kids to college” or “how they’re going to be able to pay the rent” or “whether they can afford health care.”
Thanks, Bern, for splainin' yet again why I'm not ordinary. From the guy who gave us the "rigged election" meme doesn't seem so worried now that Mueller is showing the election was, uh, rigged, just in a way that didn't involve him.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 8:51am
Hal simply cannot understand how his comments come across in the black community
http://www.theroot.com/why-some-black-and-brown-people-cant-trust-bernie-sande-1820017450
Sanders, like Trump is too old to change.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 11:14am
I addressed Bernie's problematic comment last night on Facebook in response to a critical comment that tagged me. To the extent that you believe my response is insufficient or insensitive, please let me know and I will try to do better:
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:07pm
You are impressed by Sanders’ word which you describe as policies. He has gotten nothing done in decades in the Congress. His words do not impress me.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:23pm
But the article that triggered this long thread has just as poor phrasing - people who voted for Bernie are "the base", those who voted for HIllary are "the establishment". Over and over and over. Somehow the minority vote (not ethnic minorities) is "the base", the majority is a bunch of dinosaurs (excluding the head progressive dinosaur), and it's a trainwreck from there.
You believe economic issues trump ethnic, cultural, regional, etc. Other people greatly differ. The *MAJORITY* differ. Those heartland whites keep voting war-on-Christianity and anti-immigration and fear-of-minorities issues to the great detriment of their pocketbook, their employment chances, their healthcare, their retirement, etc.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:30pm
The establishment are wealthy donors, relatively high-level DNC staffers, elected officials, and top management at powerful Democratic-leaning institutions. Of course, Hillary got votes from the Democratic base. Whoever said she didn't? The base split. The establishment plumped almost to a man and woman for Hillary. Not sure what your point is on this.
Regarding the question of economic issues versus ethnic, cultural, regional, etc., I have repeatedly argued that both are important and the party must champion both economic and social justice to win. I believe this is both a moral and political imperative. Indeed, one of the reasons that the Democrats must support a much more equitable distribution of wealth is because when people aren't feeling economic stress they are much less likely to fall prey to demagogues who scapegoat "the other."
How about you? Do you believe that economic issues are important? Do you believe that Democrats need to embrace overtly egalitarian policies to win? Do you believe that it is immoral for the Democratic Party to propose cut backs to social security increases and to bail out big banks instead of underwater homeowners? If not, why not? What philosophy informs this view?
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:45pm
"Of course, Hillary got votes from the Democratic base. Whoever said she didn't? The base split. The establishment plumped almost to a man and woman for Hillary. Not sure what your point is on this."
Uh, Hal, the article we're discussing implies she didn't, that it's a unified disappointed base against the establishment. Didn't I point this out already?
Oh yes, I guess we "establishment" types don't have any "brave convictions" either. And how many of these "rank-and-file agitators" are actually not even part of the rank-and-file, but outside the party to start with?
The article deserves a solid FUCK YOU for arrogance and presumptiousness. #FAIL, try again
PS - the executive summary sucked too. As just 1 example, it ignores say the heavy campaigning in minority areas like Cleveland, Miamia, Houston while pretending the "establishment" simply ignored its base. If they want to actually acknowledge the GOP headway in disenfranchising voters and pulling shit like the full-on Russian collusion that's seriously embedded, we have a lot to fight. If they want to just ignore the woodworms that have been eating away at the beams ever since Fox News sprouted its ugly wings, well, they're just going to be more bored hippies yearning for some Goa meditation camp while the real world passes them by and the assholes entrench themselves even more.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 1:24pm
Fair enough PP. The Democratic base obviously includes many Hillary voters. To the extent that the authors of the autopsy said differently, as Greider strongly indicates, they are wrong. That said, I agree that a showdown between "the establishment" and the progressive populists in the parties is needed as I set out in laborious detail here.
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 1:43pm
Sorry, tl;dr. Did you ever address how trade has helped 2-3 billion people out of abject poverty, and how this knowledge squares with rabid anti-trade sentiment and what Plan B is for replacing this revenue if we kill the golden goose?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 1:58pm
Yes we disagree vehemently on trade. I am not going to rehash our arguments except to say that as confident as you are that "free trade" deals are on balance a good thing, I am equally confident that the opposite is true. Your evidence does not sway me. Indeed I've long since stopped even looking at whatever you posit on this topic because I don't engage in arguments with people who are not open to changing their minds. Likewise, mine doesn't reach you. So, let's move on.
Here's a question I posted earlier in this thread, in response to your erroneous contention that I only care about economic issues.
How about you? Do you believe that economic issues are important? Do you believe that Democrats need to embrace overtly egalitarian policies to win? Do you believe that it is immoral for the Democratic Party to propose cutbacks to social security increases and to bail out big banks instead of underwater homeowners? If not, why not? What philosophy informs this view?
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 2:40pm
You never ever even addressed my question, Hal - what about those billions in poverty? Just miraculously cured itself? You might as well be a faith heaaler believing in the power of snakes - what's the mechanism behind how these people get money? Compare Africa where this charity and states subsidies bit never ever ever delivered. You're so far out of your league but you keep on plugging on.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 2:49pm
Everyone who often speaks in public will eventually flub an answer or statement. They'll almost always find some way to explain or apologize. But It's not about explanations or apologies being insufficient. It's about a history that gives a foundation of trust to that explanation or apology.
When Hillary said "super predator" it was in the context of a truly staggering rise in violent crime. But more than that it was in the context of a women who had already been active in black politics for two decades. Before she had even graduated from law school she want undercover to investigate discrimination in schools in Alabama. That political work for black people continued year after year. So when she slipped up on a word or two in some public statement people were quick to accept her apology. She had already earned their trust.
When Sanders, or any other public figure, who hasn't been around for the last few decades slips up on a public statement people start asking 1) who is this guy 2) what has he been doing the last few decades 3) is there any one in our community who knows him and can speak up for him. If the answers to those questions are No one knows him and he hasn't really done anything for our community for the last few decades, than people are going to be slow to accept his apology or explanation.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 2:07pm
Bernie is wrong. It turns out that citizens are more worried about the situation of the United States than they are about money.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stress-in-america-future-of-country_us_59f89e0ee4b0d1cf6e90a9cd?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 12:27pm
The NYTimes Magazine just published a piece on topic by Robert Draper (note it already has 455 comments, so you guys got a way to go with this thread to compete )
Can Democrats Fix a Party That Leaders Say Isn’t Broken?
By ROBERT DRAPER @ NYTimes.com, Nov. 1
Barack Obama left office as one of the most popular presidents in American history. He also left behind a party struggling to find an identity — and to reconnect with voters in time for the 2018 elections.
455 Comments
Confession: I haven't read it yet, just scanned it.
by artappraiser on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 9:40pm
Thanks AA. This is a great article. I am about to post it In the News.
by HSG on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 9:42pm
PericleasP, your first comment indicates anger just because the link you don't agree with in every aspect was posted. I don't understand at all that approach to interacting here or that reaction. Of course we all are here voluntarily andany of us can all choose to go at any time, like so many fine contributors have done the last couple of years, if and when we choose to do so if we don't like what is going on or just get bored with it all. There is nobody here that is such a pain that I would hope they make that choice.
So, with that off my chest I will add a few comments on the "Executive Summary" provided at the link I posted.
Executive Summary
Sample of Findings
• Aggregated data and analysis show that policies, operations and campaign priorities of the national Democratic Party undermined support and turnout from its base in the 2016 general election. Since then, the Democratic leadership has done little to indicate that it is heeding key lessons from the 2016 disaster.
This ‘seems’ correct. I have seen a rebuttal that goes something like; Who the hell do you think turned out for Hillary if not the base? To that I would respond : Hell yes if you describe the base as I would and that is that it is made up of lifetime Democrats who will vote Democratic, if they are inspired enough to vote, just like my family will always and forever go to a Catholic church when they are somehow motivated to actually go to any religious service. Sanders supporters were, for the most part I believe, more energized to vote for him than the “Democratic base” as a whole was energized to vote for Hillary.
• The Democratic National Committee and the party’s congressional leadership remain bent on prioritizing the chase for elusive Republican voters over the Democratic base: especially people of color, young people and working-class voters overall.
My previous comment mostly fits here but the last sentence directly above points out three significant sub-sections of the base and makes an important point. People of color and working-class people have been taken for granted for a long enough time by the DP that they are starting to notice and a lot of them don't like it. Their inclusion in a solid voting block is declining just like the decline in union membership which the DP barely even gives lip service to anymore. Those groups are starting to ask, in affect; What have you done for me lately?
• After suffering from a falloff of turnout among people of color in the 2016 general election, the party appears to be losing ground with its most reliable voting bloc, African-American women. “The Democratic Party has experienced an 11 percent drop in support from black women according to one survey, while the percentage of black women who said neither party represents them went from 13 percent in 2016 to 21 percent in 2017.”
Surveys are just about all I would have to go on. I try to look at surveys intelligently which I think means looking at them critically. There is a comment in this thread that gives statistical evidence that Sanders was supported by a high percentage of POC during the primaries. That fact is then rebutted by a showing of a higher percentage of POC votes going to Clinton in the national than during the primaries as proof that the first survey was faulty. That, to me, is
stupida completely wrong analysis of the surveys or else just mindless bickering rather than intellectually honest argument. As with every other subgroup of Democratic voters, POC whose first choice was Sanders still voted by and large for Clinton in the national as a better choice than Trump, thus raising her percentage over what she got in the primaries.• One of the large groups with a voter-turnout issue is young people, “who encounter a toxic combination of a depressed economic reality, GOP efforts at voter suppression, and anemic messaging on the part of Democrats.”
I think that is correct but young voters have always been low turnout. That is no reason to accept that state of affairs as the way it will always be.
• “Emerging sectors of the electorate are compelling the Democratic Party to come to terms with adamant grassroots rejection of economic injustice, institutionalized racism, gender inequality, environmental destruction and corporate domination. Siding with the people who constitute the base isn’t truly possible when party leaders seem to be afraid of them.”
I agree with the first sentence. I would need clarification of the final sentence before taking a position.
• Aggregated data and analysis show that policies, operations and campaign priorities of the national Democratic Party undermined support and turnout from its base in the 2016 general election. Since then, the Democratic leadership has done little to indicate that it is heeding key lessons from the 2016 disaster.
I believe that the authors are correct in the first statement but I know that analysis can always be debated and is often simply rejected if/because it doesn’t fit a person's hard opinion. I agree that there are lessons to be learned and I have not seen that that is happening.
• The DNC has refused to renounce, or commit to end, its undemocratic practices during the 2016 primary campaign that caused so much discord and distrust from many party activists and voters among core constituencies.
I totally agree but welcome evidence to the contrary.
• Working to defeat restrictions on voting rights is of enormous importance. Yet the Democratic National Committee failed to make such work a DNC staffing priority.
Open to comment. {Not difrectly on topic but still about a current staffing procedure that I find interesting}
• The Democratic Party’s claims of fighting for “working families” have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people. “Democrats will not win if they continue to bring a wonk knife to a populist gunfight. Nor can Democratic leaders and operatives be seen as real allies of the working class if they’re afraid to alienate big funders or to harm future job or consulting prospects.”
I am interested to see if this is disputed here. Both sides have their revolving door.
• “Since Obama’s victory in 2008, the Democratic Party has lost control of both houses of Congress and more than 1,000 state legislative seats. The GOP now controls the governorship as well as the entire legislature in 26 states, while Democrats exercise such control in only six states…. Despite this Democratic decline, bold proposals with the national party’s imprint are scarce.”
Again; Any disagreement? Beuler? Beuler?
• “After a decade and a half of nonstop warfare, research data from voting patterns suggest that the Clinton campaign’s hawkish stance was a political detriment in working-class communities hard-hit by American casualties from deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I think my feelings on this subject are well known here at Dag.
• Aggregated data and analysis show that policies, operations and campaign priorities of the national Democratic Party undermined support and turnout from its base in the 2016 general election. Since then, the Democratic leadership has done little to indicate that it is heeding key lessons from the 2016 disaster.
I don't have personal knowledge of the data but I would bet that the 34 page complete study [which I {also?} havn't read] expands on the statement. I do not see, as the statement says, where the Democratic leadership is heeding any key lessons but it seems to me that a knee-jerk rejection of this study in its entirety is equivalent to say that they actually have no lessons to learn anyway.
• “Emerging sectors of the electorate are compelling the Democratic Party to come to terms with adamant grassroots rejection of economic injustice, institutionalized racism, gender inequality, environmental destruction and corporate domination. Siding with the people who constitute the base isn’t truly possible when party leaders seem to be afraid of them.”
• The DNC has refused to renounce, or commit to end, its undemocratic practices during the 2016 primary campaign that caused so much discord and distrust from many party activists and voters among core constituencies.
• Working to defeat restrictions on voting rights is of enormous importance. Yet the Democratic National Committee failed to make such work a DNC staffing priority.
Populism and Party Decline
• The Democratic Party’s claims of fighting for “working families” have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people. “Democrats will not win if they continue to bring a wonk knife to a populist gunfight. Nor can Democratic leaders and operatives be seen as real allies of the working class if they’re afraid to alienate big funders or to harm future job or consulting prospects.”
• “Since Obama’s victory in 2008, the Democratic Party has lost control of both houses of Congress and more than 1,000 state legislative seats. The GOP now controls the governorship as well as the entire legislature in 26 states, while Democrats exercise such control in only six states…. Despite this Democratic decline, bold proposals with the national party’s imprint are scarce.”
• “After a decade and a half of nonstop warfare, research data from voting patterns suggest that the Clinton campaign’s hawkish stance was a political detriment in working-class communities hard-hit by American casualties from deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I think this should apply to a very much broader segment of the U.S. population than the statement suggests.
• “Operating from a place of defensiveness and denial will not turn the party around. Neither will status quo methodology.”
If you can’t beat Trump you must be doing something very wrong. Shall we as D party supporters, or at least ones who want to be, choose insanity by choosing more of the same? I hope not.
• The Democratic National Committee must make up for lost time by accelerating its very recent gear-up of staffing to fight against the multi-front assaults on voting rights that include voter ID laws, purges of voter rolls and intimidation tactics.
Not to mention weaknesses that allow hacking of computerized voting.
• The Democratic National Committee should commit itself to scrupulously adhering to its Charter, which requires the DNC to be evenhanded in the presidential nominating process.• Because “the superdelegate system, by its very nature, undermines the vital precept of one person, one vote,” the voting power of all superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention must end.
The violation of these principles pissed off every Democrat who wasn’t trying to defend Clinton on every point. [Possibly an overstatement but I Know I was certainly pissed]
• “Social movements cannot be understood as tools to get Democrats elected. The ebb and flow of social movements offer a rising tide in their own right that along the way can lift Democratic Party candidates — if the party is able to embrace the broad popular sentiment that the movements embody.”
No comment at this time.
• “This is about more than just increasing voter turnout. It is about energizing as well as expanding the base of the party. To do this we must aggressively pursue two tracks: fighting right-wing efforts to rig the political system, and giving people who can vote a truly compelling reason to do so.”
Strongly agree.
• “The enduring point of community outreach is to build an ongoing relationship that aims for the party to become part of the fabric of everyday life. It means acknowledging the validity and power of people-driven movements as well as recognizing and supporting authentic progressive community leaders. It means focusing on how the party can best serve communities, not the other way around. Most of all, it means persisting with such engagement on an ongoing basis, not just at election time.”
Strongly agree.
• The party should avidly promote inspiring programs such as single-payer Medicare for all, free public college tuition, economic security, infrastructure and green jobs initiatives, and tackling the climate crisis.
Very strongly agree.
• While the Democratic Party fights for an agenda to benefit all Americans, the party must develop new policies and strategies for more substantial engagement with people of color — directly addressing realities of their lives that include disproportionately high rates of poverty and ongoing vulnerability to a racist criminal justice system.
Obviously
• With its policies and programs, not just its public statements, the Democratic Party must emphasize that “in the real world, the well-being of women is indivisible from their economic circumstances and security.” To truly advance gender equality, the party needs to fight for the economic rights of all women.
Yes, though I wouldn’t argue with anyone who says they have already been doing this.
• The Democratic Party should end its neglect of rural voters, a process that must include aligning the party with the interests of farming families and others who live in the countryside rather than with Big Agriculture and monopolies.
Absolutely.
• “While the short-term prospects for meaningful federal action on climate are exceedingly bleak, state-level initiatives are important and attainable. Meanwhile, it’s crucial that the Democratic Party stop confining its climate agenda to inadequate steps that are palatable to Big Oil and mega-players on Wall Street.”
Only if the survival of our children is an issue.
• “What must now take place includes honest self-reflection and confronting a hard truth: that many view the party as often in service to a rapacious oligarchy and increasingly out of touch with people in its own base.” The Democratic Party should disentangle itself — ideologically and financially — from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of public needs.
This statement could have been in a speech by Sanders, but as a stand alone idea, who disagrees?
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 11/01/2017 - 10:29pm
Another too ling;had already read - who do you think will comment in such a long form? But here goes
1) Russians not mentioned anywhere. Effect of GOP illegal money backing their RICO-like operation not mentioned anywhere. Consolidation of news channels and their corporitizatuin not mentioned anywhere. Just how uninspiring Dem message is headlines - but if Dem messages don't get through, why even bother? What's our option?
2) Democrats are retarded on trade and money. I keep pointing out global trade and new commerce and efficiencies have lifted 2-3 billion out of poverty as the Russian and Chinese walls have come down, yet we have a whole wing dedicated to "trade is bad, stop it". How do we stop being retarded? Are their special needs coaches for a country? Yes, paying share of taxes or other remedies are essential to balance corporate input, and corporations have too much say in Congress - but not a reason to drift back 50-60 years. Who would-ve predicted Google ads would fund so much of the economy (and their pockets) back in 1995, height of ogre Bill Clinton? Life is moving faster - find a new wealth distribution/fairness scheme for adults and implement it.
We have reached new heights in productivity and product/service efficiency and distribution - energy, manufacturing, agriculture, consumer goods... - but the distribution of profits and pay-for- work is hugely distorted. So our answer is to cripple productivity? Or attack the issue of fair pay for work in a way that cam scale and reinforce levels of production? Hint: 1-size-fits-all may not work in a microtargeting, diversified world, where wealth and production aggregates in clusters.
3) war - for God's sakes, we have global war at an all-time low, and yet our policy is to self-flagellate over wars the GOP suckered us into. Yemen and Iraq-Syria are our only hotspots now, and the 2nd is getting cooler despite - not because of - Russia's meddling. World deaths from war are trifling compared to any period in history. If we can't acknowledge this miracle, how can we even discuss proper approaches to global defense and security balanced with human rights? Instead, we get the same dead arguments from the left tha...
4) we keep debating "identity politics" while concerns over kneeling at football games or transgender bathrooms takes priority over whether Leroy has a a 30% chance of being shot or having his back broken at any encounter with police or security. And then we wonder why blacks are losing interest in politics as a (non-)solution?
Hillary tried addressing a number of these issues, but was attacked aggressively from the libtard side who would do anything but put serious plans and numbers on the table. ¿DNC? yes, party apparatchiks like any party - who else would lead such a boring existence? But when you attack them viciously for fruvolous partisan reasins for a year, you just encourage the lamest, least exciting to remain. I'm still interested in the 50-state strategy, but the GOP uses illegal slushfunds and laundered money to fund theirs - I'm not sure how we compete legally since only the wonkiest stay engaged in the outback. Real ideas, anyone?
5) reality check - our biggest effort the last 10 years has been universal health care, and we've gotten bludgeoned for it by the right *AND* the left. It's a successful disaster, still clinging on by its nails. Hillary fought as hard for this as anyone, yet she got bludgeoned yet again - the health care that hadn't even kicked in wasn't good enough, we need "Single Payer(TM)" even though people don't even know what it is and here in Europe people think they have it but they don't actually, though IT DOESN'T MATTER - it's goid enough compared to the traditional US clusterfuck.
Enough. Article light on serious solutions, large on failed traditional outmoded thinking. Hardly a plan forward.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 11/02/2017 - 1:52am
Points #2 and #3 were exceptionally stated. And agree 100% on your summary paragraph.
by artappraiser on Thu, 11/02/2017 - 1:21pm
Regarding your endorsement of point 3: Pinker wrote a successful book [it sold a lot] which convinced many people of what they would really, really like to believe [or maybe just eased their conscience] and also gave grist to apologists for a militaristic foreign policy that is responsible for a great number of those deaths. Who wouldn’t want to be convinced that the world is safer than it ever has been and getting more so all the time and the trend is not a statistical blip but is almost certain to continue from now on? Try selling that idea in the Middle East. His conclusions though have been challenged by quite a few academics on several grounds.
The challenges to his statistical arguments are well beyond my ability to endorse based on my own understanding except, as I see it, in a common sense way. One rebuttal comes from a couple writeups at Bloomberg which is a source you just used on another subject to support a position you agree with so I assume you wouldn’t dismiss the conclusions out of hand.
His statistics are hardly the only way to challenge Pinker.There is a book on my kindle which I believe completely refutes Piker’s case. Unfortunately, I cannot get my kindle to log on with wifi, I am in Mexico at the moment, and like my phone which has had the effect of causing me to not know any of the phone numbers which I call regularly, when I did pick up my device numerous times during my read I did not see the title and authors name as I would with a hard copy and so I cannot recall them right now. Regardless, anyone with the curiosity or an incentive to research Pinker could easily find many reasons to at the very least doubt his thesis.
Another thing a person might do is read the news. Even if war caused death is at a historical low based on percentage of the world’s total population since World War Two, a very short historical period, millions have died during those years and continue to die and the wars causing those death have a very real chance of exploding into cataclysmic confrontations in the near future. But hey, the stock market is going up and so it always will. Don't worry, be happy.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 11/02/2017 - 3:28pm
No, war is no longer killing in the millions, and your hoped-for expansion of Ukraine hasn't happened. So Syria-Iraq is finally winding down with ISIS getting shut down, and Yemen remains a problem. Don't need Pinker or whoever to make up more shit or use percentages of something as a way to hide real progress.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 11/02/2017 - 7:17pm
PP: “No, war is no longer killing in the millions, and your hoped-for expansion of Ukraine hasn't happened. So Syria-Iraq is finally winding down with ISIS getting shut down, and Yemen remains a problem. Don't need Pinker or whoever to make up more shit or use percentages of something as a way to hide real progress..”
Here in Mexico I just returned from a long walk on the beach under a beautiful full moon after watching celebrations of their traditional holiday called Day of the Dead. No relevance here, just thought I'd mention it.
PP, millions died in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos and other surrounding countries. More than a million have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria. Uncounted more in Africa. Millions have been displaced. Millions are homeless and sick and hungry and desperate. There is plenty more to add to the tragic list. Even if the war situation beginning with the second half of the twentieth century has been relatively better than some times before it has certainly not been good.
. You once again have demonstrated that rather than considering information that counters an opinion which you have decreed to be the gospel, you most often just spew some knee-jerk dismissal along with a few unwarranted insults. I added emphasis above to your statement because Pinker is the very person whom YOU introduced to dagblog as an authority you think proved that the world is reverting to the Garden of Eden.
And what’s this crap assertion that I want Ukraine to “expand”? What does that even mean and how is it relevant to this discussion? Why, If you insist on making references to our different positions from the past don’t you assert something you claim that I have actually said, some position I have actually taken, so that I have a fair chance of defending my position against your attempt at slanderous innuendo? Or else maybe just chill a little. Meanwhile, as we all repelled by the actions of those we call the alt-right or neo-Nazis or fascists in the U.S., have you noticed the videos of recent marches in Kiev by thousands of participants carrying tiki torches and Nazi flags and sporting Nazi insignias? Members of the same organizations which were mostly responsible for turning anti-government demonstrators there into a violent riotous mob which overturned a corrupt but legitimately elected government which had already agreed to early elections that would almost certainly have replaced that government without the killing which continues today.
I stand by my positions taken regarding the Ukraine coup. Here is a position you took that I am sure at least some others here remember. During the long discussions about our own Civil War you defended the right of the South to secede from the Union even though the reason they did so was to protect their right to own other human beings as slaves. Do you stand by that still?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 11/02/2017 - 10:32pm
Thanks LULU. There are indeed a number of problems with the Pinker/Panglossian worldview. Here are a few:
1) Just because we've seen since WWII a major decrease in wars, disease, and starvation doesn't mean that these trends will continue.
2) The factors behind these salutary trends may have little or nothing to do with the spread of capitalism/market-based economies that have roughly occurred over the same period of time.
3) The recent embrace by the West of a more rapacious/sharper-edged form of capitalism may reverse the positive trends.
4) The rise of security states like the U.S., the EU, China, and Southeast Asian countries like Singapore means that governments and their police apparatuses oversee our daily activities. This may indeed have led to a significant reduction in crime but we are paying a steep price in terms of individual freedom which leads to 5.
5) Since the early-90s, the U.S. has seen violent crime rates decline but incarceration rates have skyrocketed. Many of us would prefer alternative ways to make our country safer from violent predators like much tighter gun distribution laws and a reduction in the wealth and income disparities which have skyrocketed and poverty rates which are trending up in the United States.
6) Regardless of whether a number of positive trends are occurring concurrently, we in the Anthropocene Age are living through and causing the 6th great extinction mostly because we are conducting a massive experiment on the planet's climate and ecosystems. This fact alone makes it hard to take too seriously the more optimistic futurists.
by HSG on Thu, 11/02/2017 - 9:17pm