dagblog - Comments for "Josh Marshall on the Democrats' Real Problem"

Erica, there's truth to this,

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:56:00 +0000

In reply to Josh is wrong about this. The

Erica, there's truth to this, but I don't see that it invalidates Josh's argument. The Democrats' "Shaker" strategy, as you put it, is an attempt to compensate for a comparatively small and enthusiastic base. I absolutely agree with you that this strategy compounds the problem by shrinking and discouraging the base even more. But the Shaker strategy did not create the problem. It was a reaction to the collapse the traditional Democratic base in the 1980s and 1990s, which stemmed from a perception that progressive polices were not improving the lives of ordinary Americans. It will take more than a little oratorical flourish to change that perception.

Josh is wrong about this. The

erica20 — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:03:05 +0000

In reply to Josh Marshall on the Democrats' Real Problem

Josh is wrong about this. The problem is not a lack of policy ideas--it's a lack of understanding that cultivating the Democratic vote is not like cultivating the Republican vote. Democratic leaders take a Shaker-style approach to vote cultivation, always hoping that the number of independent or swing converts will outweigh the impact of activities that prevent new, enthusiastic Democrats from being born. It's an approach which is lowering the number of people willing to show up and vote Democrat in such numbers that Republicans can easily win contests just based on Democratic non-enthusiasm.

The problem, in short, is the cost of vote-farming. Republicans market heavily to single-issue voters, because in a nation that still adheres to the quaint tradition of one-person-one-vote, single-issue voters are the cheapest voters a plutocrat can buy, and they'll show up consistently to vote against their own interests on most issues as long as they believe that some Republican, somewhere, is working on their pet issue. Republicans have cornered this market, and Democrats would be best to leave them to it, because the reality is that there aren't as many dumb voters out there as Democrats would like to believe.

There are a ton of potential Democratic voters who would enjoy having someone represent their interests in Washington and in other places too. But Democratic voters are just different than Republican voters. They're a lot harder to farm, they tend to vote based on more than one issue, they tend to look at results, they tend to be turned off by efforts to farm them at election time and then not represent them when the moment comes. Most of all, they're turned off by the double standard of pandering to wealthy donors for campaign money and to voters in the few weeks before the elections. People aren't dumb--they know whose interests will be represented once the voting booths are folded up.

This is why I use the Shaker comparison--by using the Republican vote-farming tactics, and then refusing to consistently, ethically, and with a little oratorical flourish, REPRESENT the interests of ordinary people, Democrats fail to attract the people who might actually get them elected. It's a highly-questionable short-term strategy and a long-term disaster.

It's not a lack of policy ideas. It's a refusal to use them. We all know what happened to the Shakers.

200 million - blogging on not

Anonymous PP — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:46:02 +0000

In reply to But how would th world's

200 million - blogging on not-that-smartphone

But how would th world's

Anonymous PP — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:44:27 +0000

In reply to Josh Marshall on the Democrats' Real Problem

But how would th world's richest economy justify continuing the crap assembly line/sweatshop/electronic assembly jobs that any monkey can do? Besides not moving up the value-add chain fast enough, we let the bastards at the top scam the system by not only stealing the global offshore dividends, but also lowering even their tax payments. Meanwhile, the lower costs from offshoring don't get to normal people - they're then scammed by the system. So the real question isn't about the economy- its about how to stop rich fuckers from ripping everyone else off. It's about having an AG with balls of steel and a thoroughly mean attitude, something Spitzer started to do before neutered, similar to the other anti a bank bail foreclosure settlement guy from New York that Obama and Holder castrated. But as an email I got this morning noted, Americans as a whole are acting and voting extremely stupidly, and it's hard to counter criminals with say 200 greedy selfish not-very-smart children making their job easy. Darwin isn%t proscriptive - he just describes what happens under these circumstances.

We could also start

trkingmomoe — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:15:59 +0000

In reply to I read a study recently by U

We could also start rebuilding the infrastructure and offer big rebates for solar and wind energy to home owners and business.

I read a study recently by U

Michael Maiello — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:49:38 +0000

In reply to Oddly, Bush Jr did just this

I read a study recently by U Chicago that said that in areas where people had adjustable rate mortgages the economy rebounded more quickly after the crisis and they have lower thn average unemployment and higher wages. The reason was that mortgages adjusted downward when the Fed cut rates. The average cut was $150 month. So, these people got an extra $1,800 in their pockets the first year after their mortgage rate reset. The authors of the study noted that most of the savings went to paying down credit card debt. Had it not gone to credit cards, it would have had a better impact on the economy. In their conclusion they note that the next time policy makers want to stimulate the economy they should consider targeting consumer debt directly.

Bush's post 9/11 tax rebate was a pittance. The government should just step in and, one time only, pay off people's consumer debts. It would be a great and necessary reset.

War Against The Working Class

Resistance — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:28:24 +0000

In reply to Josh Marshall on the Democrats' Real Problem

War Against The Working Class

Attrition

the action or process of gradually reducing the strength or effectiveness of someone or something through sustained attack or pressure.

synonyms:

wearing down, wearing away, weakening, debilitation, enfeebling, sapping, attenuation; gradual loss

II. Rising Inequality: The

Resistance — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:19:37 +0000

In reply to Josh Marshall on the Democrats' Real Problem

II. Rising Inequality: The War on Working People

The term globalization is a euphemism for the economic policies of neoliberalism and free trade that drive the megatrends ravaging the world today. Globalization in this essay refers specifically to the domination of the world economy by transnational capitalism through state-sponsored policies that subordinate the broad interests of communities and nations to the interests of the owners of capital.

The primary economic drivers of globalization are:

the capture of emerging CONSUMER and CAPITAL MARKETS to insure the continued accumulation of capital through sales revenue and interest income
access to cheap RAW MATERIALS and LABOR to increase the rate of capital accumulation on the production of goods and services

It is capitalism's relentless quest for cheap labor that impacts working people directly and drives the megatrend of rising inequality on both national and global levels. The creation of wealth by human labor, whether the worker is employed in agriculture, manufacturing, or service, is the sustaining activity of all societies and the division of that wealth between the workers and the owners of capital is the essence of class struggle.

The Impact of NAFTA on North

Resistance — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:12:22 +0000

In reply to Josh Marshall on the Democrats' Real Problem

The Impact of NAFTA on North American Labor

While offshoring jobs is a zero-sum game for workers, it is a winning strategy for transnational capitalism. The discounted wages that it pays threatened workers in sending countries and the minimal wages that it pays in the receiving countries and free trade zones all contribute to the accumulation of capital. The power of capital vis-à-vis labor increases as offshoring expands.

Free trade labor is a keystone of neoliberal globalization. As long as transnational capitalism is able to run the zero-sum game of offshoring labor, the trends of increasing inequality and growth of absolute poverty will continue.

Because the zero-sum nature of offshoring diminishes the political power of labor, the battle against free trade labor cannot be won solely on the labor front. As we have pointed out in Combating Globalization, the war on working people as reflected in the trends of rising inequality and growing absolute poverty is inseparably linked to the global megatrends of climate change and increasing militarization.

A sustainable future depends on developing a viable alternative to neoliberal globalization. The battle against free trade labor must be conducted as an integral part of a concerted global effort to realize that alternative. It is a tough, but not impossible, agenda.

Author's note: This article is a follow-up to Combating Globalization: Confronting the Impact of Neoliberal Free Trade Policies on Labor and the Environment.

Yeah, how do we address this

Richard Day — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:57:24 +0000

In reply to Josh Marshall on the Democrats' Real Problem

Yeah, how do we address this issue?

I love our liberal economists, I really do.

Bernie is all we have really.

Make rich folks deposit more money into SS?

Make oil companies pay the actual costs involved in their capitalistic enterprizes?

Make corporations pay when they 'outsource' to other countries?

Enact legislation taxing every sale of every share of stock? That could bring our coffers trillions over time.

Enact a 70% income tax rate for those making over a million a year?

Raise property taxes on those in gated communities; a state issue for sure.

I am attempting to listen.

But there are so few voices.