US Politics - It's a new dawn. It's a new day. It's a new life for US

[Martell Spy]

38 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

There will never be a split because it is political suicide. There might be a fight, but eventually the party will be united and the others cast out. 

Could be a temporary one, where it costs them an election. It can take different forms. The Democrats had a split in 2016. It wasn't as dramatic as the party fulling splitting in 2, but it existed. There was GOP voters staying home in 2006. There's certain times when a 3rd party candidate gains enough popularity to harm a major party's success in a single election.

[Varysblackfyre321]

55 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

There will never be a split because it is political suicide. There might be a fight, but eventually the party will be united and the others cast out. 

The other more moderate elements would be cast out.

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Could be a temporary one, where it costs them an election. It can take different forms. The Democrats had a split in 2016. It wasn't as dramatic as the party fulling splitting in 2, but it existed. There was GOP voters staying home in 2006. There's certain times when a 3rd party candidate gains enough popularity to harm a major party's success in a single election.

There was no split in 2016, certainly not to the degree scot was fallaciously talking about. 

Could there be enough to make people stay home? Sure! Though probably not in 2022. 2024 maybe, but it ain't gonna be some third party that Trump is leading. It'll be some Kasich like bullshit that won't do fuckall. Trump remains absurdly popular in the gop. 

[DMC]

I think the interesting thing to watch will be how much/to what extent GOP MCs that vote(d) for impeachment are "cast out," starting with - obviously - Liz Cheney.  McCarthy has repeatedly had her back thus far, although the pressure from inside his conference clearly led to him now voicing "concerns."  There is already a primary challenger, but it does not appear to be a serious one as of yet.  Generally, you would think time would be on Cheney's side just in terms of the basic wound-healing and temperature-settling aspects. 

If the Trumpists really are intent on a purge, though, such efforts may not materialize/elucidate publicly for a considerable time due to the legwork of recruiting quality challengers and nature of when/how campaigns are funded.  

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

There will never be a split because it is political suicide. There might be a fight, but eventually the party will be united and the others cast out. 

Maybe, just maybe, you are underestimating the sheer delusional stupidity of the Trump crowd?  - especially in light of the republican congressmen's reaction to the Capital Riot and the bizarre decree from the Arizona GOP denouncing their own.   That said, I anticipate quite a few Trump loyalists 'primarying' more rational GOP office holders in 2022, possibly to the point where the democratic party might snag a few of those seats because of the sheer insanity of the victors.  Kind of like what happened in a certain southern state not that long ago.  

[SFDanny]

15 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

To say that the Democratic party is entirely neo-liberal would be incorrect, but it is inaccurate to say that the Democratic party does not have neo-liberal elements. They, just like the Republicans, heavily prefer market solutions to the government driven programs that we saw during the time period of the post-war consensus. For example giving businesses infusions of cash rather than simply giving people money directly, or through government jobs programs as we saw in the great recession and as we saw during this crisis. Also Obamacare, the crown jewel of the 90's-2020, is decidedly a neo-liberal construction of healthcare reform. Reagan, and subsequently Clinton absolutely destroyed the post-war consensus (with an assist from Carter to get the ball rolling), and the roots of neo-liberalism still run deep.

My point is rather that the term neo-liberal is incorrect and a slur. Liberal Democrats from the time of FDR have advocated for the use of market forces, as well as government intervention, to be used to effect progressive social change. Somehow, the idea that the Democratic Party, or US Liberals, have been against the use of market forces is a rather absurd rewrite of history. Liberalism in the US has never been anti-Capitalist, nor against using market forces where they were effective in accomplishing a social good. US Liberalism, since the New Deal, is all about building safety nets and expanded opportunity through government regulation and intervention within the confines of a Capitalist system. A system that has market forces as part of its very existence, even if those forces are distorted by monopoly practices. US Liberalism isn't against market forces or Capitalism and never has been.

Your case in point of Obamacare is a prime example of this. Any confusion of a Milton Friedman's or a Ronald Reagan's approach with the expansion of medical coverage under the ACA is absurd. The neo-liberal approach to medical coverage is to destroy any government involvement in its entirety.  That is exactly what Friedman did in Chile after the Pinochet coup. That is what neo-liberals advocated in the destruction of New Deal and Great Society programs. What Obama did was the antithesis of Reagan or Friedman. And, yes, it included the use of market forces to bring down the price of the expansion of medical coverage to 20 million plus people. Yet we have people like Cornel West using the same term of "neo-liberal" to describe President Obama and the largest expansion of medical coverage to working people since medicare. It is, quite frankly, horseshit. When applied like West does to Obama, it is a sectarian slur against allies who have nothing to do with the neo-liberal politics as we know them.

I have no problem with criticism of Obamacare in that it didn't do enough. I do have a problem with attacking it for doing an incredible amount of good for a great many people. I have a great deal of problems with confusing Obama with Reagan by lumping their politics under the same term. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

possibly to the point where the democratic party might snag a few of those seats because of the sheer insanity of the victors.

The example that I think even many "Trumpist" MCs can recall and accordingly caution against is the last time there was this type of primarying it veered out of their control and cost them three Senate seats.  Mike Castle almost certainly would have beaten Chris Coons in the 2010 Delaware race, but Coons easily beat Christine O'Donnell.  In 2012, Todd Akin ended up winning a crowded primary in Missouri - he wasn't even the candidate backed by the Tea Party - which allowed Clair McCaskill to win a second term.  And Richard Mourdock's successful primary challenge of Dick Lugar in Indiana led the election of Dem Joe Donnelly.

Such an insurgency may work in gerrymandered House seats - see Eric Cantor's toppling - but the only example of it working during the Obama era in the Senate was the 2010 Utah race wherein Mike Lee ousted incumbent Bob Bennett as the GOP nominee then easily won the general.

[ThinkerX]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

The example that I think even many "Trumpist" MCs can recall and accordingly caution against is the last time there was this type of primarying it veered out of their control and cost them three Senate seats.  Mike Castle almost certainly would have beaten Chris Coons in the 2010 Delaware race, but Coons easily beat Christine O'Donnell.  In 2012, Todd Akin ended up winning a crowded primary in Missouri - he wasn't even the candidate backed by the Tea Party - which allowed Clair McCaskill to win a second term.  And Richard Mourdock's successful primary challenge of Dick Lugar in Indiana led the election of Dem Joe Donnelly.

Such an insurgency may work in gerrymandered House seats - see Eric Cantor's toppling - but the only example of it working during the Obama era in the Senate was the 2010 Utah race wherein Mike Lee ousted incumbent Bob Bennett as the GOP nominee then easily won the general.

problem is, all to many Trump fans seem contemptuous of both reality and political history.  Given that, at least some primary fights against 'RINO's' seem probable

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

problem is, all to many Trump fans seem contemptuous of both reality and political history.  Given that, at least some primary fights against 'RINO's' seem probable

Aye, I'm not talking about the voters - gods only know what or who they'll target and favor.  I'm talking about the GOP congressional leadership stepping in and making sure incumbents/preferred challengers have the institutional/financial support to stave off such self-destructive primarying efforts.  McCarthy and Scalise remember such backfirings very well, and the Senate leadership even more so.

[Fragile Bird]

The brother of a Secret Service agent, who was at one point the head of Michelle Obama's protection detail, took part in the invasion of the Capitol building and has been charged with attacking a police officer during that assault. The secret service brother had no idea his sibling was involved in the attack.

And, as has been previously reported might happen, Sarah Sanders has announced she will run for the position of Governor of Arkansas. Lying has it's own rewards, right? 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Sarah Sanders has announced she will run for the position of Governor of Arkansas. Lying has it's own rewards, right? 

Well I think her father has something to do with her being a viable gubernatorial candidate in Arkansas as well.

[Mindwalker]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/24/2011562/-31-law-enforcement-officers-in-12-states-linked-to-Trump-incited-Capitol-riot

At least 31 law enforcement officers in 12 states are being investigated after being linked in some way to the attempted coup at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, according to an Associated Press review.

 

[Gaston de Foix]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well I think her father has something to do with her being a viable gubernatorial candidate in Arkansas as well.

True, but I think she's beatable.  Arkansas has often elected Dem governors even now it is ruby red.  My dream scenario involves her being beaten in a primary or general, and Lara Trump running in NC and winning the primary only to lose the general.  

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Arkansas has often elected Dem governors even now it is ruby red.  My dream scenario involves her being beaten in a primary or general, and Lara Trump running in NC and winning the primary only to lose the general.  

I mean, true, Mike Beebe did beat Hutchinson in 2006, but he probably would have lost to Win Paul Rockefeller if he hadn't got sick/died.  If Sanders wins the primary - hardly a given as the current Lieutenant Governor and AG are also running - she's gonna beat the Democratic challenger.

As for dream scenarios and the Trump spawn, the most satisfying would be Ivanka beating Rubio in the primary then losing to a Dem - preferably Val Demings, but that may just be my Orlando bias.

[DMC]

Multiple reports that Biden is set to lift Trump's military transgender ban tomorrow:

Quote

Multiple people familiar with the matter confirm to ABC News that President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order on Monday that will lift the Pentagon’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.

The controversial ban was announced by former President Donald Trump in 2017 through a tweet and reversed the Obama administration’s policy to allow open service by transgender people.

 

[GrimTuesday]

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

My point is rather that the term neo-liberal is incorrect and a slur. Liberal Democrats from the time of FDR have advocated for the use of market forces, as well as government intervention, to be used to effect progressive social change. Somehow, the idea that the Democratic Party, or US Liberals, have been against the use of market forces is a rather absurd rewrite of history. Liberalism in the US has never been anti-Capitalist, nor against using market forces where they were effective in accomplishing a social good. US Liberalism, since the New Deal, is all about building safety nets and expanded opportunity through government regulation and intervention within the confines of a Capitalist system. A system that has market forces as part of its very existence, even if those forces are distorted by monopoly practices. US Liberalism isn't against market forces or Capitalism and never has been.

Your case in point of Obamacare is a prime example of this. Any confusion of a Milton Friedman's or a Ronald Reagan's approach with the expansion of medical coverage under the ACA is absurd. The neo-liberal approach to medical coverage is to destroy any government involvement in its entirety.  That is exactly what Friedman did in Chile after the Pinochet coup. That is what neo-liberals advocated in the destruction of New Deal and Great Society programs. What Obama did was the antithesis of Reagan or Friedman. And, yes, it included the use of market forces to bring down the price of the expansion of medical coverage to 20 million plus people. Yet we have people like Cornel West using the same term of "neo-liberal" to describe President Obama and the largest expansion of medical coverage to working people since medicare. It is, quite frankly, horseshit. When applied like West does to Obama, it is a sectarian slur against allies who have nothing to do with the neo-liberal politics as we know them.

I have no problem with criticism of Obamacare in that it didn't do enough. I do have a problem with attacking it for doing an incredible amount of good for a great many people. I have a great deal of problems with confusing Obama with Reagan by lumping their politics under the same term. 

Obamacare basically boiled down to, we're going to give the insurance industry a bunch of subsidies so that they offer plans to the poors. If you leave aside the patient protection act aspect of things, this is the government transferring tax payer dollars into the pockets of the insurance industry in order to  the absurd cost of insurance in this country.

You can say that it is not Neo-liberal as evidenced by the fact that it is not Laissez-faire capitalism, but you would be ignoring the fact that ideologies aren't always cut and dry. The influence of Neo-liberalism finds it's way into virtually everything and even if it does not completely win the day in removing government, it is equally happy to ensure that government funds and resources are funneled into big business rather than put towards programs that may threaten the status quo. To say it isn't Neo-liberal would be as incorrect as saying that a public option wouldn't be (on some level) a victory for socialism. In both cases, while it does not fully achieve the stated goals of either ideology, in both cases it represents a incremental step towards those ends without actually meeting them.

Obama himself may not be a Neo-liberal, but if you look at what he has done and the people that he has surrounded himself with (Tech billionaires, Wall Street folks, elites in general), he is clearly not in active opposition to it, so I'm not inclined to cry when mean ol' Cornel West calls him a Neo-liberal.

As for the idea that American liberals have always used markets, of course they have, they are fucking liberals. Liberalism and Neo-liberalism are mostly the same thing separated by the period of time known as the post war consensus when Keynesian economic theory reigned supreme (I'm sure you know that though), and represents a rebranding of the failed liberalism that preceded World War 2.

[DMC]

I've tried to stay out of this neoliberal debate, mainly because we had a similar discussion what seems like only a couple weeks ago, but I can't sleep, am bored and have had a few too many, so c'est la vie. 

First, I don't think anyone should be using the verbiage of the "correct" or "accurate" definition(s) of neoliberalism.  The conceptual definition is very much open to debate, and indeed its differing understandings and subsequent uses is the very basis of this discussion.  Frankly, pretty sure all of the political philosophers I know don't have much use for the term one way or the other.  Thinking about it, in the three political philosophy graduate seminars I had to take over my career, I don't think the term was ever mentioned - at least definitely not seriously discussed.  Even the most "traditional" seminar where we went chronologically from the classic old dead white guys up to Rawls, I don't think it was raised.  (Interestingly, however, when I inherited preps to instruct my own undergrad "political theory" course, there was considerable material related to the term.)

Moreover, if we're defining the term as "preferring market solutions to government driven programs" (an overly broad and far too imprecise rendering that leads to its weaponization IMHO, but whatever), then applying the term to politicians is wholly dependent on one's perspective.  For a pure "communist," or Leninist or Maoist, virtually every officeholding American politician ever would be a "neoliberal."  Personally, I generally agree with @SFDanny (shocker I know) that the term in contemporary political discourse is most closely/commonly associated with Friedman, Hayek, and the "Chicago school" of economics; and when it comes to politicians the term is indeed most closely associated with Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet. 

Further, I also agree with SFDanny that weaponizing the term as a polemic in the intraparty Democratic struggles is a toxic misapplication that only serves to divide likeminded people ranging from elites to voters - which in a two-party system faced against a functionally fascist opposition is a terrible mistake.  More importantly, I think there are some things being said in this labeling endeavor that are either ignorant of historical context or disingenuously grouping people and even eras under one overly generalized "neoliberal" umbrella to demonize the Democratic party pretty much writ large.

To start, I guess I'll go chronologically.  There's a reason that Keynes is called "the savior of capitalism."  What he advocated for during the Great Depression was called neoliberalism as a way to renew/rescue "classical" liberalism in the face of total control of markets.  More crucially, Keynes was literally the intellectual father of the Bretton Woods system - which created the IMF and the World Bank - and GATT - which presaged the WTO.  Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary, was the president of the Bretton Woods Conference - which (along with GATT) was the bedrock of the economic arm of the "the postwar consensus" in internationally spreading capitalism through open markets in opposition to the Soviets.

In this vein, "the postwar consensus" or what I prefer to call the New Deal coalition, is not in conflict with the "neoliberal" preference for markets.  Nor, importantly, was the New Deal paradigm actually conflictual with the common critique of "neoliberalism" in being over-concerned about deficits.  Morgenthau himself was an avid believer in balanced budgets, reducing the national debt, and "fiscal responsibility."  The entire reason tax rates for the wealthy were so high during the New Deal/postwar era is precisely because of attentiveness to fiscal responsibility.

Now, where I think there can be broad agreement here is that when the New Deal paradigm broke down, it was overtaken by "neoliberal" elements emanating from the Chicago school.  I personally prefer to refer to this period as the "Washington consensus," which dominated American politics from about Ford to Dubya if we're going by presidencies.  And where I do agree "neoliberalism" insidiously pervaded the Democratic party was during the Clinton administration in his effort to "triangulate" following the 1994 takeover.  Basically when he started listening to Dick Morris.

However, while I definitely think Clinton "pushing through" NAFTA was a mistaken use of political capital (this is actually a substantial section of my first MA thesis), I do not think that's representative of "neoliberalism," at least vis-a-vis the "postwar consensus" which established and articulated such free trade principles.  (In addition, it should be noted Clinton reached side agreements that included labor and environmental protections that did not exist when George H. W. Bush signed NAFTA.)  Another aspect that should be noted about Clinton's tenure is Hillarycare.  While an abject failure, its failure was in part due to the vociferous, intense, and ultimately successful opposition of the insurance lobby.  Hillarycare was significantly more "government" oriented and opposed to "market solutions" than Obamacare - and that context, i.e. Hillarycare's failure, is integral to understanding why the latter is what it is.

Clinton's cardinal sin/deal with neoliberalism is in deregulation, handing over the reins to Greenspan and Bob Rubin, and eventually dismantling Glass-Steagall.  Yet, Obama's presidency is the story of the destruction of these elements from the Democratic party - and, most critically, the destruction of the "Washington consensus."  I suppose if you want it's fair to say Obama did include "neoliberal" influences in his administration, especially at first, but that's because Obama governed as what I would describe as a "technocrat" that sought to balance the Clinton/Rubin leftovers with the traditional New Dealers within the party. 

Personnel wise, during his tenure we saw Geithner give way to the decidedly technocratic Jack Lew while Larry Summers was passed over in favor of the more traditionally liberal/New Deal-oriented Janet Yellen.  Hell, the last three years of his presidency Sarah Bloom Raskin was Lew's deputy at Treasury, and not even the leftists that use neoliberalism as an epithet would call her a neoliberal.  And even the loathed Rahm Emanuel as his CoS was overruled when he wanted to do healthcare reform in a "piecemeal" process.  Importantly, Rahm himself is thankful Obama did not take his advice and instead got the ACA passed - which demonstrates this much-maligned "centrist" behavior is often based on pragmatic worries and the environment they face rather than what such people actually would prefer.

Policywise, Obama completely reversed Clinton's trend towards deregulation.  Just google "Obama regulatory record," and the top three results are this, this, and this.  If neoliberalism is based on deregulation, Obama is decidedly its mortal enemy.  And while you can complain about Dodd-Frank being toothless all you want, the fact is the administration fought tooth and nail for every single vote to get that passed.  And it created the CFPB, plus Obama personally went to bat and expended political capital to include the Volcker rule to reinstitute the key aspect of Glass-Steagall, even if, yes, it was compromised in the final bill.

Which brings us to Obamacare.  It is ignorant of (rather recent) political history to say the ACA is "decidedly" neoliberal, even if we're talking about market-oriented as opposed to government solutions.  Healthcare.gov, the individual mandate, the preexisting conditions requirement, and especially the expansion of Medicaid are not market-oriented solutions.  Is the ACA more "market oriented" than many alternatives?  Of course.  But that's the exact wrong way of looking at.  The question is, is the ACA more market or government-oriented than the prior status quo?  And the answer to that is decidedly more government oriented.

Moreover, what seems to be forgotten here, is Obama and the Democratic leadership did fight for a public option during the legislative battle of the ACA.  Pelosi especially continued this push well into the summer when the townhalls were screaming about death panels.  The fact is it was axed by Lieberman, Nelson, and the Blue Dog elements in the House.  Elements, btw, that barely exist anymore in the current Democratic party - only a decade later. 

Which brings us to today's Democratic party.  Where Biden just proposed a stimulus bill with literally no pay-fors.  Where the administration and the congressional leadership almost unanimously agrees to not give two shits about deficits.  Where Biden has already taken unilateral steps to adopt a more aggressive regulatory approach than even Obama.  Where it is quite clear, frankly, that the lessons from the Clinton-era and even Obama's too-tepid response to the GFC are universally understood within the party.  Perhaps not to the extent to your liking, but I think it's resoundingly clear that the fears of a return to Clinton/Rubin era "neoliberalism" of deregulation and worrying about deficits are thoroughly unfounded.  It's time to holster the neoliberal weapon.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Yeah, when I want to insult the Dems I don't like, I agree that neo-liberal is disappointingly vague and nebulous.  I'm sure I've said it a few times over the years, but I try to be better.  I now try to use words language like "corporate shill" "imperialist" "war monger" or "deficit hawk".  

[Mindwalker]

Dominion sues Giuliani, too. For 1.3 billion. Dear Dominion, please don't settle!

And shouldn't they sue T and Don jr., too?

[SFDanny]

4 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Obamacare basically boiled down to, we're going to give the insurance industry a bunch of subsidies so that they offer plans to the poors. If you leave aside the patient protection act aspect of things, this is the government transferring tax payer dollars into the pockets of the insurance industry in order to  the absurd cost of insurance in this country.

You can say that it is not Neo-liberal as evidenced by the fact that it is not Laissez-faire capitalism, but you would be ignoring the fact that ideologies aren't always cut and dry. The influence of Neo-liberalism finds it's way into virtually everything and even if it does not completely win the day in removing government, it is equally happy to ensure that government funds and resources are funneled into big business rather than put towards programs that may threaten the status quo. To say it isn't Neo-liberal would be as incorrect as saying that a public option wouldn't be (on some level) a victory for socialism. In both cases, while it does not fully achieve the stated goals of either ideology, in both cases it represents a incremental step towards those ends without actually meeting them.

Obama himself may not be a Neo-liberal, but if you look at what he has done and the people that he has surrounded himself with (Tech billionaires, Wall Street folks, elites in general), he is clearly not in active opposition to it, so I'm not inclined to cry when mean ol' Cornel West calls him a Neo-liberal.

As for the idea that American liberals have always used markets, of course they have, they are fucking liberals. Liberalism and Neo-liberalism are mostly the same thing separated by the period of time known as the post war consensus when Keynesian economic theory reigned supreme (I'm sure you know that though), and represents a rebranding of the failed liberalism that preceded World War 2.

I won't respond to all of this because @DMC already did so in much greater detail than I could. But I do want to whole-heartedly agree with the bolded. It was kind of my whole point about US Liberalism, but you put it in such memorable and succinct terms.

As to the underline section, I picked West's attack on Obama for a reason. West is a figure, not only associated with the Sanders campaign, but he also has influence among the US Left because of his teaching and writings on civil rights and racism. His approach to Obama is a glaring example of the sectarianism of sections of the Left. The purity politics, if you will, of important parts of the Left. So, I don't dismiss his remarks or influence. He is, however, but one example of this problem.

Let me just say again, I approach these question from my experience as a trade union activist, now retired. Not as an academic. My views are shaped by being one of many helping to build coalitions of people to try to make the lives of working people, like myself, a little better. In that effort I learned the value of the old lefty idea of the united front. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which works well if one can see who is the greatest threat to working folks and differentiate between them and those with whom one might have serious disagreements. It's easy in the Trade Union context, because it almost always starts with the boss. It sometimes gets trickier in the broader social context because the question of getting rid of bosses altogether is seldom on the immediate agenda. 

But my experience is not only in the trade union movement. I have been active in my life in many different movements starting with my youthful experiences in marching against the War in Vietnam. All of which shaped my views and disdain for sectarian politics.

It seems to me obvious that there is a real fascist threat in this country, and that threat continues to be the main enemy of working people and people of all classes who value basic democratic rights. So I tend to get quite impatient with my fellow leftists who conflate allies with enemies. Labeling both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama as neo-liberals is but one example of this unfortunate tendency. Especially when the danger to us all is so very real. So, let me be very clear. In my view Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and most liberal politicians are allies in this struggle. And Cornel West or Bernie Sanders or the Green Party are not enemies. I don't think that is an analysis that I can take credit for, but it is one I believe in.

Donald Trump, Senators Cruz and Hawley, and Qnon, the Proud Boys, the militias, and the Nazis and the Klan are the enemy. The question is will the people who just united to throw Trump out of office stay together to finish the job? Or will we form a circular firing squad and destroy ourselves?

I beg you indulgence with my soapbox style of presentation, but it is a lifelong habit and is not easy to break.