dagblog - Comments for "On the Democratic Party's Messaging Woes"

We always get in these double

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:40:13 +0000

In reply to "Let's address the central

We always get in these double bind thingies like "If Al Gore cares so much about the environment, how come he takes polluting airplanes". Guarantee you that "if the Democrats are against money in politics, let's see them denounce it" will continue to be a heavy hit. Trump even managed to succeed as he got tons of free air time from making ridiculous statements. Who knew it was gonna be like white Jesus to a recovering alcoholic.

"Let's address the central

acanuck — Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:52:07 +0000

In reply to On the Democratic Party's Messaging Woes

"Let's address the central questions: Do rich donors have lopsided influence over the Democratic Party, and is this influence detrimental to the party's long-term fortunes?" Fascinating discussion, but totally irrelevant question. The issue is "Do rich donors have lopsided influence over (U.S. politics), and is this influence detrimental to (democracy's) long-term fortunes?"

The answer to both questions is, of course, yes. It's clear no Democratic candidate can reject big donations when his opponent embraces them. Campaign financing limits were already ridiculously lax, but the Citizens United ruling crowned free speech (in the form of cash) as the deciding factor in U.S. elections, now and forever. Until and unless it's overturned, the 1% will call all the shots.

I realize that Trump probably ran on a far thinner war-chest than Hillary did (seemingly disproving that theory). But look at his cabinet appointees: more CEOs and Goldman-Sachs alums than Clinton would have dared propose. He's already decided he wants a second term.

Why does Canada have more progressive laws and policies on virtually everything? A complete ban on ANY corporate or labour-union campaign contributions, for starters; strict limits on individual donations and rigid caps on what any candidate's campaign can spend (plus a shorter time they can spend it in). At one point, we even reimbursed candidates part of their expenses, based on the proportion of the vote they received. The result is TV that's remarkably free of election ads, and candidates that go out of their way to promise voters what they want to hear.

The U.S. (thanks to its Supreme Court) has embraced a very different model, but our democracy remains strong. I hear the argument that voters don't care about campaign financing, but Democrats need to make them care. And first, they need to put the country above their own electoral interests. It does seem unlikely.

That belief is also essential

moat — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:47:10 +0000

In reply to The belief that powerful

That belief is also the driving force behind the idea that class struggle is a process that is history until history is done. But this emphasis on the value of labor as a commodity does not throw into sharp relief the way that means of production themselves define and shape what is possible for individuals and communities.

Managing the system to provide more equitable outcomes doesn't mean that the power those means of production have over our future has been addressed or even perceived.

Is there any doubt that

HSG — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:10:48 +0000

In reply to The belief that powerful

Is there any doubt that powerful people control millions of Americans' lives and those of billions around the world? Where a corporate board chooses to place a manufacturing center, a colonel's decision whether to drone a wedding party, a prosecutor's discretion, all exemplify this.

Also fundamental to paranoia

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 04:51:23 +0000

In reply to The belief that powerful

Also fundamental to paranoia ;-) Substitute robots or technology it gets no better. But can we spin this whole discussion to the positive, what *can* we do and for what good reasons, rather than always the receiving end of something dire? It gets exhausting getting poked by da man.

The belief that powerful

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 03:22:28 +0000

In reply to The "added value" in the

The belief that powerful people control your life is one of the fundamental ingredients of populist movements.

The "added value" in the

moat — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:03:43 +0000

In reply to The bigger question is Why?

The "added value" in the Marxist model was not about who controlled material resources as much as it was a theory of profit. Das Capital tried to prove this theory through an analysis of prices for commodities of products compared to the price of Labor required for them to be produced. Maybe Marx (and numerous other people) would have been better off if he had put more energy in the idea of work. But he rolled the bones on explaining the nature of the market as the final arbiter of who got what.

The arguments surrounding these ideas have passed through many iterations since they were introduced. What strikes me as the most important thing is the desire to not be exploited. Marx said wanting that meant eliminating an entire class of transactions, getting rid of the principle of private property.

While that option has the appeal of being coherent in the terms it sets out for itself, it puts the individual in a place without any control of the future.

Maybe that should be the definition of exploitation: No control of the future.

Your parody of the Breibart

moat — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:59:46 +0000

In reply to The hollow progressivism

Your parody of the Breibart narrative is spot on.
Keep up the good work.

The hollow progressivism

Peter — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:01:21 +0000

In reply to Hal, this article isn't

The hollow progressivism represented by the followers of Clintonism and their party is only capable of producing the fingernails scraping on a blackboard sound that we have been hearing since and even before the election. There is no harmony here just discord and none of the howlers leading and speakijg for this tribe have been replaced with rational beings capable of changing this identity.

Developing a new message (lies) about a self destructive spent party will not woo the rubes as it has done in the past, their disease is too evident and publicly/proudly displayed now.

Hal, this article isn't

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:15:36 +0000

In reply to I guess we'll have to agree

Hal, this article isn't relevant to my argument. I never suggested that working class voters aren't receptive to anti-globalization themes. Many obviously are, as demonstrated by populists on both sides of the aisle domestically and around the world. Conservative populists have woven these sentiments into a comprehensive platform and narrative that includes immigration, taxes, trade, race, religion, nationalism, and "crony capitalism." Modern progressive populists are working with thinner gruel--mainly corporate power and trade. That may be enough for many people, but it's not as compelling as the conservative version, which is growing its faction much faster than progressives. The same thing is happening in Europe. Leftist populists are gaining strength there but not as fast rightist populists.

That said, I'm not sure that the old progressive working class politics won't work in the 21st century. I'm just a bit skeptical. I think the movement needs some extra juice that it hasn't found yet. I will be more than happy to be disproved.

PS I know Tom Edsall. He endorsed Unreasonable Men. He is unquestionably progressive (as am I ftr)