dagblog - Comments for "Sen. Warren Receives a Standing Ovation at California's 2015 Democratic Convention"

This look back at what was

trkingmomoe — Fri, 22 May 2015 05:54:05 +0000

In reply to Of course. But she's not just

This look back at what was working has it's political merits. Populism was the norm for the Democratic party in my youth. Today it still matters.

The classic definition of an “economic populist” is a person who feels that wealth is unfairly distributed in this country. Unsurprisingly, most Republicans don’t feel that way. According to surveys collected by PollingReport.com, more than a third of them agree that our economy’s distribution of wealth is unfair. That includes an overwhelming 80 percent of Democrats and 62 percent – nearly two-thirds – of “independents.”

That means that a Democratic candidate who pushes populism has a chance of attracting two-thirds of independents and more than one-third of the opposition party’s voters.

This enthusiasm translates into a desire for more government action, and the poll numbers become stronger as the questions get more specific. Of those polled by Pew, 53 percent thought that the government should be doing a lot to reduce poverty, for example, and 82 percent thought that it should do either “a lot” or “some” to help the poor.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/02/03/populist-moment

There has to be some

trkingmomoe — Mon, 18 May 2015 20:37:49 +0000

In reply to This sums up the problem for

There has to be some theatrics in politics to empress the people who don't think things out. Republicans have been very good at that since Reagan. The criticism has been that the Democratic party is a bunch of technocrats and talk over the heads of the public. Warren is very good at explaining what has caused this mess we are in and expressing anger that many feel right now.

I see her like a modern La Follette. He was pretty fiery too with his speeches. I have found three speeches in the last 2 weeks she as made. Plus she has gone head to head with the President over TPP on the Senate floor. She is very much part of the progress that is needed.

In many ways American

HSG — Mon, 18 May 2015 18:55:33 +0000

In reply to In the 1950s, endorsement of

In many ways American economic structure in the 1940s and 50s was truly radical and led the way for Western countries.

The workers of 1900--and even of 1913--received no pensions, no paid vacation, no overtime pay, no extra pay for Sunday or night work, no health or old-age insurance (except in Germany), no unemployment compensation (except, after 1911, in Britain); they had no job security whatever. Fifty years later, in the 1950s, industrial workers had become the largest single group in every developed country, and unionized industrial workers in mass-production industry (which was then dominant everywhere) had attained upper-middle-class income levels. They had extensive job security, pensions, long paid vacations, and comprehensive unemployment insurance or "lifetime employment." Above all, they had achieved political power. In Britain the labor unions were considered to be the "real government," with greater power than the Prime Minister and Parliament, and much the same was true elsewhere. In the United States, too--as in Germany, France, and Italy--the labor unions had emerged as the country's most powerful and best organized political force. And in Japan they had come close, in the Toyota and Nissan strikes of the late forties and early fifties, to overturning the system and taking power themselves.

Thirty-five years later, in 1990, industrial workers and their unions were in retreat. They had become marginal in numbers. Whereas industrial workers who make or move things had accounted for two fifths of the American work force in the 1950s, they accounted for less than one fifth in the early 1990s--that is, for no more than they had accounted for in 1900, when their meteoric rise began. In the other developed free-market countries the decline was slower at first, but after 1980 it began to accelerate everywhere. By the year 2000 or 2010, in every developed free-market country, industrial workers will account for no more than an eighth of the work force. Union power has been declining just as fast.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95dec/chilearn/drucker.htm

This sums up the problem for

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:06:06 +0000

In reply to Sen. Warren isn't running for

This sums up the problem for me. The left is hungry for someone to fight Republicans, and Warren has positioned herself to satisfy that urge. But what we should be hungry for is progress. Fighting is just a means to that end.

In the 1950s, endorsement of

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:00:22 +0000

In reply to It depends on your definition

In the 1950s, endorsement of the status quo would certainly not have been regarded as radical. So if endorsement of the economic/political structure of the 1950s is now considered radical, it suggests that we have radically reduced our expectations, no pun intended.

Cool, I look forward to it.

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 18 May 2015 16:48:37 +0000

In reply to Just give me a day or two to

Cool, I look forward to it.

I hate to say this, but I

arc — Mon, 18 May 2015 14:39:19 +0000

In reply to LOL...Yup Walker had several

I hate to say this, but I agree with Michael W, listening to Warren's speech was, for me, like watching a reprise of old socialist theater - you sit there thinking 'what would it have been like to live back then, when people actually got ignited around the idea of being part of a collective?' No, I'm afraid Walker sounds slicker. <Ewwwww> He appears to be getting more comfortable with his lies and his personal narrative, the whole thing where he plots his adolescence against key points in Reagan's hagiography. Of course it helps if you don't remember anything about that time, or conveniently find a way to misremember it. Ominously missing in anything Walker says is the word 'we,' except in the sense of America as a nation of goobers led by a strong leader. I wish someone would figure out how to resurrect a use of 'we' that didn't sound clunky and sexless.

It depends on your definition

HSG — Mon, 18 May 2015 12:39:49 +0000

In reply to Of course. But she's not just

It depends on your definition of conservative. My evolving view, which owes much to the work of Brooklyn College Professor Corey Robin, is that "conservative political ideology is best understood as a reaction to threats to existing hierarchies of wealth and power." http://halginsberg.com/what-explains-working-class-conservatives/ By summoning up rose-colored memories of a society less marked by wealth disparities, Warren is threatening existing hierarchies. So, I see her as acting radically.

Green energy. There is a

trkingmomoe — Mon, 18 May 2015 10:17:43 +0000

In reply to Ah yes, I remember when the

Green energy. There is a energy evolution that is in progress.

Sen. Warren isn't running for

trkingmomoe — Mon, 18 May 2015 10:12:42 +0000

In reply to Liberals sure need to fight,

Sen. Warren isn't running for the Whitehouse. Her job is to do the push back and be the attack dog. There is a group of voters that want to see some fight in the party and not roll over to the Republicans. Sanders will gather up all the young and old hippies. Clinton will pull off a flawless campaign. Sanders is not going to do any negative campaigning so the person that gets nominated won't be beat up.