Saturday, March 26, 2016

Why Not Hillary?

If you want another take on my recurring theme about what's wrong with the Democratic Party, investigative reporter Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone magazine's top gun reporter right now, lays out in a brief article how Bill Clinton and other Democrats, after the 1972 "landslide" defeat of George McGovern, began steering the party to the right. Taibbi supplies the context for my contention that Democrats have become fiscal conservatives who are liberal on a few social issues. Barak Obama himself has admitted that he has governed like a "moderate Republican."

That's fine if you don't see the arc of that history or if you consider yourself a moderate. But meanwhile, Democrats have been full participants in the evisceration of the New Deal policies that had brought the American working class to have the highest standard of living in the history of working classes, to the point that a new subcategory called "Middle Class" had to be invented to quantify the phenomena. The result of Democrats' acquiescence to prevailing Reaganomics economic policies is that wages have remained virtually flat, inflation adjusted, since the late 1970s, living standards for most Americans are now in decline, and two people, despite working an average 47 hours per week and being deep in debt, can't maintain the living standard that one person working in a family used to. College is out of reach for most kids, and they'll never see life long good jobs with pensions.

Bernie Sanders wants us to return to that New Deal America. Not me. I want to make sure this bullshit never happens again. That the power to do this to a nation is taken out of the hands of the politicians and their Capitalist masters.


  1. How do we do that, Bubba - take power out of the hands of politicians and their Capitalist masters - short of a social revolution and the complete overthrow of government? How do we avoid being annihilated by the Capitalists' armed-to-their-teeth police forces? Who do we put in power instead? What safeguards do we have in place that would protect the rights of those governed, if those we've been relying on have been undermined and subverted to the point they aren't worth the parchment upon which they were scribed?

    What guarantees would we have that this bullshit wouldn't happen again and again, no matter what form of government or social reform rises up to fill the void? Into whose hands should we place this power?

    Is the rest of the world going to sit idly by waiting for the dust to settle before taking action to protect their financial assets that are tied up with ours?

    I think it isn't enough to say - to shout - we're "mad as hell and [we're] not going to take it anymore." That's the starting point, and needs be said, but what next?

    1. Those are all good questions Ms C and I thank you for them. There's a long answer, which I think I'll write about in another blog post; I started writing and saw that it would be pretty long so saved it in a text file. But in general there's a short answer, which I think you kind of answered at the end of your comment. The necessary first step is that the current system needs to be discredited and in a way that makes it apparent that it's incapable of being reformed. In fact only then do the other questions even come up. I know you know that and were asking me, and I will oblige.

  2. And to answer the question in your post title: because she wants it too much. So much so that it's scary. I couldn't trust any candidate as opportunistic and self-serving as I think Hillary is. I couldn't trust that she would put the needs of the nation above her own.

    1. Yeah Martha, true, very true. But, what if you were faced with the question often asked midshipmen in the 19th cent. British Navy....."There are two weevils there, going towards the bread. Which do you choose?" The answer was predicated on the size of the weevils...centipede type creatures. If they choose the smaller they were told "Ha! Don't you know that in the service you must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"
      Bad joke, but it makes the point.