Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's take back the Democratic Party from the Clinton-Obama machine! (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah. It'll help a lot that I have access to (5+ / 0-)

    abortions and can marry a woman when my family loses their jobs and we can't afford rent anymore. Of course, if we elect enough Democrats, we can be sure that only 6 billion will be cut from food stamps and not 20 billion.

    Thanks for that.

    Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:20:50 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  or elect republicans and not pass any (0+ / 0-)

      re authorization of the farm bill at all.  so, so better.  40 consecutive months of job growth also contributes positively.  Not sure how that adds up to justifying "ignoring" social issues, either, especially to those women who wind up with unplanned pregnancies.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:42:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So we should starve a little at a time as opposed (4+ / 0-)

        to bringing the hammer down on us all at once.

        Again, thanks for that.

        40 consecutive months of job growth--boy are you ever drinking the Labor dept's Kool-aid.

        What kind of jobs, Loge? At what wages? How many hours? How does it compare to the jobs people had before the crash? What percentage of GDP since the crash has gone to wage-earners? What happens to the people who are out of work longer than 6 months, and what effect does it have on the rest of us when they become categorized as unemployable by the private sector, and the public sector does nothing about it? What happens when the continued antics of Wall St cause another crash? How many more people will be forced into the ranks of the permanently unemployed?

        Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:58:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually Krugman just wrote about that.... (3+ / 0-)

          ...on Monday....

          Defining Prosperity Down
          Paul Krugman
          NY Times Op-Ed
          July 8th, 2013

          Friday’s employment report wasn’t bad. But given how depressed our economy remains, we really should be adding more than 300,000 jobs a month, not fewer than 200,000. As the Economic Policy Institute points out, we would need more than five years of job growth at this rate to get back to the level of unemployment that prevailed before the Great Recession. Full recovery still looks a very long way off. And I’m beginning to worry that it may never happen…

          … there’s remarkably little political pressure to end our continuing, if low-grade, depression.

          Someday, I suppose, something will turn up that finally gets us back to full employment. But I can’t help recalling that the last time we were in this kind of situation, the thing that eventually turned up was World War II.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:51:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  On the subject of "ignoring" social issues: (6+ / 0-)

        Fuck that choice. Fuck that dichotomy, which was borne out of 3rd-way politics. Fuck using the oppression of women and gays as some kind of stick to beat progressives into line with, as in:  "You'd better not agitate for real economic change, or Republicans will win, and they'll implement hellish sexist and racist policies beyond your wildest dreams. Accept LGBT rights advances and women's rights advances (when we deign to give them to you; otherwise roll over and accept the poison pill in the ACA like a good partisan!) and be grateful that it's not worse."

          I guess if two lesbians want to marry and can't get jobs, they can live in the subway and like it.

        Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:00:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Check my "False Choice" comment, below. n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD, joanneleon
        •  This really needed to be said (3+ / 0-)

          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:14:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i'm not saying ignore either, (0+ / 0-)

          3rdoption is actually trying to have it both ways, and you're inventing a total strawman.  I fully conceded there's much work to be done, but the state of the economy in and of itself doesn't determine the political response to it, not in a vacuum.

          I suppose your point depends on whether "agitate for" involves working for change both within and outside the electoral system, or whether it means simply complaining when you don't get your way 100%.  What you wrote doesn't itself constitute agitating.

          Further, I suppose some clarification is needed on what "beat progressives in line" is supposed to mean.  Not suggesting you shouldn't articulate your views when I disagree with them because of some mythical impact on the Democratic party's electoral chances, but because I don't think these should be your actual views, if for no other reason than they lead you to overlook the areas in which Obama's been quite progressive, and the wide gulf between the positions of the two parties.  It's also kind of irrelevant once Republicans managed to get enough influence to obstruct but not enough to have the responsibility of governing.  At election time, any change in position is going to pick up some voters and alienate others.  That doesn't say don't move left, but it should be an informed, calculated risk, but most importantly, one that actually follows the proper policy.  (And here it would help to evaluate Presidential choices as they are, not observe how much better Obama wold be if he were president in a counterfactual universe.)

          Nevertheless, at election time, if you don't go all-in for the Democratic candidate, then you're not doing the most cost effective way to advance your own stated goals, so it's a false conflict, given the role courts play in all of this, increasingly on econ issues as well.  Not seeing that isn't a function of ideology, it's a function of ego.

          Now, if downscale voters want to support Democrats despite our social liberalism, that'd be ok too.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:19:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site