Skip to main content

If the state of things has gotten you down, this may pick you up.  

(Iraq war hawk Peter Beinart has been far from my favorite pundit over the years, but he's written two extraordinarily excellent pieces lately, so I guess redemption is never off the table. The other piece is here.)  

Millennials, he says, are going to upend the established political spectrum entirely over the next two decades, including the Democrats' current "pro-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic, Reaganized liberalism."

A political generation is more than the rough categories of 20-year blocks given names like Baby Boomers, Generation X, or Millennials. It's one forged by major disruptive events during the years of people's young adulthood.

For the past two decades, American politics has been largely a contest between Reaganism and Clintonism. In 1981, Ronald Reagan shattered decades of New Deal consensus by seeking to radically scale back government’s role in the economy. In 1993, Bill Clinton brought the Democrats back to power by accepting that they must live in the world Reagan had made. Located somewhere between Reagan’s anti-government conservatism and the pro-government liberalism that preceded it, Clinton articulated an ideological “third way”: Inclined toward market solutions, not government bureaucracy, focused on economic growth, not economic redistribution, and dedicated to equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
The current political generation - including both the Tea Party Republicans like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Democrats like Barack Obama and Cory Booker - is playing on that ideologically defined field.
People are disproportionately influenced by events that occur between their late teens and mid-twenties. During that period—between the time they leave their parents’ home and the time they create a stable home of their own—individuals are most prone to change cities, religions, political parties, brands of toothpaste....

The men and women who today dominate American politics constitute a political generation because during their plastic years they experienced some part of the Reagan-Clinton era. That era lasted a long time. If you are in your late 50s, you are probably too young to remember the high tide of Kennedy-Johnson big government liberalism. You came of age during its collapse, a collapse that culminated with the defeat of Jimmy Carter. Then you watched Reagan rewrite America’s political rules. If you are in your early ‘40s, you may have caught the tail end of Reagan.

But even if you didn’t, you were shaped by Clinton, who maneuvered within the constraints Reagan had built. To pollsters, a late 50-something is a Baby Boomer and an early 40-something is a Gen-Xer. But in Mannheim’s terms, they constitute a single generation because no great disruption in American politics divides them. They came of age as Reagan defined a new political era and Clinton ratified it. And as a rule, they play out their political struggles between the ideological poles that Reagan and Clinton set out.

The Millennials (early 1980s to 2000), on the other hand, have experienced a radically different world and are unlikely to remain within the ideological goalposts of the current status quo. Their generational argument will be different from the one now being played out, and for good reason.
Compared to their Reagan-Clinton generation elders, Millennials are entering adulthood in an America where government provides much less economic security. And their economic experience in this newly deregulated America has been horrendous...

In 2001, just as the first Millennials were entering the workforce, the United States fell into recession. By 2007 the unemployment rate had still not returned to its pre-recession level. Then the financial crisis hit..... Between 1989 and 2000, when younger members of the Reagan-Clinton generation were entering the job market, inflation-adjusted wages for recent college graduates rose almost 11 percent, and wages for recent high school graduates rose 12 percent. Between 2000 and 2012, it was the reverse. Inflation-adjusted wages dropped 13 percent among recent high school graduates and 8 percent among recent graduates of college.

But it was worse than that. If Millennials were victims of a 21st-century downward slide in wages, they were also victims of a longer-term downward slide in benefits. The percentage of recent college graduates with employer-provided health care, for instance, dropped by half between 1989 and 2011....

Millennials have come of age at a time when the government safety net is far more threadbare for the young than for the middle-aged and old.

As the Economic Policy Institute has pointed out, younger Americans are less likely than their elders to qualify for unemployment insurance, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Not to mention Medicare and Social Security.)

Hard times have frequently let the Right woo disaffected voters with calls to racial, ethnic, and religious populism, but research shows that Millennials will be far less susceptible to those old tricks. For one thing, they are far less white, Christian, straight, and native-born than previous generations. Perhaps after growing up in the bath of lies that is PR- and advertising-mediated capitalist culture, they are much better equipped than their elders with highly attuned BS detectors.

They are more liberal, less supportive of war, less likely to accept trampling of their civil liberties, more pro-labor, and more in favor of expanded government services.

Oh, and they favor socialism over capitalism by a significant margin.

I can't wait until they're of an age to take the reins of power from the Third Way Democrats we've been forced to support for lack of a better alternative.

The only thing I'd like to change about them is their views on privacy. I don't think they understand it or its value. Perhaps it's impossible to appreciate privacy if you've grown up with the perniciousness of Facebook. They'll need to get a handle on that if they're going to get the NSA's damn Panopticon off our necks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (358+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Infected Zebra, Horace Boothroyd III, chuckvw, bobswern, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, fcvaguy, sceptical observer, MsGrin, joedemocrat, AoT, Matt Z, LeislerNYC, 3rock, TracieLynn, praenomen, karmsy, blueoasis, cotterperson, Mary Mike, YucatanMan, jamess, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, Thinking Fella, ichibon, absdoggy, Railfan, Gemina13, Lujane, MRA NY, FogCityJohn, 3goldens, reflectionsv37, fumie, Liberal Thinking, CharlesII, tegrat, brainwave, MsShona, JesseCW, thomask, Troubadour, mollyd, peachcreek, LeftHandedMan, jadt65, Jim P, Choco8, Betty Pinson, Situational Lefty, punkRockLiberal, TheMomCat, GeorgeXVIII, Themistoclea, KJG52, HarpboyAK, scorpiorising, renbear, mookins, pgm 01, Jlukes, stevenaxelrod, Renee, elwior, Truedelphi, Ageing Hippie, dance you monster, EJP in Maine, liberte, markthshark, onionjim, Blue Bell Bookworm, Dood Abides, Byron from Denver, ratcityreprobate, Superpole, Chi, temptxan, isabelle hayes, Superskepticalman, Linda1961, caryltoo, sodalis, blueoregon, banjolele, dkmich, jbob, CTLiberal, nocynicism, Portlaw, triv33, Diana in NoVa, gooderservice, CwV, Cedwyn, ScienceMom, PhilJD, twigg, democracy inaction, skepticalcitizen, gulfgal98, Dartagnan, allenjo, tampaedski, shanesnana, lostinamerica, Tool, CitizenOfEarth, historys mysteries, unfangus, DuzT, weelzup, unclejohn, Things Come Undone, annan, mconvente, eeff, LaFeminista, emal, DRo, ruleoflaw, slatsg, Kristina40, semiot, Joieau, MKinTN, Australian2, commonmass, wintergreen8694, marleycat, Quasimodal, CanyonWren, Unbozo, srelar, tcdup, Dallasdoc, Subversive, angelajean, PrahaPartizan, tb mare, Jazzenterprises, AnnieR, Ohkwai, basquebob, tobendaro, puckmtl, StellaRay, CA Nana, TexDem, DisNoir36, greenbastard, Moravan, legendmn, maryabein, lotlizard, kyril, muddy boots, ChemBob, Raggedy Ann, kevin k, bbctooman, CT Hank, Odysseus, gypsytoo, puakev, Fe Bongolan, Sybil Liberty, figbash, No one gets out alive, Oldowan, Blue Wind, stony, Cassandra77, mithra666, SoCaliana, Egalitare, Medium Head Boy, LibChicAZ, rmonroe, Satya1, Bob Friend, ferg, Vetwife, vahana, pixxer, Pilotshark, Sylv, J M F, Debs2, Libby Shaw, Rogneid, Azazello, ratzo, Phoebe Loosinhouse, quagmiremonkey, gnosticator, theKgirls, Gowrie Gal, papercut, Catte Nappe, quill, newfie, Aunt Martha, rasbobbo, jfromga, zerelda, greengemini, TomP, wonkydonkey, Meteor Blades, whyvee, shortgirl, Bronx59, Lost and Found, Involuntary Exile, Stentorian Tone, majcmb1, Just Bob, cybrestrike, bibble, Jon Sitzman, NearlyNormal, PapaChach, cpresley, VA Breeze, rantsposition, roses, Mike08, NYFM, bronte17, Flint, Steve15, Dem Beans, GDbot, profundo, Mentatmark, Einsteinia, poligirl, Statusquomustgo, tb92, shaharazade, Aaa T Tudeattack, Sun Tzu, SouthernLiberalinMD, richardvjohnson, native, Ditch Mitch KY, George3, SherwoodB, sc kitty, CoolOnion, anodnhajo, SteveLCo, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, Assaf, yoduuuh do or do not, greycat, sarvanan17, Robynhood too, Panacea Paola, Dave in Northridge, SoCalSal, Cofcos, cardboardurinal, Skennet Boch, Williston Barrett, Empower Ink, Laconic Lib, asterkitty, fiercefilms, billlaurelMD, kenwards, boomerchick, dejavu, Nattiq, slowbutsure, BlueMississippi, science nerd, grollen, joe pittsburgh, betterdemsonly, EdSF, camlbacker, thenekkidtruth, Bob Duck, chuck utzman, Oaktown Girl, el dorado gal, Paul Ferguson, Floande, SteelerGrrl, monkeybrainpolitics, Anne was here, Carol in San Antonio, oceanview, boran2, smileycreek, Pat K California, WisePiper, claude, dradams, WheninRome, 4kedtongue, Intellectually Curious, cybersaur, brooklynbadboy, Nica24, seabos84, jeopardydd, leeleedee, Shockwave, MarkInSanFran, Alice Venturi, BlueDragon, p gorden lippy, barkingcat, LynChi, Lady Libertine, xyz, Hastur, Doctor Who, psyched, hlsmlane, librarisingnsf, NapaJulie, Panurge, Alumbrados, Jyrki, titotitotito, exNYinTX, flowerfarmer, jaebone, HeyMikey, NBBooks, tidalwave1, micsimov, dotdash2u, Larsstephens, LI Mike, deepeco, ItsaMathJoke, dharmasyd, Trendar, Eileen B, kaliope, arlene, elziax, jdmorg, ATFILLINOIS, alwaysquestion, Eddie L, mahakali overdrive, Indiana Bob, Ironic Chef, Kombema, Ice Blue, splashy, vigilant meerkat, livingthedream
    •  Liked this line from your diary... (93+ / 0-)
      I can't wait until they're of an age to take the reins of power from the Third Way Democrats we've been forced to support for lack of a better alternative
      .

      I can't wait either. I'm late baby-boomer and didn't become a dad until I was 39. I'm worried for my children (middle and high school now) and see myself where my grandfather was in 1929-33 (although he was ten years younger then than I am now). The GOP offers fascism, and the Democrats offer corporatism, when they're not offering war. I hate the alternative I'm told I have to take or be a firebagger, paulite, libertarian, etc.

      Something's got to give, but it's not going to be before my own generation starts dying off. Personality cults don't help either.

      "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

      by Superskepticalman on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:13:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another boomer fed up with third way.... (56+ / 0-)

        I saw this article, and I was hoping it would get posted here.  Here's more.

        Younger Democratic politicians are less worshipful of Clinton. Yet his influence on their worldview is no less profound. Start with the most famous, still-youngish Democrat, a man who although a decade older than Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz, hails from the same Reagan-Clinton generation: Barack Obama. Because he opposed the Iraq War, and sometimes critiqued the Clintons as too cautious when running against Hillary in 2008, some commentators depicted Obama’s victory as a rejection of Clintonism. But to read The Audacity of Hope—Obama’s most detailed exposition of his political outlook—is to be reminded how much of a Clintonian Obama actually is. At Clintonism’s core was the conviction that to revive their party, Democrats must first acknowledge what Reagan got right.

        Obama, in describing his own political evolution, does that again and again: “as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election … I understood his appeal” (page 31). “Reagan’s central insight … contained a good deal of truth” (page 157). “In arguments with some of my friends on the left, I would find myself in the curious position of defending aspects of Reagan’s worldview” (page 289). Having given Reagan his due, Obama then sketches out a worldview in between the Reaganite right and unreconstructed, pre-Reagan left. “The explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other” (page 24), he declares in a chapter in which he derides “either/or thinking” (page 40). “It was Bill Clinton’s singular contribution that he tried to transcend this ideological deadlock” (page 34). Had the term not already been taken, Obama might well have called his intermediary path the “third way.”

        Obama used this rhetoric to get elected.  He still uses it when he wants to sound like a Democrat.  It is why Obama sux.    People who fell for it,  shoved Obama down our throats in 2008.  They won't get away with it with Hillary.  Fool the milenials once, and they get the message, and I can't wait for the milenials to kick Wall Street and the third way's asses.  Never saw a more self-serving bunch in my life.  Clinton and Obama make Reagan look like Mother Teresa.  

        I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

        by dkmich on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:36:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not gonna happen (65+ / 0-)

          The fact is The Dems don't really have anyone with as broad a range of appeal, as much money, influence and name recognition as Hillary.  If Hillary runs, she wins.  She'll win the primary because she got burned by an upstart last time and won't let it happen again.  She'll win the general because the GOP is fucking crazy.

          The real challenge for liberals and the millenials is whether we force her to become liberal as well or whether we let her and these Third Way Dems win.  I'm not as worried about Hillary as I am about down ticket.  Let her win.  She's just a figure head anyway.  But if we on the left elect more Elizabeth Warrens, Sherrod Browns and Chris Murphys in the House and Senate then we have a real chance to reshape our country.  Hillary won't craft policy, she'll just sign it into law.  If the House sends up a bill for single payer, she'll sign it.  

          Remember that FDR was also a wealthy elitist who was pulled left by those under him.  THAT'S the challenge.  I worry sometimes that people on the left are so focused on the big ass Hillary tree in front of them that they fail to see the even more important forest behind it.  I'd much rather have a Hillary as president and a Dem controlled House and Senate with people like Warren, Brown and Murphy populating it and working with/against her than a Cruz President with those people fighting him on every single issue.    

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:48:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ^^^THIS^^^ Local elections matter!!! (36+ / 0-)

            Spend your time and money on your local elections.

            Those people will become 'the bench' for future higher offices.

            The fundaloons have been working this program for decades.

            It's long past time for us to 'up our game' on this.


            The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

            by No one gets out alive on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:09:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, lets talk local (12+ / 0-)

              Carl Levin and Gary Peters.... No D is running against Peters.  Peters is just another establishment, Bloomfield Hills, neoliberal.   Now what?   More local?  Snyder is burying the Dem running against him, and there is only one. If  I get any more local than that, I live in a Republican upper income enclave that is happy about the power and money going up.   We tried to take out McMillin, one of the biggest asses and homophobic bigots Lansing,  and we lost by a crappy and doable 5,000 votes because she got zero dollars from our local  and establishment run Democratic Party.    

              I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

              by dkmich on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:36:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes (10+ / 0-)

                The fundamental flaw in DisNoir39's argument...

                I'm not as worried about Hillary as I am about down ticket.  Let her win.  She's just a figure head anyway.  But if we on the left elect more Elizabeth Warrens, Sherrod Browns and Chris Murphys in the House and Senate then we have a real chance to reshape our country.
                ... is this: The same forces that shape the party's presidential politics also shapes down-ticket races. Any discussion about the "shape" of the party that doesn't include the fact that the American political system is rigged all the way down to your local city council race is just not realistic.

                In fact, the fundamental flaw in the thinking of most of the progressive movement is to think we can, and should, elect better Democrats. I assure you there's no such thing. It's a childish, completely unrealistic, unpragmatic notion.

                With very rare exception, the only thing that makes a good (or bad) politician is leverage. In all probability, without leverage, FDR would have been a one term, failed president. It was only under threat of throwing him and the Democrats out of office that got him to change course late in his first term and actually push through some progressive  legislation.

                Now, the progressive movement has been conned into thinking that their role should be to act like PR agents for power. But cheerleading Democrats doesn't make them better, nor does it help the party.

                If FDR's passage of the New Deal is any guide, and I think it is, then our strategy has been all wrong here and throughout the progressive netroots.

                Instead of embracing this pipe dream of electing better Democrats, which requires us to spend massive amounts of money we don't have just to compete with big money and their candidates, we need to embrace our one, true instrument of power: The leverage of our vote.

                That's what progressives did in 1935-36, and look what it did. It created the "best" Democrats in history, solidifying the hegemonic dominance of the Democratic party for generations.

                •  Why More and Better Works (8+ / 0-)

                  Sometimes a person will get elected and rise to the occasion, as may have been the case with FDR and LBJ, the only actual Democratic presidents in the last hundred years.

                  As much as I dislike having to vote for sorta-Democrats such as Carter, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Hillary Clinton, not doing so will lead to disaster on a massive scale.

                  But whether a fresh, new, pure voice or a Conservative-Liberal amalgamation, they can't move the country back to our basic values unless they have massive public support and a supportive political infrastructure.

                  A lack of that fighting, unified party support hobbles any president and forces compromise with the sociopaths on the right.

                  We can't afford to wait for another FDR. Or even another LBJ. Electing more and better Democrats is the act of creating that supportive infrastructure that allows and motivates (and sometimes forces) a Democratic president to be successful.

                  A Southerner in Yankeeland

                  To save your life read "Pity The Billionaire" by Thomas Frank, and "Winner-Take-All-Politics" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Then read more books.

                  by A Southerner in Yankeeland on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:23:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sometimes you have to hit bottom before you (0+ / 0-)

                    can get up.   Enabling these corporate owned moderate DINOs only prolongs the agony.  

                    I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

                    by dkmich on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:43:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  And avoid OFA candidates (10+ / 0-)

              They're trying to make inroads in controlling local Dem politics.  Their non-partisan, Third Way base and control by corporate donors makes them a toxic influence when trying to rebuild a better party.  They will try to Hoover up local funding for their Third Way candidates.

              "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

              by Betty Pinson on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:11:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Take Hillary now ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alwaysquestion

              and prime Mayor Julian Castro for later.

              The Democrats care about you after you're born. --Ed Schultz

              by micsimov on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:13:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That's what they said last time she ran. (28+ / 0-)

            Clinton I can cut some slack for given his timing in the complete corruption of the system.  Obama - I can't even begin to express my complete disdain and anger for the man.  Obama had a choice, and he chose Wall Street when it was abundantly clear it was the wrong choice for the times; and he lied to get there.

            Obama is proud of his triangulations.  If Obama can't be forced, what makes you think Hillary can be forced?   Given the left's current philosophy and strategy of more and better, they elect one worth a damn down stream and they lose three worth a damn already in office.   They NEVER catch up with themselves let alone pull ahead.    If the left adopted better or else, you might have something.

            I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

            by dkmich on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:29:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not going to be as forceful as you (15+ / 0-)

              but, I am pretty disappointed in President Obama, at least when it comes to leveling the economic playing field.

              In 2009 we had an opportunity to go FDR style.  We didn't have as large of a majority as FDR did, but we certainly had enough to pass much more pro-middle class legislation than we got.

              Obama was thought to be quite liberal by a lot of voters, but he never used rhetoric that Elizabeth Warren uses - directly challenging Wall Street and the criminal bankers.  We had to roll the dice with Obama; we absolutely know what we're getting with someone like Sen. Warren.

              "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

              by mconvente on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:06:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are living in a fantasy world. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40, high uintas, DarthMeow504

                The Democrats never had a workable majority. Never. If you can't understand that, I doubt if you can have any influence on politics at all. Heaven knows, you have little enough now.

                This sort of delusional thinking is one big reason why the United States has the most dysfunctional left wing in the entire developed world.

                You don't "despise" Obama because of this or that policy. You despise him because he gets things done. They are usually flawed things, but half a loaf is better than no bread. You are incapable of doing anything whatsoever. Obama shows you up for the useless, ineffectual, navel-gazing chatterers that you are, and that is what you don't like about him.

                "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

                by sagesource on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:28:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow all the (9+ / 0-)

                  platitudes about Obama in one comment. You forgot he's playing the long term 11th dimensional game. By the dysfunctional left do you mean the Democratic wing of the party? I do not despise Obama but I do despise the things he's getting done. He's just the PR dude they sent out to sell their nasty ass agenda.

                   Obama is not showing anyone up. His administration is implementing policy that isn't half of anything good or democratic. This is not what democracy looks like. What a strange worship of a pol that calls damn thing he does good. I guess if you know how to double think and believe his double speak that would be your reality.

                  The D majority was real the corrupt machine Dems. like Harry simply refused to use it. so did Obama he went for by-partisan 'victories for compromise. compromise with who and for what? I see no compromises just a bunch of bent politicians putting on a kabuki show to maintain the owners of the place in all their glorious power and profit at our democratic republic and the world's  expense and destruction.

                  Your delusional if you think this is all about Obama, he's just a pol a talented one but he's owned and bent by the 'owners of the place. Who knows maybe he thinks this is 'the way forward'. It's sure as hell not democratic and it means ordinary people and the planet harm. Same with the congress critters who blew off the majority they were given by the voters. Blaming everyone who isn't Obama is just stupid. Blaming the left for not going along with what these assholes are implementing does not make it half of anything acceptable.  
                         

                  •  great comment - parties are mostly similar (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    shaharazade

                    on the big issues

                    the ones that support the 1%

                    to view issues from the perspective of the political parties is to strip out the essential issues because they are the ones that they agree on

                    like sequestration

                    like cutting SS

                •  Whoaaaa, what's with all the outrage? (8+ / 0-)

                  Geez, did your barista serve you regular instead of decaf this morning?  Plus add five packs of sugar?

                  Sure, the majority wasn't 76-16 like it was back in 1936, but all it would have taken was a vote to eliminate the filibuster - which most progressives have been clamoring to get rid of - and Dems could have passed a pretty damn progressive agenda.

                  Also, I don't "despite" Obama, I said I was disappointed in him.  As a Millennial - you know, the fucking group that this diary and Daily Beast article is entirely about - we were sold "Hope and Change"; Obama as the "Hero Candidate".  And what we've gotten is pretty much status quo.  Status quo with a liberal-at-times, moderate-most-times bent, but status quo nonetheless.  

                  No wonder my generation is cynical about government.  We were yearning for government to work for the people once again - and not at half-loaf levels - and instead it continued to work for the banks and the corporations.  My generation is definitely egotistical and flashy, with our Instagram and Twitter and Facebook, but we're damn well educated and more than willing to support government when it works entirely for the people.  That hasn't happened, and we're smart enough to see it, so that's why any anti-government sentiment like from Rand Paul and his faux-libertarianism carries weight with disillusioned Millennials.

                  So cut the bullshit about my generation (or even myself) being "delusional".

                  Lastly, I also appreciate the history lesson about American political system from a person living in Canada.  That's pretty fucking hilarious.  Irony, much?

                  "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                  by mconvente on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:26:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Great comment, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mconvente

                but for one observation: you are correct, Obama never used the overtly populist rhetoric that Warren and too few others in DC use. But even the relatively temperate language he campaigned with was far more liberal than what he did once elected. It was stuff he was doing during that campaign that pointed the way towards the triangulated administration we got. One thing I particularly remember setting off the alarm bells for me was when I heard he was conferring with Zbigniew Brzezinski.

                "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                by sidnora on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:39:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I know. (0+ / 0-)

                Still trying to decide if it's a fault or a virtue.  

                I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

                by dkmich on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 04:46:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I think Hillary can make a huge (9+ / 0-)

              difference in ways people just don't think about.  She will focus on the women of the world and how investing dollars in helping women in poor nations can pay out huge dividends later.  Look at just one issue alone: birth control.  Women that can plan their families based on resources and their economics makes for a huge turnaround for a nation.  Now add to birth control the issue of education....which is something Hillary is focused on as well.

              I think Hillary is aware of the trade offs Bill made when he was in office.  I am not saying Hillary can be forced to drop her ties with big busniness, but I do think she will not be so giving and I also do not think she is a pleaser.  I do think she will make more of an effort to spend time working the politics in the senate and legislature than Obama is willing to do ( he set the bar pretty low...) and may come away with getting more consessions from repubs.

              I do give Obama credit for his Supreme Court choices and I think Hillary will do well with that as well.  At this point, that is my focus for the 2016 election.  I have a few conservative contacts as well as a few conservative relatives and I can tell you that is their focus as well.  The Court.  That will be the determining factor of the future direction of this nation, in my opinion.

              I would love more progressives in power, but am willing to work with avoiding the republican disasters by going with a democratic moderate.
               

              •  Hilary has nothing to lose. (6+ / 0-)

                Her age -- what it will take for her to become President -- her past.

                I am not convinced that she will be as progressive as we want, but I do see her as being fearless.

                "Since when did obeying corporate power become patriotic." Going the Distance

                by Going the Distance on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:20:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm...well, she is not as (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  scott5js, Superskepticalman, micsimov

                  progressive as I want, be sure of that.  But I also think she has the ability to change somewhat.  I look at gay rights and she her shift left.  I think she would pick a left leaning progressive woman for Supreme court looking at who Bill tried advancing in his day.

                  But mostly I see a huge shift for the women of the world that would be almost impossible for the world to shift back again once that happened, which would the single most advancement of the world since the Enlightenment.  It is hard for an entire population to go back into the Dark ages once experiencing enlightenment.

              •  I hope that your hope (10+ / 0-)

                ends up being justified. I doubt seriously that Secretary Clinton will be any less Third Way, any less militaristic, any less desirous of maintaining Executive Branch power, than President Obama. I'll wait to see whether we're allowed to have an open primary or whether- as has been pushed on this site, by the site's owner- Sec. Clinton should simply be considered the nominee and case closed.

                At some point, "the Supreme Court" has got to stop being an excuse for supporting Democrats whose policies- by their own admission- would have been considered Republican in a previous generation.

                One other note: I think the sequester is an outright disaster, actually something that will be talked about in disbelief by future generations of political thinkers. What, precisely, I wonder, was "avoided" by going with the "moderate" President Obama in this matter?

                •  Well, coming from a woman's POV, (5+ / 0-)

                  I have to say that the Supreme Court means everything to me and my daughter's future.  I see it as the defining times for women's rights to fall on either side of the razor it now balances upon.  I wish we could just snap our fingers and try to advance our entire progressive agenda, but the reality for me is that there are many pawns on the table and I simply do not want women's rights to be one of those pawns.  I think that where Obama hemmed and hawed and then caved for the advancement of birth control on all aspects of health care, that a woman for a leader of the free world would have torched the dark ages church for their insanity and exposed them to the world instead of quietly trying to make amends.  For starters.

                  Agree with you on the sequestration issue....just insane.

                  Having said all of that, I will add that I so badly want to see a progressive in the white house as well in the halls of congress, and of course the Court.  I have some hope for the younger generation to blend in new blood and expectations and for the Reagan believers to die off and that doesn't happen overnight.  But I think it will happen.

                  •  If an opening should occur, do you think that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    alwaysquestion

                    Secretary Clinton would be a viable SCOTUS nomination?

                    Or would you prefer someone younger that can have
                    a more long term impact on our justice system?

                    I believe she would be a fine Executive, but I think she could have a greater effect overall from the bench.

                    Thanks for all of your efforts.

                    •  I think she could do the job (0+ / 0-)

                      well and from that bench I do not think she would care what big business wanted so much.  Don't get me wrong...she is not against big business by a long shot, but right now, she has to deal with them politically like another branch of government as all politicians do these days.  But sitting on the court allows for freedom to flex and I think she would.

                      Having said all of that, I would rather see a much younger female chosen that can hold that seat for progressives to add to with the next and the next and the next.  We are working with 5 conservatives on the bench right now with the Chief being young and very conservative, health care decision aside.

                      Also, I really do not care for politicians to sit on the court, which is one of the things I really hate about some of the conservative court members...they are not silent about politics but rather outspoken and that diminishes that branch.

              •  I don't want someone focusing on the WORLD (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alwaysquestion, Stude Dude

                I want someone who gives a damn about people in this country.  When was the last time Hillary connected with ordinary Americans in ordinary towns?  I mean the reason she lost in 2008 was that she didn't bother to campaign much in Iowa and once Obama won there, he became a serious candidate.  

                I know she's burnished her neo-liberal, interventionist credentials but does she remember there is a middle WEST?

                •  I think that by focusing on other nations (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens, DarthMeow504

                  that have an oppressed female population, it benefits the West greatly.  Take the issue of national security.  Yes, I know the 9/11 terrorists were from middle/uppper class Saudi families, but others are not.  So when I hear an interviewer saying the old Afghan women he spoke with saying the US cannot win a war with Afghan or a nation of Islam, she clarified by saying American women have at most two children and cannot or will not give either up for war, but an Afghan woman has ten or fifteen children and can give those children to the cause.  Birth control is a national security issue.  It is a financial issue.  It is understood that women will not easily give their only child to war.

                  In terms of international aid, I would rather pay for birth control and education of the masses in place of the rescue food sources we now send.

                  There is great unrest in nations with hungry people.  Nations in a state of unrest are a problem for the rest of the world because someone that wants control and war can use that unrest to direct hate or blame into the West.  And now we have a problem.

                  I want peace through out the world and birth control is one inexpensive start.  In addition, peace is cheaper than war and our war industry gets too much of the cash pie, which I want reduced as well.

                  So I look at everything as being interconnected.

            •  Exactly - disdain n/t (0+ / 0-)

              The era of procrastination, half-measures, soothing & baffling expedients, & delays, is coming to a close. We are entering a period of consequences - Churchill

              by PrometheusUnbound on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:17:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, I can't agree with your original premise. (6+ / 0-)

            This sounds like "take your medicine, it's Hillary or a Republican".  The best we can hope for is that if we elect Hillary, we can "force her" to become more liberal.

            So,  I don't agree with your original premise.  i.e. "it's Hillary or a Republican".

            Then ...

            The real challenge for liberals and the millenials is whether we force her to become liberal as well
            .

            How very sad.  This is what Liberals are to be left with?

            I also agree that local elections matter.  As do national elections.  Really, we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

            •  Well, maybe this year. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DarthMeow504

              What else are we going to do?  Who will we support?  And if our candidate loses to Hillary anyway, then what?

              It's largely our fault, anyway:  for not having started this all when Reagan was President, for Adapting To Changing Times (aka "hippie-bashing") about as much as the party mainstream did.  I don't really see ANYONE these days standing up for "the whole package", so to speak.  If we don't involve ourselves in party politics, we can't complain when no candidates worth voting for appear.  And if we continue being "undercover liberals" or dumping on the '60s or the New Left, how will society in general know what it's really made of?

              The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

              by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:29:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary won't craft policy? She'll just rubber- (5+ / 0-)

            stamp stuff? The Hill gal? I think not, Sherlock. She'll be largely her own boss. I agree with much of your comment, but the implication is she's just a piece of furniture to be maneuvered about this way and that.

            That "ain't gonna happen," either.

            "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

            by Wildthumb on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:06:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Elizabeth Warren is a good alternative (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana, Superskepticalman, Ice Blue

            Don't underestimate her background and strong political views during these horrible, difficult economic times.

            We can deal with Hillary, though, if she's elected.  She doesn't have the fragile male ego and obsession with personal wealth that make Obama such a rigid, ideological POTUS.

            "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

            by Betty Pinson on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:08:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary is not Bill (6+ / 0-)

            and her presidency would not be a reprise of his. Her instincts in domestic policy are well to the left of both Bill and Obama.

            In international policy, she must play the hawk for reasons of sexual politics: if she did not, men would not elect a woman for CiC. In 2008, McCain kept referring to her as "General Hillary", and this sexist strain will resurface for any Dem woman candidate in 2016. Hillary's term as SoS will blunt it, but it will still play a role.

            Warren may be the darling of the new new left, but she is probably not electable as President in 2016, and there is no indication she wants to run. However, she would make a fine Sec of Treasury for President Hillary Clinton, and that would put Wall Street under the regulation it needs.

            •  If she must play the hawk (4+ / 0-)

              Then she won't get my vote.  

              She doesn't NEED to play the hawk.  Nobody questions how tough Hillary is.  She's not some little flower no one knows.  

              What she needs to show is not TOUGHNESS but COURAGE.  She made her Margaret Thatcher vote on Iraq.  But that didn't demonstrate courage.  It demonstrated expediency.  

              She needs to show she has the courage to set a new direction.  It's not 1992.  Does she have vision for 2016 and beyond?  Does she still have energy to set one?  

              •  Sexism is far from dead in this country (7+ / 0-)

                and you will see it become very animated in 2016 -- and then even more so during her presidency.

                •  And, of course, we'll be treated to the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Superskepticalman

                  spectacle of righteous criticism of Hillary emanating from the left being auto-disparaged as "sexism," just as so much criticism of Obama from the left is falsely equated with teabagger racism. And so it goes...

                  This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

                  by WisePiper on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:09:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We'll be treated to the spectacle of guys (4+ / 0-)

                    making comments like these:

                     "I have often said, when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." ~ Tucker Carlson about Hillary Clinton

                    "Iron my shirt!" ~ Audience member to Hillary Clinton during campaign event

                    "Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly, and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, 'Where is that marvelous ape?'" ~ John McCain

                    "The reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." ~ Chris Matthews about Hillary Clinton

                    "[Hillary Clinton] is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one." ~ Mark Rudov

                    •  Well, we'll be ready for it, and give them hell. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      atana, alwaysquestion

                      (ran out of subject line)

                      "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

                      by Superskepticalman on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:43:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Fascinating. (0+ / 0-)

                      You choose to counter my contention that substantive criticism of Hillary from the left will be falsely labeled sexism - by posting the sexist commentary of a bunch of right wingers and one faux liberal.

                      Thanks for (unwittingly) supporting my core contention.

                      This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

                      by WisePiper on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:28:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The examples go to the claim that "nobody question (0+ / 0-)

                        how tough Hillary is".

                        The #1 vulnerability of any woman running for president in this country will be that males won't think she is "tough enough" to head the military. Hillary has done lots of embarrassing things to counter that -- the 2008 picture of her surrounded by generals was especially cringeworthy. But guys apparently need that stuff.

                        And it's not as if Obama didn't have to prove his toughness to a skeptical white, male America, too -- hence the essentially pointless bin Laden operation. At least he chose a way to do it that didn't require starting a new war.

                        •  Look, I know, in the comment I originally (0+ / 0-)

                          responded to, you didn't claim sexist criticism would be emanating from kossacks specifically, or from the left in general. However, my comment was posted as a cautionary observation, grounded in what we've all observed happening here at the GOS with respect to attempts to defend Obama against harsh criticism. For every comment legitimately called out for racism (or at least for racial insensitivity) many others were inappropriately labeled as such, in a transparent attempt to stifle criticism. I anticipate the same will occur here with regard to Hillary and allegations of sexist comments.

                          This site's stated mission is absurdly contradictory. You don't get better Democrats by electing more Democrats. The latter is achieved by lowering the bar, not by raising it.

                          by WisePiper on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 01:31:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  FDR (5+ / 0-)

            Sorry but FDR was much more radical than he is given credit for, especially compared to Clinton (both) and Obama.  He did allow himself to be pushed leftward though.

          •  Remember that FDR was also wheelchair- (0+ / 0-)

            bound in a time when people like him were automatically shunned by employers. They were left to be "burdens" on their families. He felt most at home in Warm Springs where he could relax with others whose bodies were ravaged by polio.

            One of the first companies that actively recruited the disabled was the Bulova watch company. It was owned by a Jewish family who, as a sign of gratitude, wanted to do something for paraplegic WWII vets. They offered to train them as watchmakers. Gen Omar Bradley, who headed the VA at the tail end of WWII, was so impressed by that he later served on their board of directors.

            Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.--Sam Rayburn

            by Ice Blue on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:54:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  In defense (0+ / 0-)

          Reagan would not have contenanced the NSA panopticon. He was a flawed president in a great many ways. But when he spoke the word "liberty" that had real meaning, both for him and for those who listened, that went to the core of American values. It seems to have had none with any president since. It certainly has none with Obama, who in other areas is a reasonably good president.

          Yes, Reagan betrayed liberty in Central America. But he also was one of the many midwives of liberty in Eastern Europe. And we'll never know for sure, but there's a good chance he would have shut down the NSA by now, were he in Obama's shoes. In any case, even at worst if Reagan's belief in liberty was false and hollow, so is Obama's.

          •  Peas in a pod.... (8+ / 0-)

            As I said, at least Clinton had an excuse given his time in history and a war on poverty that went on and on and on.   Who knew the Democrats would go from the war on poverty to a literal war on the middle class.

            I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

            by dkmich on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:39:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Reagan was a tool who said what the (15+ / 0-)

            handlers told him to say.  They dressed it up in whatever language he would sound good saying.  His 2nd term he was nearly physically restrained from getting near a live microphone without a script.  I remember him babbling on about something that happened in a movie and he thought it was real.  Reagan is just a shorthand way of saying right-wing shadow government.

            75534 4-ever or until dk5

            by NearlyNormal on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:24:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He was like Bush II (8+ / 0-)

              Not really that interested in the details of executive governing.  He preferred to delegate everything and was easily manipulated by those who worked for him.

              "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

              by Betty Pinson on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:15:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  With the same (4+ / 0-)

              younger RW assholes involved who made up the Bush 2 administration. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Wollfie, the whole gang of unitary executive pushing, free market creeps. They made a coalition with the bible thumping theocratic right and became the party of pig ignorant flag waving nasty's were dealing with now.  Some of them came to politics under Nixon.

              Here we are decades later stuck with their. lawlessness, anti-democractic, war mongering, neo liberal, neocon, cold warrior mentality that constitutes Axelrod's  'world as we find it'. These same players along with the rest of the Dem. third way free market fundamentalist's and neocons are who is running and own our party machine. Both Clinton's are of the same ilk. They didn't call Big Dog Poppy's other son for nothing. He also ran as a populist 'The Man From Hope'. Hillary is a bad ass endless warmonger, she's still a Goldwater girl and nothing any Democrat should accept as the next asshole to wear the Dem. throne

              Obama is just a suit a talented pol, with no scruples about pulling a bait and switch for the owners of the place. The powers that be are just one big happy crime family. The RW extremist's are the frighteners the so called Dems use to get ordinary people to ratify their power with votes. Vote for HRC or else your gonna get a vagina probe along with your endless wars and rule by Goldman Sachs, dirty big oil, big Ag, healthcare for profit, giant corporate governance.

              You'll also get for your vote a security police state where you need to sacrifice your rights  both human and civil cause big brother is is keeping you safe. But hey, better then the other evil not really lesser but not quite as bat shit crazy. Maybe they are just as mad, but their rhetoric sounds better.        

          •  You can't blithely (4+ / 0-)

            mention "betray[al] of liberty in South America" and then ignore it.  You apparently fail to recall that Reagan directly subverted the will of congress by funding the contras.  How does subverting the legislature comport with a strong belief in liberty?  You apparently weren't old enough during the Reagan years (and have not read its history) to think Reagan is any kind of soldier for liberty.  

        •  I love how it's always everyone (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          else's fault, the mess we're in.  AND, you're waiting for someone ELSE to come along and fix it.

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:08:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rank and file Dems have zero influence today (6+ / 0-)

            Obama, Reid, et al are not interested in the opinions, needs or wants of average Dems.  They've studiously constructed their own reality in DC so that we have no impact or influence.

            So how do we go about influencing our own party's leaders when they're adamant about shutting us out?  At best, we can influence a few Dems in the House, but the WH and the Senate are closed off to us.  As someone who does some issue lobbying, I can attest this is the situation.

            "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

            by Betty Pinson on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:21:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Who is your candidate? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Superskepticalman, Larsstephens

          I do not expect too much of the Presidency, at least for a while. The last 3 Democratic Presidents have been fairly centrist.
          So elect more members of Congress like John Conyers or Elizabeth Warren. Get more people to vote in your primaries as well as in November. Give good people more incentive to run for office. That means more people who seek out good people running for office.

          Censorship is rogue government.

          by scott5js on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:09:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The presidents have been fairly centrist (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            scott5js, Larsstephens, DarthMeow504

            because the country is at best center/left. We are one small echo chamber, our ideas aren't shared by all Americans. The battle for the Presidency involves gathering as many of those centrist people as one can.

            Leftists have more power over who they can elect on local levels. Get some more liberal Senators and Congressmen and the President will get better bills to sign. And, btw he will sign them and push for more.

            "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

            by high uintas on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:07:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes: corporatism doesn't mean what some (18+ / 0-)

          people think it means: it is a synonym for fascism.

          I resent that. I demand snark, and overly so -- Markos Moulitsas.

          by commonmass on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:05:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My take is (23+ / 0-)

            fascism is marked by a close collaboration between government and big business corporations.

            In Fascism 1.0 (Mussolini, Franco, Dolfuss, Salazar, and Adolf) the STATE was the senior partner in the collaboration and called the shots. Mussolini wanted to make the Mediterranean a "Roman Lake". Adolf wanted to tear up the Versailles Treaty and restore German military might.

            What we have now is Fascism 2.0. Same close collaboration but this time the multi-national CORPORATIONS are the senior partner and call the shots.
               "We want less regulation, judicial rulings in our favor, permission to bribe officials scot-free. When we get in trouble YOU will bail us out with public funds....OR we will crash your economy. YOU will face soaring unemployment, riots in the streets, perhaps even exile....while WE will be hobnobbing at Davos and sipping martinis on the Riviera."

            The core of my forthcoming book on the matter.

            FWIW.

            Shalom.

            "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

            by WineRev on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:49:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, in the case of Dolfuss and Austro-Fascism, (6+ / 0-)

              and in the case of Franco, there was a third partner: the Church. In fact, the Austrian version is sometimes referred to as "Clerico-Fascism". Same true with Horthy in Hungary.

              I resent that. I demand snark, and overly so -- Markos Moulitsas.

              by commonmass on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:55:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed (5+ / 0-)

                I am trying to stay focused on the economic side of fascism, but, yes, that Clerico-Fascism keeps popping up, all around the Mediterranean in Fascsim 1.0. There seems to be a link with Catholic thought in that era. (There are also some echoes of this during the Interwar period in intensely Catholic Poland, and in neighboring Lithuania.)
                     (Also worth pointing out that the one country that went fascist that wasn't predominantly Catholic (Germany) was the one that went far more viciously into racism and anti-semitism than any other.)

                More intriguing still is the South American take on all this, starting with the 'Estado Novo' effort in Brazil in the mid-30s and the later semi-fascism of Peron in Argentina. (Here I'm giving away bits of the book, but....according to Mussolini's theory, the national economy would be run by a three way effort among capital, labor and government setting overall goals. In reality capital and government typically ganged up to screw labor, breaking unions, drafting recalcitrant workers into the military, etc.
                    Yet in South America there is some evidence that they came closer to success. Under Peron Argentina established a 40-hour work week, a minimum wage, and stronger child labor laws. These are all quite pro-labor and distinct from what happened in Italy or, say, Portugal.)

                Shalom.

                "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

                by WineRev on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:46:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  There's a new pope in town. (0+ / 0-)

                I have a lot of problems with the RCC but they may be the trailblazers here.

                Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.--Sam Rayburn

                by Ice Blue on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:04:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  perpaps a "kindler, gentler" fascism... (4+ / 0-)

            To me, fascism is corporatism plus a malignant ultra-nationalism. Some say we are there now (and the American credo of exceptionalism is that ultra-nationalism), but at least we haven't heard Washington agitate for the liberation of our fellow "natural Americans" living under oppression in Canada.

            Yet, anyway.

            "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

            by Superskepticalman on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:56:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  malignant ultra-nationalism (4+ / 0-)

              omg - American exceptionalism and self-proclaimed world cop.   Does that qualify?

              I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

              by dkmich on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:42:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  "Corporatism", per Wikipedia, (0+ / 0-)

              has nothing to do with the business concern we call a corporation.  It seems to have to do with a sort of industrial association or guild; from what I can tell everybody had membership in a "corporation" that represented some interest or another, and these worked with the State in a single, all-encompassing social structure, from which we get the term "totalitarian".  I could be wrong, but that's the sense I get.

              The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

              by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:34:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  So we have two fascist parties? Two Mussolini-run (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Superskepticalman

            factions? Okay.

            "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

            by Wildthumb on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:07:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Vichy Dems (3+ / 0-)

        They're the bottom of the barrel, the worst leaders our party has produced since the Civil War era.

        I will be so glad to see the sell-outs gone.

        We have to get rid of Citizens United and institute some real campaign finance and lobbying reform to make it happen.

        An FP diary is trumpeting a push by Freedum Works to get right of the religious wingnuts in the GoP.  If the GOP gets rid of those nuts, get ready to see some Dems abandon ship for their true home in the GOP.  We will need to have some real, good leadership of our own in place to get our own party back on track.

        "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

        by Betty Pinson on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:03:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This Millennial distrusted the GOP since he was 11 (74+ / 0-)

    The whole foaming-at-the-mouth rage at Clinton reeked of the reaction of a bully seeing the type of kid he tormented wind up being more successful. And of course, this phenomenon was multiplied with Obama's election.

    But oh would it be a delicious treat to watch all my fellow 'millennials' pull the Democrats back from this pernicious rightward shift....

      •  The neoliberals will never last... (34+ / 0-)

        It's a movement without beliefs. It's the great pretender of political parties. Say what you want about the neocons... they don't pretend.

        The neoliberals profess to stand up for everyday Americans and then turn around and do the bidding of corporations.

        The good news is that there are enough core liberals like Alan Grayson and Raul Grijalva in the House and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate to form a nucleus of a progressive movement that won't betray the people.

        So, you're right: there's a neoliberal new-liberal movement afoot. Establishment Democrats either need to get with the People and lead... or get the hell outta the way!

        Yes, I'm talking to you, NDC, (New Democratic Coalition) You're no better than the Blue Dog Democrats and Moderate Republicans you replaced.

        NDC Membership

        'Cuz freedom can't protect itself ~~ EFF ~ EPIC ~ ACLU

        by markthshark on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:32:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neoliberals are the oligarchs' pawns (25+ / 0-)

          Neoliberalism is the ideology used by those who promote corporate oligarchic power, on a global scale.  They have seized power of international organizations and both political parties in most advanced countries.  They are the political face of the oligarchy, and their ideology is simple rationalization for the oligarchs' control.

          I have long suspected that the Occupy movement would prove to be the John Brown of the new economic populist movement.  Strikes by WalMart and fast food workers are the current manifestation of a movement on the rise, and Elizabeth Warren is the politician currently best placed to lead that movement in elective politics.  She won't bring it about, but she can speak for it and help it assert its power electorally.  Warren, or someone like her, will lead the counter-revolution against the neoliberals, and it will win.

          We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

          by Dallasdoc on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:17:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thing is, the neoliberals have financial backing. (18+ / 0-)

          They don't need inner conviction -- campaign donations from the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate) buys them all the fake conviction they need.

          I also think the millenials may shift the political discourse to the left, but we need to be realistic about the considerable power wielded by the neoliberal set. I remember in the months after the financial crisis in 2008, there was a widespread belief on the left that the crisis would thoroughly discredit neoliberalism as both an ideological construct and as a political reality.

          Yet here we are in 2013, Wall Street is firmly ascendent again (economic inequality has hit its highest point ever), and the architects of the financial crisis -- both on the political and private sector sides of the ledger -- have in no way paid either a legal or political price for what they have done. President Obama feels sufficiently insulated from the fallout over the crisis that he is apparently leaning towards the appointment of Summers as head of the Fed.

          Occupy, of course, was a crucial moment, and unlike others, I'm not completely pessimistic about its impact. Phrases like "the 99%" have become household memes. And it's true that there's no way we can entirely go back to the confident free market conventional wisdom of the pre-2007 era. Just yesterday, I heard a piece quoting a Wal-Mart spokesman saying, "we know that there is a conversation going on about economic inequality in this country, and we want to be part of the solution." As laughable as that is, it is a very real concession to the changed state of things.

          I'm not saying, let's not be optimistic. But we need to be absolutely clear about the considerable inertia that neoliberalism has built up over the years as an ideological point of departure. It's not going to go away without a fight.

          Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

          by Dale on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:40:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Neoliberalism (10+ / 0-)

            Neoliberalism's most effective position has been staking out a solidly left-wing stance on social issues which it has used to stay viable.  Bloomberg did it well, Andrew Cuomo is a master.  And, to their credit, it's gotten us real progress on a number of important things.

            But we need a movement that marries left-wing social ideas with actual liberal financial policy.

            •  Just so. (4+ / 0-)

              Democratic policy tacks left on social policy, buying themselves a bit of leeway for their fiscal conservatism through advocating (imperfectly and inconsistently) for progressive change on LGBT issues, women's reproductive health, immigration, and so forth.

              It's the mirror image of conservatism in the early 2000s, which successfully married hot button social conservatism (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights) with a quiet stealth campaign of financial deregulation and tax cuts for the rich.

               

              Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

              by Dale on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:58:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  HIPPIEEEZZZZ (0+ / 0-)

              What no one understood about the '60s (on either side) was that grown-up hippies are still hippies.  What no one understood about the '70s (on the left side) was that a step forward is cause for celebration, not disappointment.  We just didn't expect 1979 to happen, and that threw people for a loop and they didn't know what to do.  

              But for starters, let's stop the hippie-bashing.

              The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

              by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:39:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The financial crisis didn't quite discredit the... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stude Dude, Don midwest

            oligarchs, even though it should have stripped every iota of credibility from our banking system.

            I remember in the months after the financial crisis in 2008, there was a widespread belief on the left that the crisis would thoroughly discredit neoliberalism as both an ideological construct and as a political reality.
            But it did expose both the egregious amount of pure greed they employ, and the multi-tiered complicity of our so-called justice system.

            It was a crucial step in the process of waking up the American People.

            'Cuz freedom can't protect itself ~~ EFF ~ EPIC ~ ACLU

            by markthshark on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:46:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The only movement that won't betray the people (5+ / 0-)

          cannot come from politicians, it MUST be formed, organized abd led by the people ourselves.  Then pols can respond to our call if they believe it will help their careers advance.  But remember this, politicians are by definition careerists and opportunists, always looking to advance themselves with no regard for those they run over in the process.  By organizing ourselves, we make ourselves impossible to run over.But don't organizxe for the purpose of electing politicians, organize to advance the interests of those organized and organizing.  Look what's happened to the AFL-CIO since it began devoting the largest portions of its staff and budget to electing pols rather than  organizing the unorganized.  Utter collapse.  That's what the people get (and deserve!) when we go tailing the pols.

          Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

          by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:09:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  won't work (0+ / 0-)

            we learned that with Occupy.  
            The corporate sector sends out government thugs to beat people down and lock them up, and then the corporate-funded media smears the people to influence public perception.

            •  You expected it to happen all at once? (0+ / 0-)

              See, that's the issue right there.  It takes a long time--and I mean decades.  If we'd been staying with HIPPIIEEEZZZ all this time, figuring out what was going wrong and how to put it right and make it mature, it would've gotten somewhere.  Instead, even liberals have been "ratifying" the Reagan Reaction all this time, to varying degrees, mostly culturally.

              The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

              by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:41:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no (0+ / 0-)

                don't put words in my mouth.  I never expected it to happen all at once.

                I also didn't expect the ferocity and complete domination by the government, and that the media could turn the public against the people so quickly and completely.  I think it is hopeless, but that is not because I expected it to happen all at once.  I just overestimated the power of the people and underestimated the power the corporations had over the government and media.

            •  If you think that what happened to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DarthMeow504

              Occupy was terrible enough to make further effort pointless, you have no idea what it took to build the first progressive movement. From the beginning of labor organization in the 1880s through the women's suffrage movement in the early 20th century and on to the civil rights movement, people suffered, went to prison, and died for what they believed in.

              This is a war. I believe it will be fought eventually, because there is a limit to what people will put up with, especially people who remember rights and prosperity they themselves used to have. But it won't be fought or won by people with attitudes like yours.

              "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

              by sidnora on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:10:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  f-you (0+ / 0-)

                you do not know me.

                I was one of the people beat down by government thugs working for corporations.  

                There is a point where a dictatorship has so much power over every aspect that real change is not possible unless and until there is a lot heavier burden on the average person (think food shortages/riots).  With what happened to Occupy and the recent NSA revelations, I now believe that government/Corporate control is so total and complete that it would take a lot more hardship before we are even close to having enough people to effect real change.

                •  Nice insult there. (0+ / 0-)

                  I should really hiderate you for it, but I don't get involved in flame wars.

                  Just so you know, I was very supportive of OWS, donating hundreds of dollars' worth of food and supplies out of my own pocket and delivering them myself. I had friends down there. I very much wanted it to succeed, in spite of the fact that I felt there were serious operational mistakes being made.

                  If you're going to wait for food shortages or riots before you think we're ready for additional direct action, you'll be waiting a while longer. I am no longer young, and I don't have time to wait. And as for my original comment, read some history, my friend.

                  "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                  by sidnora on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 12:00:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Can't Be Done Unless There's a Concerted Program (50+ / 0-)

      of replacing Democrats. The party has been a 2nd conservative party since the boomers began marrying, totally bought into neoliberal economics.

      We're not a democracy any more, we're a democratic oligarchy. We get to vote, but the voting only chooses which politicians will represent the oligarchs. The fact that millennials have liberal policy preferences is meaningless in a society where the highest-turnout voters, seniors, so strongly favor programs like social security and medicare which are being cut regardless.

      It's going to take thousands of millennials and some of their younger elders running for local and regional party positions, and elected office from school board and town council to state reps, replacing the conservative Democrats.

      The country is too far gone for our party to become liberal just because voters prefer those policies.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:31:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is not working for the Right, putting their (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude, dougymi, high uintas

      Paulites into office.  They have no intent to govern.

    •  Hate to Break it to You... (13+ / 0-)
      The whole foaming-at-the-mouth rage at Clinton reeked of the reaction of a bully seeing the type of kid he tormented wind up being more successful
      Right.. and what was the source of this rage? One, Clinton wasn't supposed to win in 1992, after all, he was just "poor white trash" from Arkansas. the Bushs are east coast Blue Bloods.

      Two, in order to deal with Gingrich and growing conservative populism, Clinton/Emanuel/McAuliffe turned right, started kissing corporate ass, getting plenty of corporate money and co-opted some of Gingrich's "Contract for America" platform, i.e. the tough on crime, anti social welfare nonsense.

      Remember, one of the major pieces of legislation resulting from the 1930's great depression, the Glass-Steagall Act-- was overturned under the Clinton administration. pro Wall Streeters Larry Summers and Robert Rubin "advised" Clinton this was a great thing to do. The legislation to overturn Glass-Steagall came from Senator Phil Gramm.. another corporate butt kisser.

      so the "rightward" shift by the democratic party started long ago, and I don't see anything stopping it.

      If Hillary runs in 2016, you think millenials largely will not vote for her?

      "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

      by Superpole on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:06:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good analogy. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orangecurtainlib

      "Truth catches up with you in here. It's the truth that's gonna make you hurt." - Piper Chapman

      by blueoregon on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:11:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Skinny jeans and knit hats... (26+ / 0-)

    to the rescue!!!

    I was a new new Democrat before it was cool.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:27:06 PM PDT

  •  A Few Thoughts (55+ / 0-)

    First, I fall into this generation as I was born in 1988 and will be 25 in just under two weeks.

    My economic views now are far to the left of what they were when I was in high school (part of that stems from not paying much attention to such issues--but tracking that evolution will make me ramble even longer than I already am); however, one of my most firmly and consistently held political positions has been an opposition to war and militarism. I remember having a classroom poll in my social studies class back in 9th grade in 2003 on the Iraq War. I can only think of one person who supported the Iraq War--there might have been others. I was certainly not one of them. I also had a strong reaction against the xenophobic and Islamophobic vein in conservatism, particularly neoconservatism; being the child of an interfaith marriage (Catholic-Jewish) and having several close Muslim friends certainly influenced such attitudes toward pluralism.

    I was very disheartened, though, to see a Gallup poll from this past March that showed that the under 30 crowd were the biggest supporters of the Iraq War and the Vietnam War (as in least likely to think they weren't mistakes.) I think the Vietnam one has to do with the poor teaching of history.  The more I've learned about US foreign policy over the years, the more left-leaning my foreign policy views have become.

    http://www.gallup.com/...

    I enjoyed Beinart's piece although I always retain a certain skepticism about the triumphalist belief that millennials will stay liberal. I do, however, think that Beinart ignored two pretty key benchmarks that affect the political and cultural worldviews of the millennial generation.

    I think he leaves out what I see are two of the biggest benchmarks defining the "millennial" generation:

    (1) POLITICAL: Millennials have never really experienced the Cold War. By the time that the oldest members of the "millennial" generation began studying geography in elementary school, the Berlin Wall had already fallen. The oldest millennials would have been in elementary school when the Soviet Union dissolved.

    (2) CULTURAL: If you are in the "millennial" generation, you had the Internet by the time you got to high school, if not far earlier.

    The 1st point, in my opinion, contributes greatly to the different attitudes toward socialism and capitalism. We've always lived in the age of triumphalist capitalism, and we saw it collapse around the time we were beginning careers.

    He doesn't really engage with environmental issues/climate change that much, and I've never had the optimism about millennials on such issues that many older folks seem to have. Having been actively involved in environmental student groups in high school and college, I've always found most other students to be mostly supportive in principle yet VERY apathetic.

    •  I agree with you (16+ / 0-)

      about what looks like apathy, and the importance of environmental issues. The apathy is I hope just a product of having current choices that are just not palatable, and therefore simply shrugging off the whole political mess things are in. When they're in the position by sheer numbers to reshape policy to their own values though, that should change.

      •  Sounds about right. (7+ / 0-)

        Before W., as young as I was, my opinion was essentially "a pox on both your houses."  After all, Gore was (as near as I could tell) little better than W., a somewhat preferable option since he would make things worse slower than W.  If I knew then...

        "There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes. - James Morrow

        by kirrix on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 09:10:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sidnora, high uintas

          underestimating the ability of Bush and friends to really really fuck up.  A classic.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I sure did, (0+ / 0-)

            And I was a lot older and more aware than young kirrix here.
            I even had some idea of how awful Bush was well before the selection, thanks to Joe Conason (pdf), but I couldn't imagine that he'd be worse than Reagan. I figured the country was strong enough to survive four years of anyone.

            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

            by sidnora on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:28:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Numbers alone mean nothing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Th0rn, mightymouse

        People get swept up by the vortex and carried along in the wake of the powerful.  That's how it came to be that in 2003 we had over 70% of Americans buying into the blatantly obvious lies that drove the Iraq War.

        Organized numbers?  Now THAT makes a difference.  The question that we are left with is whether American working people are too thoroughly immersed in our culture of celebrity and spectacle to organize and participate as self-organizing and substative actors.  Or have we abandoned the concept of the democratic republic to the power brokers entirely?  

        Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

        by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:29:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there were giant (0+ / 0-)

          protests before the Iraq war.  tens to even hundreds of thousands in the streets., and in an organized way.

          The hold on power that the top have is too strong for it to matter.  

          I think it's over for the average person unless and until it gets REALLY bad, like worse than the Great Depression bad.  I mean food riots bad.

    •  Dear (6+ / 0-)

         I'm 62. galloop is one of the most crooked, bought for, manipulative cons that EVER came down the pike. I'm 62. Teh only game in town TV, the $take$.
      Nate Silver, enough said.

      March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

      by 3rock on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 09:07:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Many boomers have a problem with climate change. (9+ / 0-)

      Even boomer Democrats who are sympathetic to doing something about climate change often don't embrace it as the great crisis of our time. They keep having the same arguments with the same framing they were having 30 years ago. It's a real problem since those are the people in power.
      "We have to deal with the economy first."
      "But Senator so and so comes from a fossil fuel state and we need a Democratic majority."
      "Regulations might hurt the economy!"

      These phrases are used by people who are part of the problem and they need to be removed from power by young voters.

    •  I think millennials are just as likely to get (14+ / 0-)

      all caught up in Randian hucksterism as they are to push left.

      There is no intellectual foundation laying around for them to grab, is there?

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 10:47:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The apathy ties in to the mass-market propaganda (34+ / 0-)

      of, literally, the last forty years. If you watch programming and advertising with an alert eye and ear -- aside from news and 'public affairs' programming -- you'll see that almost every single thing presented boils down to: your appetites are your identity, and your identity is all that matters.

      For instance, I don't watch network/cable tv that much, but I had, for sports-related reasons, to keep tuning in for a period.

      Every bloody commercial was about how someone close to you would steal or cheat you out of 'the desired object.' Or how you could get over on them, to get it. The variation to this was how cool it was to treat someone else like they were crap.

      Same with the shows. The perpetual teen-age-ification has been the goal of our mass media for generations, and it's working. Where life isn't about what you owe, or the conditions of real people. It's about what you can and should get.

      Adrenaline-rushes, titillation, tensions, and indolent amusements are the maximal states for the public to be open to suggestion. This has been known for a century now, and well used by the folks working in the revolving door of advertising, psychology, business, and intelligence. As the BBC four-part documentary shows.

      The recent explosion of instant communication just reinforces the habits already inculcated.

      There's plenty of documentation of this point. Anecdotally, I used to typeset, in the 70s, making conference materials for the major advertising agencies in the Anglo-American world. Literally a 100 or more of the top people in the business would meet every year or so and discuss the problems and future of their business.

      They had hit upon "don't sell the product's virtues; lead the mark to invest their self-esteem in the product."

      (The very first product from this, for those who were there, was that instant coffee which wasn't bloody instant-coffee but 'the experience of Old Vienna.' 'Sophistication' was very important to the crowd who would later become called 'yuppies.')

      This is also why there's constant assault on old-fashioned morality. Self-absorbed consumers are easiest to manipulate.

      The result:

      http://www.google.com/...
      "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait."
      Absence of empathy equals abundance of apathy. There's only appetites, and comfort, and pleasure, and little need to 'think outside the coffin.' That's what has to be broken down as quickly as possible. The on-going economic misery should help with that, I'd expect.


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:43:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very insightful (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ActivistGuy, Bronx59, Naniboujou

        IMO the pernicious effect of marketing cannot be overestimated.  I'm always hearing people talk about the latest ones as if they are new songs or movies.  They really seem to enjoy being manipulated.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:34:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think they imagine they're *not*. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Subterranean, Jim P

          What lots of people don't understand is that the sense of being "real" and "honest" and "authentic" is also something that advertisers (and others) can use to manipulate people.  Music especially is susceptible to this, because even the musicians themselves get in on it (they likely believe it, to be honest).  Music X is "real" and "honest"; you can tell because it sounds like this and is about these things and is made by people playing those instruments and wearing these clothes and hair lengths, not like those posers over there in their ridiculous costumes making Music Y, which was always phony and fake.

          The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

          by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:01:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  An important point that gets confused (7+ / 0-)

        Discouragement is not apathy.  It can lead to it though, a reality that politicians of every establishment stripe are quick to hold and use.  The sense that those of us who are outside the magical circles of inclusion, based on perceived power and wealth (thus, worth) simply are not heard, have no actual recourse or representation within the system is real.  You can only slap down peoples hopes and dreams so often before they entirely give up and retreat into the bitterness of entirely desocialized existence.  It may look and act like apathy, but it is the result of defeat deliberately imposed on the lower classes to enrich the rich and empower the powerful.  This has been relentlessly the character of our one-sided class war of the last 40 years.

        Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

        by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:38:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I've taught my kids about advertisements (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Th0rn, Naniboujou

        The lesson is: the point of an advertisement is to make you feel bad about yourself, and then offer the product as a means of redemption.  Therefore, the more ads you see, the worse you will feel, so don't watch TV!

        (They are in grade school, so I'm keeping it simple.)

        You are totally right about the perniciousness of marketing.  Finding quality is a massive undertaking, and so many people have no idea that things can be built to last.

        Universal Health Care - it's coming, but not soon enough!

        by DrFood on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:25:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  General Foods International Coffees? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, Jim P

        They came in small, rectangular cans, starting about '75.  I think they're still made, aren't they?

        The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

        by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:56:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What did we expect? They think no one (0+ / 0-)

        gives a damn about them, so they don't give a damn about anyone else.

        Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.--Sam Rayburn

        by Ice Blue on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:33:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Teh world (10+ / 0-)

       I'm 62 and have always held to the reality that Europe & the world are always moving forward. It's what has sustained me.
        So that these younger gens are connected is a reality of optimism, I do not doubt.
        Younger gens, Thank You

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:56:02 PM PDT

  •  Dream On (5+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, there's no viable, organized left to serve as a starting point. Besides organization, systemic takes leadership, stamina, and vision -- and by stamina I mean the willingness to pound away for years. I don't see any of that on a broad scale, at least on the left. The most likely model going forward is Occupy Wall Street, which by design is none of those things.

    The best thing going for the left is demography: Conservative voters are old and liberal voters are young.

    "There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion." Lyndon Johnson

    by pkgoode on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:56:40 PM PDT

  •  Millenium Vote Still Up for Grabs (14+ / 0-)

    According to the Huffington Post, Milleniums are becoming fiscally conservative. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.... Also, during the 2012 election, the Huffington Post reported that 42 percent of 18 and 19 year olds considered themselves as conservatives, aproximately 10 points higher than 22 to 24 year olds.

    One disturbing trend is that Milleniums are becoming cynical of government. Thus, the Millenium generation is ripe of turning to Rand Paul libertarianism.

    •  That's the biggest danger (20+ / 0-)
      turning to Rand Paul libertarianism
      I agree.

      As for the rest, that huffpo article was just anecdotal. I'll go with the numerous polls Beinart cites, and the big politico-demographic shifts people like Ruy Teixeira have been documenting.

      •  Ack. Hope not the women, these so-called (4+ / 0-)

        Libertarians still think it is their right to control my reproductive organs

      •  You can mock us (6+ / 0-)

        left/social anarchists if you wish, but we operate on a set of terms that these young people can hear, even if it's nothing but a silent dog-whistle to all those actively engaged in establishment politics.  It's why Occupy was ;aunched by left anarchists, we were finding a means to tune into something we knew was there.  95% of the establishment was blankly unaware that such sentiments were ripe, and regardless of partisanship or purported ideology were delighted to engage in a vast unleashing of state power to suppress and silence that movement.  And now establishment folks don't realize that the clubs and pepper-spray that shattered the Occupations also rigorously reinforced the underlying anti-statist sentiment already present.  We noticed we got pepper-sprayed while banksters got taxpayer-financed seven-figure bonuses.  Do people truly believe that has no political impact?

        Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

        by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:48:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It depends... (0+ / 0-)

          ...on what the Mechanism (IYKWIM) can get people to think of you.  If they can get people to hate you as much as they hate the big guys, then what?  What do people do with that "anti-statist sentiment"?

          The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

          by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:05:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  They will only go libertarian (21+ / 0-)

      if Libertarians are the only ones offering an anti-authoritarian ideology that expresses a healthy distrust of government.
      If Democrats go the Feinstein route and say "just trust us about NSA" then they'll lose Millennials. If they offer big government solutions instead of democratic solutions that empower people then Democrats will lose more young people.

      Republicans spent a lot of time making "big government liberal" one phrase in people's minds because they know it works to their advantage and that will only be more true in the future. Democrats really need to think about what direction we're going if we want to keep the overwhelming majorities that voted for Obama.

      •  I'm not so sure the millennials think there's (13+ / 0-)

        anything wrong with the NSA. God knows I've had this argument with my 23-year old son who just can't be persuaded that there's anything wrong with the NSA phone tracking. He is in every other way liberal, but he just believes that if you have nothing to hide why would you care who's listening.

        Remember, the Millennials also were very young when 9/11 happened, and some believe, as my son does, that almost anything done in the name of national security is just fine. And I think growing up with cell phones and the internet has left them with a lower expectation of privacy, or a desire for it, as previous generations.

        •  We have lost privacy, the only thing left to do (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, Th0rn

          is to be sure that all the snooping is ONLY allowed in court for actual terrorism cases.

          •  So tell them that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Th0rn

            EFF.org: Tell the U.S. Government What You Really Think About NSA Surveillance

            These comments will contribute to a formal report and recommendations that the Review Group will provide to the President through the Director of National Intelligence.

            This, of course, is just one report; it is not a replacement for the much-needed Congressional investigation and legislative fixes necessary to stop dragnet surveillance. But it is one opportunity to showcase the enormous public opposition to NSA’s bulk spying programs and to inject the public into the discussion—including people outside of the United States, Internet companies, academics, and the technical community.

            -7.75 -4.67

            "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

            There are no Christians in foxholes.

            by Odysseus on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:57:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  This: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          figbash, Th0rn, mightymouse
          Remember, the Millennials also were very young when 9/11 happened, and some believe, as my son does, that almost anything done in the name of national security is just fine.
          I've found this to be true.  I'm a little surprised that the cited study above finds Millenials to be anti-war.  The only folks I've seen on my Facebook feed that favor Syrian strikes are Millenials.  I also remember young people chanting "USA! USA!" outside the White House when we got bin Laden.  I mean, it's great we got bin Laden, but chanting jingoistic slogans in celebration of it is not something I would have personally contemplated.

          Cake or DEATH? Oh, I'll have cake, please.

          by wmtriallawyer on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:57:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I mean (0+ / 0-)

            Some of that is just a question of who's up late and drunk enough to go chanting at the White House at midnight on a weekday, as I think that was.  

            But clearly, no generation is free of a cohort of mock-patriotic blowhards.

        •  Anecdotal. (0+ / 0-)

          I think young people do have a more realistic understanding that privacy is an illusion in our times.

          I decided to google it and the most referenced poll says young people are more supportive of Snowden's leaks and less supportive of NSA spying.
          http://www.people-press.org/...

      •  sometimes democratic solutions (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nice Ogre, high uintas, Naniboujou

        are "big government solutions."

        this needs to be explained.

        the GOP has been very effective at turning people against the idea of government.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:13:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is a communitarian aspect... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      ...that will need to be overcome for Rand Paul's shtick to be embraced by a critical mass of Millenials and future generations. Part of that would be Red States showing that they can actually temper income and asset inequality with...something. My guess is real and significant "voluntary taxation" or "sponsored social service delivery."

      Even then, I would be surprised if that could be pulled off for long enough to show results before the Money Changers get restless of the "self imposed charity" and decide the money can be put to "much better use"....

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:31:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Praying I live to see it! (21+ / 0-)

    I'm 60, and was thoroughly inculcated as a child in FDR liberalism.  I've been grossly disappointed in every Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson (his domestic policy was good even though the Vietnam War ruined his presidency - and possibly the Democratic Party as well, in hindsight.)

    I wasn't impressed with Carter's centrism, and was horrified when Clinton said "the era of Big Government is over."  I knew exactly what he was doing when he said that.  

  •  I'm sceptical of 'generational' arguments (8+ / 0-)

    While certain social trends can be demarcated (for instance younger generations are generally less bigoted, as they grew up in a more integrated, multi racial environment), I don't think the same can be said on economic outlook.

    I think the Internet does have a profound impact multigenerationally, as it removes the gatekeepers of information from the equation. If, indeed, younger generations seem more left economically, it is likely so because they didn't grow up reading the New York Times or watching television news.

    I'm 41. I remember Reagan well, as I was very engaged as a child. I remember the Cold War strongly. Yet, I'm an anarcho-communist.

    “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

    by lucid on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 09:15:24 PM PDT

    •  I may not have (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, KJG52, Betty Pinson, annan, TomP

      conveyed his argument completely. I think his main point was that the poles that define the political argument of the day are going to drastically change. Of course that doesn't mean that every individual will have the same experience or outlook, only that the current battles will shift away or change their look, and that the battlefield will move from the right to the left.

      In my life I've been all around the dial politically, shaped by events and slow realizations. I'd describe myself now as an anarcho-syndicalist....

    •  Someday perhaps someone with your orientation, (0+ / 0-)

      "anarcho-communist," can further explain this stance in a diary. I want to hear different orientations.

      Some people here may not believe this, but I believe in a worldwide government based on cooperation, not competition, with the working class in full control, passing the wealth and creativity around, with full sustainability for the planet. How exactly that comes about will be determined by the future. But please, no dictatorships of the proletariat.

      "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

      by Wildthumb on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:17:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you look through my diary history (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildthumb

        you'll get some glimmers. If I were to use a pop-cultural reference, my ideal world would look something like Star Trek Next Gen without the command structure. While some defend hierarchy as 'human nature', I don't think it to be particularly natural or human - and besides, even if it is, one of the defining characteristics of humanity is our capacity to reason - to make our own social order as we see fit. As an anarchist, I am a radical egalitarian. As a communist, I don't believe our resources [land, food, water, energy reserves, intellectual product, productive capacity] should be in the control of private individuals or entities.

        Now, I certainly don't think this world can happen over night, but if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime, I believe it is the world that we will evolve into - and there are many things we can do to hasten that transition.

        “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

        by lucid on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:45:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for this. Where is leadership in all this? (0+ / 0-)

          Or will the planet be run by large, rotating "committees" composed of representative groups, since that would resemble "egalitarian."

          I know what you mean by "hierarchy," but when leadership is spread over huge groups, frequently sometimes little can get done, even in emergencies.

          I think for myself my "planet order" might resemble large unions that run the whole shebang. But even that would involve some "hierarchy."

          I think speaking just for myself I have trouble reconciling "anarchist" and "communist," since the latter has been associated with "dictatorships of the proletariat," while the former is associated with a kind of extreme libertarianism.
          (I just checked the Wiki article on anarcho-communism.)

          I'll check your other stuff. Thanks.

          "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

          by Wildthumb on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:03:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The book to read (6+ / 0-)

    is nearly 25 years old - the Cycles of American History by Arthur Schlesinger,  It is a terrific exploration of cohorts and how political views are formed.

    One thing to note, though, is that there is a lag.  So the group that is 15 now may be very different than the group a little older because their parents are different.  

    In my own read, I have no doubt the young are more socially liberal. They are also more skeptical of military force - but then everyone is.

    I do not get the sense their views on economics are as well formed.  

    •  I'm rather concerned about the under-15 crowd now (9+ / 0-)

      though I've had very little interaction with them personally. My concern is primarily based on their Gen-X parents who swallowed Reaganism whole, and who also grew up overly fascinated by the glamour of the American tech industry but without the hands-on, practical, social involvement with technology that most young people have had. That and every Wall Street bubble they did or didn't ride to success.

      Gen X is the worst voting cohort in just about every set of crosstabs I've seen, especially on fiscal issues, and their distrust of government, organized labor, any kind of advocacy in society for the common good is legendary. Their culture, at least those that came of age in the 80s, seems to center around snowclones and shallow nostalgia. At this point I say "never trust anyone over 40" — but it's really the Reagan Youth cohort in their 40s and early 50s now more than the older baby boomers who at least had a rather broad set of social movements to inspire them, even if fragmented and prone to self-interest.

      I say "under 15" because I've seen no sign of this among the current 18-25 crowd yet, and it places their birth after 1998, which is the end of the echo baby boom, so their parents are more disproportionately likely to be Xers. The start date could be even later.

      The saving grace is that by the early 90s this mentality seems to be limited to youth of considerable privilege; I doubt there is a more right-wing, socially cynical cohort than Ivy Leaguers of that era, but the average kids growing up in the grunge age show the same cynicism toward American social class and exceptionalism instead. And the low numbers overall mean that children of millennials will start mixing in in only a decade later.

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)
        Gen X is the worst voting cohort in just about every set of crosstabs I've seen
        ...except for the postwar "silent" generation now in their retirement, many of them the parents of Gen X themselves.
      •  This is why I hate the generalizations (7+ / 0-)

        Of generational arguments. While some of what you say could be applied to some gen Xers in their 50's, it is most certainly not true of most gen Xers in their 40's.

        I think the things like family, education and cultural exposure, which varies widely within each generation, have far more influence on how individual's politics evolve. As far as I'm concerned, generational tags are no more predictive than astrological ones.

        “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

        by lucid on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:28:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I'm pretty offended. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wmtriallawyer, lucid, Th0rn, high uintas

          I'm 42 and not one of ct's broad strokes covers me.

          •  But I'll bet (5+ / 0-)

            you're quick to condemn all those selfish, greedy Boomers, right?  After all, they're all white, suburban and upper-middle-class, you know it's true, you've seen it on TV.

            Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

            by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:00:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lucid, Th0rn, cville townie

              Being an Xer child of Boomers.

              The thing that gets me about generational thinking is that it really is too easy to generalize it to tell the narratives we want to tell about ourselves and our (perceived) generational enemies. It seems that Xers may become the collective villains that others can project their grievances onto. Well, maybe that's our burden to bear, and those of us working for a better society will have to fly under the radar, so to speak.

              Now, I'm saying that there isn't something valuable that can be learned from looking at age cohorts. It's just that, like any social data, there can be a lot of other factors you might be missing in order to tell an oversimplified story.

              Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

              by Linnaeus on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:15:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Correction... (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not saying that there isn't something valuable that can be learned from looking at age cohorts...

                Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

                by Linnaeus on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:55:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well, you're relieving the Boomers, you see? (0+ / 0-)

                I remember reading an article in Time years ago which essentially said that though the WWII generation, the Boomers, and Xers loved and hated different things, everyone else hated the Boomers--they just blamed them for everything.

                The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

                by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:12:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Wait there are (3+ / 0-)

          Gen Xers in their 50's?

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:13:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            newfie, PsychoSavannah

            Gen X starts post-1964, so Xers haven't reached their 50s yet...we are in our 40s or mid-to-late 30s.

            Cake or DEATH? Oh, I'll have cake, please.

            by wmtriallawyer on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:25:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's pretty much how I thought it went. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wmtriallawyer

              Not that I put a ton of stock into it because I find that there typically are more hard fast statements - Baby boomers are so forth - and that never applied to me (born in 63).  

              "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

              by newfie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:50:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I always thought of the Xers (0+ / 0-)

              as mostly the children of the younger of my parents generation [pre-boomer] and the early boomers - so roughly '58-'74.  That said, I don't really put much stock in the 'divides'.

              “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

              by lucid on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:55:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Few, if any, Gen Xers over 50 (0+ / 0-)

          By most definitions, the oldest is 49.  

          I agree with you that that 1964 definition for the end of the Baby Boom is a little late, politically or socially.  Old enough to have no memories of Watergate or the Vietnam War is more realistic.

          Probably 1961 or 1962.  

  •  Big Government Liberalism isn't coming back. (8+ / 0-)

    We're talking about a generation that grew up learning about Watergate and Vietnam in school. Then they saw Bush invade Iraq. Then came the quasi-anarchist Occupy movement. Yes, they're more liberal and they aren't afraid of socialism. But, it's not going to be the kind of liberalism that gladly hands over massive power to the federal government. It will be an anti-authoritarian liberalism.

    I know many have been eager to label Obama a Clintonian third-way Democrat since before he took office. But, if you can't understand the fundamental differences between Clinton and Obama then you won't understand why Obama appeals to young people and you won't understand how the rising generation is different.

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annan, DuzT

      Things will look different going forward. Nothing ever comes back the same way. But they won't be what the hardcore free-market corporatists want them to be.

    •  I see President Obama as "Climton with class". (5+ / 0-)

      Could you share a couple of significant differences between Clinton and Obama especially when it comes to economic policy? They both seem to accept the basic Reagan paradigm.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:06:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, scott5js, Panurge

        Clinton followed the Reagan path by deregulating lending and the media.

        Obama enacted the largest re-regulation of Wall Street, credit cards, banks, and the lending industry since the New Deal. Some of those laws specifically reverse what Clinton did.

        The stimulus bill was the largest investment of federal dollars into jobs and the economy since the Great Society programs.

        Clinton made almost no progress on clean energy. Obama has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon emissions than Clinton and Carter combined X10.

        Each of those items is a hugely significant accomplishment with long term impacts that, if anything, are undoing the damage Clinton did while in office. Obama spent much of his first term cleaning up messes left behind by both Bush and Clinton.

        They're similar in that both Clinton and Obama raised taxes on the wealthy, which is the opposite of Reaganism.

        Obama has had to offer and make some ugly compromises to Republicans in Congress. But, here's the big difference. Clinton advocated for Republican agenda items like welfare reform, NAFTA, and deregulation. Obama keeps pushing for progressive principles. Even on the horrible Social Security chained CPI offer, he doesn't tell people the cut is a good thing. He doesn't advocate for it. The White House clearly said it's something they don't like by they have to get a budget somehow.

        And what did Obama ask for in return in that compromise? Increasing tax income from corporations and more spending on progressive government programs. In other words, the opposite of what Reagan would do.

        I think there's a meaningful difference between Clinton pushing Democrats in Congress to adopt his conservative agenda items, and Obama advocating liberal policies while being forced into bad decisions by a psychotically obstructionist Congress.

        Progressives have their own bubble like Fox News does. It's created by ignoring anything positive Obama does, exaggerating every negative, and pretending that everything bad Congress does is Obama's fault. It creates a distorted view of Obama's presidency. Otherwise, I don't believe the comparisons to Clinton would be taken seriously by anyone. How else can anyone claim the biggest regulator since LBJ is a Reaganite?

    •  what does this mean? (0+ / 0-)
      But, it's not going to be the kind of liberalism that gladly hands over massive power to the federal government. It will be an anti-authoritarian liberalism.
      Will there be taxation? regulation? and so on needed to reverse wealth polarization?

      to me "massive power of the federal government" is somewhat mythical.

      can you expound, Willinois?

      thanks.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:17:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Examples. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, scott5js

        Climate change is a bigger issue among young people. Big corporate polluters are the obvious villain. But, after seeing the government do little to regulate and often act as a promoter of fossil fuels, most young people don't trust government to solve the problem either unless politicians are forced to do something by the movement.
        Is that generation going to push for something like nationalizing the oil industry? No way. State-owned industries have horrible environmental records. Locally controlled democratic decision making that empowers all citizens is the only consistent protector of the environment.

        It's a generation that sees Ag policy being directed by Monsanto even under a Democratic President. Instead of waiting for a big change in federal policy to fix everything they're shopping at farmers markets and building local organic food systems. Bottom-up change. A smart politician will run on a platform that makes it easier for people to grow local food systems (and stop giving incentives for bad behavior by farmers) instead of promising policies that will fix everything for them with new sweeping federal rules.

        The most popular government programs, Social Security and Medicare, don't directly benefit them. In fact, both are taking a huge chunk from their low-wage paycheck. What federal program does directly impact them the most? Their crushing student loan debt. And pretty soon they'll be forced into high deductible insurance they can't afford or use. The backlash is coming.

        Remember the argument between Obama and Hillary in the primary about how changed happened in the Civil Rights movement? Hillary gave more credit to LBJ for forcing legislation through Congress, while Obama gave more credit to the movement forcing change onto politicians. Young people found Obama's argument more compelling.

        Anyway,this article about the anti-establishment center should be required reading. Democrats should think about how to craft an anti-authoritarian, populist-progressive message or else watch more young people gravitate toward the Rand Paul crowd.

  •  I hope you are right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Th0rn, TomP

    The main opposition to this I think is the popularity of political extremism; fueled by misguided political energy over either 1)the gross inadequacy of G.W. Bush and just about every high ranking GOP leader since and 2) the "otherness" of President Obama; who in spite of being a pretty conservative lefty, is seen by many Americans as the anti-Christ because of his brown skin and international heritage (if it isn't White, it's not alright type of thing). The Tea Party is a good example of this. Would these people have had the time of day back in the 1990s? Of course not. But today, in a nation griped by fear and economic stagnation, people are jumping on the bandwagon with all the other crazies.

    So I pray that you are right; but I hesitate to hold my breath to see it happen.

  •  These attitudes would be hopeful if not for (3+ / 0-)

    the younger cohort's seemingly 5-second attention span.  Regardless of how they answer surveys, political change happens from sustained effort and attention.

    •  Sometimes what looks like (6+ / 0-)

      a short attention span is really just multitasking. The millennials I know are some smart, hard working and amazing people.

      •  Multitasking inherently requires (4+ / 0-)

        some level of compromise on the amount of brain power being wielded for any given task.  I think corporate culture has cultivated this kind of distraction because it means people aren't approaching their lives or careers with the full force of a complete human mind.  They're basically reacting on lower-level impulses.

        I don't think Millennials are going to fit changing the world into their tight schedule of texting their every breath and bowel movement to everyone they've ever met, constantly Instagramming photos and videos of utterly trivial shit, and simultaneously playing mobile games and utilizing some idiotic app to do anything and everything other than something.  Politics will consist largely of knee-jerk reactionism and meme-propagation - the best that's possible trying to use 0.0002% of your brain to deal with highly complex issues while the rest of you is multitasking your job, family, social life, pseudo-social life on the web, and every other aspect of their distributed existence.

        Of course, there is a possibility they could emerge as a significant force, but only if they learn how to ignore things that don't matter - which is pretty much everything they're now known for, from social media to the gutless, generic pap they call music.

        •  wow.. (11+ / 0-)

          you sound just like the parents of the silent generation complaining about rock-n-roll.

          It seems there are always people who assume the worst f the young, ironically echoing the elders of a previous generation.

          Complaining about the activities and interests of young people being different from their own (horrors!) goes way, way back.

          Generally, the Kids will turn out alright in spite of the complaints

          We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

          by ScrewySquirrel on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:52:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a well studied phenomenon (4+ / 0-)

            when people multitask, they don't do any single task as well as if their attention was absorbed by that single task.  Usually each task is completed much worse when multitasking.  It doesn't matter when the person grew up, the results are the same:  true multitasking is not in human's nature.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:46:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the best (0+ / 0-)

              you can do is to do one task in a manner that aids the next task.  Trying to do both tasks simultaneous dilutes the results of both.  But when people do this they think they are multitasking.  When I am on a conference call about one subject and I am working on one of the multiple other top priority tasks I am giving one more attention than the other.  The more evenly divided the worse the outcome.

              "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

              by newfie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:20:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We live in a world where you have to multi-task (0+ / 0-)

              I think asking people not to multi-task is whistling in the wind.

              People freak out if you don't text them right back or pick up your phone.  My boss emails me on Saturday and is upset if I reply on Sunday.  We don't have well defined personal time, personal space.  Try telling someone "I'm working on this project, please wait."  They act horribly offended.  We multi-task because we have to.  (From a non-millenial)

            •  Hmm, hmm, mmyes, I shee... (0+ / 0-)

              Oh wait, are you seriously implying that because Millenials utilize texting technology more than older people do, we're doomed to mediocrity because multi-tasking is bad?

              That's laughable.

              Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

              by Boogalord on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:51:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How does technology inherently imply (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40

                multi-tasking?  You sound brainwashed, dude.

                •  Um, hello? (0+ / 0-)
                  I don't think Millennials are going to fit changing the world into their tight schedule of texting their every breath and bowel movement to everyone they've ever met, constantly Instagramming photos and videos of utterly trivial shit, and simultaneously playing mobile games and utilizing some idiotic app to do anything and everything other than something.
                  You're the one bemoaning us terrible Millenials and our awful social media habits, and then Subterranean's comment implied that "studies show" that multi-tasking degrades quality.

                  Or am I supposed to believe you two are talking about different things?

                  But by all means, carry on with your kids-these-days cranky old man persona. I'm sure someone finds it amusing.

                  Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

                  by Boogalord on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:25:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Nope, I said no such thing (0+ / 0-)

                First off my statements are based on real data, not opinions.  All the data show is that when people multitask, they don't perform the tasks as well as if their attention was focused on a single task at once.  

                In my own opinion, that absolutely means that some twit who texts all day long while trying to do other tasks is going to underperform.  It doesn't matter if they are a Millenial, a Boomer, or a Gen X person.  However I also believe it would be a stupid generalization to say that all or even most Millenials are incapable of focusing on any single task, and there are plenty of Boomers and Gen Xers who couldn't focus on a single task to save their lives.  

                My own view is that it will be interesting to see what sort of advances and inventions come from the Millenial generation, since they are the first one's immersed in computers and the internet for their entire concious lives.  Their unique perspective of technology will probably result in some pretty stunning inventions.  

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:24:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Right, just like those people who complained (0+ / 0-)

            that rock n roll was too loud, animalistic, uncontrolled, emotional, and sexy, I'm complaining that today's music is...boring, gutless, generic, unimaginative...yep, totally the same thing.  (rolleyes)

            •  yep.. (0+ / 0-)

              "That rock-n-roll garbage is just tuneless noise compared to Frank Sinatra or Glenn Miller"

              sounds very similar to your complaints.

              The thing I remember about kids is, like a 2014 car: They're the latest model.  They're better at the future than the older models.

              We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

              by ScrewySquirrel on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:34:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Except I didn't decide one day that "kids today" (0+ / 0-)

                were one thing or another.  I didn't even like most of the music my own age group listened to as a teenager, and it's exactly the same shit still being made and promoted by the current generation.  They haven't changed.  That's my point.  They haven't made any kind of difference that I can see.

              •  They might've been right. (0+ / 0-)

                That's the difference between what's good and what's likeable.  If you don't like it, it doesn't really matter how good it is.  

                And the complaint is different.  Troubadour's complaint, from what I can tell, is that the "animal energy" is missing--that it's not something that might get called "noise" by The Old Folks.  It's out there, of course, just not on commerical radio.

                (BTW, AFAI'm concerned, classic rock at its best is better music than just about any other rock'n'roll (not forgetting Sting), but much of The Great American Songbook is better than both.  I listen to classic rock, though, and would like it to get as good as TGAS, which is the real point, but one that literally no one else ever seems to have made.)

                The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

                by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:32:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe. (0+ / 0-)

            OTOH, it seems like every generation since the Silents has turned out less well than they originally hoped they would.  What are the great achievements of the Boomers?  Or the Xers?  (OTOH, sometimes I think the Xers will be better remembered because they were more "successful" due to setting their sights so much lower.)

            The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

            by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:17:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Th0rn, Situational Lefty

          When the generation that gave Barack Obama his entire margin of victory in 2008 and 2012 decides to emerge as a significant force, we'll be sure to let you know.

          •  And that utterly failed to do anything in 2010 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aquarius40

            and most likely will again in 2014.  Yes, if they ever emerge as a significant force, I'm sure I will know.

            •  The zombie lie rides again! (0+ / 0-)

              Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

              by Boogalord on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:31:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I tried to push people to the left in 2010... (0+ / 0-)

              I do it all the time.

              I get dismissed by the big business interests in
              DC every time I do it.

              I liked Jesse Jackson in '84 and
              88.  I liked Harkin in '92 and in 96.  I liked Bill Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004.  

              Lately I've been pushing people to oppose the war in Syria.  It seems to be working.

              -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

              by Situational Lefty on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:01:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Dern kids! (0+ / 0-)

          With their rap music and their rock-em sock-em robots! GET OFF MY LAWN

          Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

          by Boogalord on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:53:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  To add to your point (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour, Aquarius40, Naniboujou

          the danger in multi-tasking is that one more readily accepts information provided to one because one doesn't have the time to research the accuracy of the information.  Multi-tasking is a necessary evil of my worklife.  From personal experience, I have learned that it is necessary to have a singularly focused discussion with one of the team leaders who holds the information I need to do my job remains a requisite for getting the job done (the old world approach).  I have too often been given half-information or a condensed version of information based upon the speaker's expectation of what I need, which can lead to disastrous results.

          A tendency I have found with millenials is a readiness to accept that the information they are provided is accurate and on this basis reach definitive conclusions with a sense of authority.  It is not a problem confined to millenials, but it does seem to proliferate among them.  I have always understood that it is just as important to know what you don't know (ie, consider the realm of possibilities beyond one's knowledge) as it is to understand what you do know.  We are losing this perspective.    

        •  It's a computer thing. (0+ / 0-)

          Computers can be programmed to multitask perfectly well (it was one of the issues that brought on the crisis at Apple that was resolved by Steve Jobs' return--his other company's operating system had full "preemptive multitasking", so Apple bought them, and him with it), so we now expect ourselves to multitask as well as a computer does, even though we're not computers.  Multitasking is a very "machine-like" thing.

          As for the music:  Some of it's "generic pap", but it does a really good job of sending the signals of not being generic pap, in contrast to the pop and rock of previous decades.  This could be a bad thing, as it's now possible for generic pap to sound on the surface like Something Real, Maaaan.

          The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

          by Panurge on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:22:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Multitasking is a falicy (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trumpeter, PsychoSavannah, Troubadour

        People can only do one thing at a time (and get it right). As a parent of 2 20 somethings, my vote is a shor attention span brought on by information overload.

        "Success is a dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear" - Lao Tzu

        by anotherroady on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:26:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No generation (9+ / 0-)

      has a trademark on the 5-second attention span. "The Greatest Generation" were weaned on a bunch of crap in the movies, radio and funny pages, comic books were once considered one of the greatest scourges on society, and "Laugh-In" which almost literally consisted of 5-second parcels of content was once the highest rated show in the country.

      Don't buy the hype just because certain people found it profitable to over-diagnose ADHD. Young folks always seem easily distracted, it's a part of normal brain development. I think there are plenty of signs that the current college generation are capable of sustained political effort.

      I also look forward to continued political participation from minority populations, especially among the educated children of recent immigrants. These kids are not necessarily sitting around playing Xbox (not that there's anything wrong with that!) and I think we're going to be hearing from a lot more minority candidates, women candidates, LGTB candidates etc.

      •  Radio and Laugh-In didn't consume every (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, orestes1963

        waking moment and weren't the mediums through which we increasingly live and work, ever.  The fact that people lamented the affect of dumb TV shows on attention spans was legitimate, and this is simply an acceleration of the same phenomenon.  The makers of the movie "Network" couldn't have possibly predicted this level of cynical distraction and nihilism.

  •  This is my favorite diary in months. Thanks. (10+ / 0-)


    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

    by Jim P on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:08:26 PM PDT

  •  Grandpa Simpson voice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Th0rn, Situational Lefty

    It's about ti-i-i-ime!

  •  Sounds accurate (7+ / 0-)

    My kids are from this generation and are more liberal than I. They grew up in a political environment as I've always been an active Dem. They're disappointed in today's Dem party, it really has failed them thus far. Can't say I blame them.

    One is flirting with the anarchist movement, the other is just a liberal independent. They both vote regularly.

    "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

    by Betty Pinson on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:29:19 PM PDT

  •  let it be true (4+ / 0-)

    cause for hope

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:47:56 PM PDT

  •  As an inveterate Xer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LibChicAZ, Th0rn

    cynycism and all, I can't wait 'till Millennials take the political stage, even though they do toot their collective horn a bit much.  We Xers do amazing pop culture (Chelsea Lately and Colbert are crack to me), but in the field of politics, we're a joke.  We need a generation with no rosy view of the Reagan administration to take over.

    Even more fascinating, I can't wait to see how the generation AFTER the Millennials turns out.  The oldest ones should be 12 or 13 now, and will enter adulthood by the end of the decade.

  •  I would be more confident (19+ / 0-)

    if the non-Conservative political establishment hadn't showed an incredible ability to be resiliently tone deaf to breaking away from being afraid of attacking Movement Conservatism, if not attacking conservatism and embracing liberalism at the same time.

    You cannot win an argument without making one.

    This is about a chance. An opportunity to make a sale.

    All this tells me is that there is an opportunity to close a deal that could last a lifetime. But only a chance. A window that can, and will, close at some point on the Democratic Party.

    Movement Conservatism has failed.

    Profoundly. On all fronts from foreign policy to economics.

    It's failure is a huge opportunity for the Democrats to change the conversation and our nation's politics, if they actually make an argument rather than hope demographics and Republican overreaches just magically do their job for them so they can stay civil, serious, and oh, so grown up.

    Until that doesn't work as a substitute for an argument and we go right back to fear. "Vote, or they will do bad things!"

    I would also be more confident if I saw a recognition that non-Conservative voters do not turn out on appeals based on scare tactics and predictions of doom.

    We also have to be aware that these young voters do not necessarily blame the GOP exclusively. The GOP is loathsome, but it is also treated as if it is serious, interested in good governance, and acting in good faith when it's clear that it is not. Young people can see the worse actor is enabled by the better actor, and it hurts the better actor ability to garner sustained trust and support.

    Austerity just didn't come, and wasn't all sustained, by the GOP alone. Deficit hysteria, something that is contributing to the screwing of young and old people in America, was bipartisan. I doubt very many struggling young people missed that.

    You have a window to reach these potential Democratic voters and, if you do, perhaps keep them for life. If they get cynical or burned during that political gestation period, you get folks who should know better wearing Ron or Rand Paul t-shirts and slathering glibertarian nonsense bumperstickers on their cars to people who don't vote because they believe one party will hold the low-watermark line while the other will lower the bar.

    I agree that many voters in the Democratic coalition are hard to turn out in non-Presidential elections.

    So, what do I see when this happens?

    "Lazy" "apathetic" "entitled".

    AKA 'How is the Democratic Party not responsible for it's own bad outcomes?'

    Lazy? Apathetic? Entitled?

    Maybe some.

    But maybe a lot more of them see a dance in DC. One party lowers the bar, the other maintains the low bar status quo until the bar lowerers get back in and get back to business.

    Maybe they got burned, and the scar is staring them right in the face the next time you go back and try to appeal to them based on the notion that what you are going to give them will be profoundly better, and when they don't get profoundly better, they get 'well, we tried, but the bad apples wouldn't let us'.

    And people wonder why the meme that Democrats are wimps and Republicans are bullies is as immortal as the myths about Ronald Reagan and conservatives being anti-deficit budget hawks.

    What that tells them is that politics is a waste of time as much as that the GOP is doing bad things.  

    Maybe they are sick of hearing 'yeah, this is bad, but it could have been a whole lot worse'.

    Maybe they are sick and tired of seeing mediocrity celebrated by victory laps that strike them as a slap in the face.

    Or maybe a slice of them see Washington DC and no longer believe that political change is possible. And maybe a slice of them are not inspired by diet conservatism. Maybe they see an echo and not a choice. Maybe they see that they are going to vote for the non-Republican and get the Republican outcome anyway when the policy debates begin. Maybe they voted for the non-Hawk and got the results they would have gotten voting for the hawkish alternative they rejected.

    Whatever the reason, these voters do not respond the way Movement Conservative Republican base voters respond to clarion calls of ruination and crisis.

    Think about how many election cycles have had a "you need to do this, or they will do bad things" flavor to them. The Republicans lower the bar, the Democrats hold it to that new low point until the GOP can get back in and start lowering the bar again. A holding pattern inbetween rightwing terms of governance doesn't build a strong muscular base. You get a base that is very politically engaged atop a large mass of cynical and mistrusting souls who are more focused on surviving than thriving.

    Millions of Democrats, young Democrats maybe most of all, see Movement Conservatism dominating our politics. In terms of domestic policy. In terms of foreign policy.

    The Right has been enabled, and they see it.

    When was the last time there was a sustained rollback of Movement Conservatism in America? A checking of it?

    What we get is conservatism used to try and produce non-Conservative outcomes.

    We get the Sequester as an alternative to actually making an ideological argument against Movement Conservatism and in favor of the Democratic Party as an alternative. That hurts the Democratic Party with people who could be lifelong passionate voters, or lifelong apathetic cynics depending on how their first experiences with politics shakes out.

    Instead of complaining about it, I have to wonder why the Democratic establishment, from the ground up, from local the local state party to the national party elite, have failed to notice that they built a coalition of non-Conservatives, and yet expects them to react and respond like Movement Conservatives do. The Democratic base doesn't respond well to "do this, or bad things will happen". I think I have seen this tactic tried over and over and over again and it doesn't work.

    The Democratic Party often operates out of fear and on the defense as a default jumping off point. How is this going to fuck us? When the Democratic Party fucks up, many Democrats blame the voters and not the Party. If you lose, and it's not because of voter disenfranchisement, it's a referendum being passed on you, or on how you do business.

    I read that Peter Beinart column partially as an interesting analysis of a phenomena, and partially almost as if it was a warning to the political elite that a bad thing was coming. They won't listen to the serious people. To be wary of the rise of inconveniently liberal voters who would bring the Democratic Party back to the 1970's that only existed in the heads of the people who created the DLC and the Blue Dog movement.

    I say that based on the lessons I have learned watching the Democratic Party and how it responds and operates for most of my lifetime, but also based on my track record with the writer of the piece in general over the last 15 years. Find the angle where the good thing is actually a bad thing. Find the part where this means bad things not good. Peter Beinhart really has a long way to go before I forget how he rolled during the run-up to the Iraq war and beyond.

    You can lose those voters. Communicating that you should be scared of the Republicans is not enough.

    There is not only no guarantee that Corey Booker to Bill Clinton is going to bring them in and keep them, but a recipe for them not being engaged from the burn point forward.

    Margaret Carlson's frame that it would be a profile in courage to defy the voters and vote to authorize military action in Syria could have been written anytime in the last 30 years of non-Conservative punditry. The heads you lose, tails they win box that reigns in what is possible in non-Conservative politics is telling millions that you can have conservatism straight up, or you can have it humanely dosed out to you so you can build up some pain tolerance.

    This is a golden opportunity.

    And it can be squandered and lost.  

    I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

    by LeftHandedMan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:07:14 AM PDT

    •  Great post (6+ / 0-)

      If it's not a diary yet, please consider making it so.  The "centrists" like to say we leftists are out of touch, but that's increasingly strictly a tactical move to continue marginalizing us.  They say they want "change" but they embrace the same ideologies as the right, neoliberal capitalism on domestic and economic issues, neoconservative on geopolitical and strategic affairs.  And most notably, while ably, impeccably, representing those ideologies, they make the most ideologically-inspired claim of every hegemon "we're non-ideological".  

      The reality is that we on the left have been forced to the margins, to labor in the vineyards, but guess what?  That's where the people are.  The masses laboring in  the vineyards have also been forced to the margins politically, told to sit down and shut up if they can't shout for this or that designated Savior.  The marginalization itself has forced us to be in better touch than the marginalizers.  Leftists understand better than centrists why so many working people vote right-wing.  And it's NOT because Dems haven't made enough tax giveaways and subsudues to big business.   But it's not surprising that a party led and controlled by upper-middle-class people will peddle that line, as it certainly serves to assert their own self-interest.  Only working class people aren't allowed to have self-interest in this country, and millions know this and are increasingly angrily tuning out the entire political class.  A process that I do not fear and am readying myself to embrace with arguments and aplomb as the world Reagan built, and which the official Democratic Party bought into lock, stock and barrel, falls apart.  

      Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

      by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:38:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am deeply troubled (12+ / 0-)

        by the impotent nature of the Democratic Party status quo. Movement Conservatism has never been this dominant in our lives, and at some point, you have to look in the mirror at your own party and it's role in the rise of the Right.

        Neoliberalism has neither checked, nor rolled back, Movement Consevatism. It is a failure. A massive one.

        To me, the blaming of the Democratic voter for the Democratic Parties bad outcomes is a symptom of something institutionally amiss born of this mindset.

        The person who wants more, and better, is the problem. The coward's creedo. The Wormtongue's advice.

        Some choose to believe that this is the real Democratic Party, a dupe, the Washington Generals to the GOP's Harlem Globetrotters by design. I don't believe that. I have known to many Democrats to believe that about the whole.

        But parts? Factions?

        I'd be a fool not to suspect that people who benefit from conservative outcomes, and can do the same thing they do no matter if the GOP or the Democratic Party is in charge, giving the Democratic party advice, or having a veto over what was possible for the Democratic Party to achieve, is not a toxic infection that needs to be treated. They are not people who should be in powerful places inside the party in office or in party positions.

        The Democratic Party could be transformed by these young voters.

        Or the Democratic Party could turn them off and help the GOP keep on keeping on.

        It's entirely up in the air. And that is an abomination after the Bush years and the 1990's.

        I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

        by LeftHandedMan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:16:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You realize that the Party is the people too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40

          right?

          It's not about 2 entities, Republicans and Democrats, who are not made up of humans but of some sort of philosophical aura running around, trying to 'earn' the votes of the populace.

          We're the party. We make up the party. The party doesn't exist if we're not participating in it, registering for it, voting for it.

          This 'earn my vote stuff'...OK, but who are you going to vote for, if not? Are you not going to vote? Isn't you not voting (regardless of what other sort of political activism outside of blogging you may do) as big of a jab at our democratic republic as any misstep by the Democratic Party?

          We are not opposed to our political party, we are not separate...we are a part of it!

          While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:04:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You might make up the party (5+ / 0-)

            Those of us with less wealth, power, prestige and privilege?  Not so much.  In fact, not at all.  Our presence has been clearly made unwelcome my entire adult life.  You think radicalism comes out of nowhere, with no experiences driving it?  Heh.  If you really think that, then you know nowhere near as much as you think.

            Welcome to class society.  Though I realize the upper-middles don't want to recognize that the injuries of class exist.

            Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

            by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:18:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, if we judged how things are going by (0+ / 0-)

              how many radicals there are, we're doing better than I thought.

              And no, there are a lot of people who identify themselves as 'radicals' and 'activists' because, and would always be so regardless.

              Finally, none of this addresses my comment, which was not a response to anything you wrote to begin with.

              While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:02:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You contradict yourself (0+ / 0-)

            On the one hand, "we" are the party.  On the other hand, we only have two choices, so what are you going to do?  Not vote?  Your second comment argues that we have two "entities" to choose from, so we must vote for one of them.    

        •  Totally agree (5+ / 0-)

          Since Clinton was elected, I've been convinced that the GOP's march to the extreme right is in part due to the dems pushing them to the right.  When democrats stake out formerly republican positions, the GOP is left with two choices:  embrace the democratic party, or lurch further to the right.  

          Of course the GOP has moved to the right on their own as well.  But I believe they wouldn't be so far out there now if Clinton/Obama hadn't continually embraced GOP policies.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:51:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  great comment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963, Simplify, Naniboujou

      this especially:

      We get the Sequester as an alternative to actually making an ideological argument against Movement Conservatism and in favor of the Democratic Party as an alternative. That hurts the Democratic Party with people who could be lifelong passionate voters, or lifelong apathetic cynics depending on how their first experiences with politics shakes out
      The sequester is so stupid. It's like we've given up on government ever being competent.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:21:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Keep in mind (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KJG52, Subterranean, Th0rn, orestes1963

    all this stuff is statistical, probabilistic.  None of it is absolute.  You will find uptight millennials with corncobs up  their butts like in any prior generation.  More of them than y9ou thinkYou'll find older Xers and younger Boomers shipwrecked in the economy, stuck on 50ish rocks they'll never get back off of driven to despair at both ends of the political spectrum, beyond Reagan on the right, and reformulating the now dead American Left in ways the dreary v-chips and school uniforms of Clintonism simply reused to acknowledge, while all at the same time, some small handful of us kept that fire alive in hidden places.  Mostly hiding from a so-called "center-left" that looks a whole lot more like a rock-ribbed right.

    To obsess over the statistics is to miss the humanity, and if you want a left in the US, you'll need to start with valuing the humanity of people.

    Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:12:21 AM PDT

  •  Interesting how you left out the influence of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny, annan, PsychoSavannah

    "respect, empower and include" and responsibility to engage and mutual power-with mentality that is the essence of President Obama's influence.

    How about integrity and innovation and multicultural, multiethnic involvement up and down the line in our public offices, forming and strengthening broad coalitions?  That might enter into it if you consider the President's effects on the future.

    The young people I have met are learning all these things.  

    The Ron Paul young people are all about something else and being told they will take over the world.  Ron Paul advocates dirty tricks and coercion if necessary, not respect, empower and include.  Slogans and John Birch Society perspectives is all he has in his own brand of ill conceived notions about non-governance.

    •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963, Situational Lefty

      "Respect, empower and include", those are clearly the hgallmarks of today's Dems.  Certainly my recent experience here on dkos bears that out, being called "baby-killer" because I oppose (!) the bombing of Syria, called a "white supremacist" because I have an antipathy to the use of my former employer the NSA to oversee the Thoughtcrime of Americans.  How very very respectful, empowering and inclusive, or as it's better known to those of us on the receiving end, sit down and STFU.

      Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

      by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:25:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Show me (8+ / 0-)

    Like the older Boomers. Circa '70s, they're like "when we grow up they'll be all sort of reforms and things will be all groovy and fair." Then when they're circa '80 "I'm voting my wallet for Reagan because of anything to make a buck and to kick the Ayatollah's butt". Then turn around a few years later and do some Politically Correct posing to get al better....

    The New New Left doesn't happen unless it happens....

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:54:26 AM PDT

  •  May the new, new left win out soon. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, LibChicAZ, Th0rn

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

    by temptxan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:02:43 AM PDT

  •  I'll believe this (6+ / 0-)
    They are more liberal, less supportive of war, less likely to accept trampling of their civil liberties
    when they start turning out in midterms and special elections.  As it stands, old white conservatives are practically running the table when there isn't a prez on the ticket.  

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:22:04 AM PDT

    •  perhaps it's a chicken and egg problem ? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Th0rn, Situational Lefty

      Why should they vote in elections where their choice of candidates is "corporatist" and "more corporatist"?

      Even in the primaries, this is generally the case.

      Underlying it all, is our electoral process and the role of money in our elections and governance.

      •  Let them run candidates in primaries, then. (0+ / 0-)

        Some of them will get through.  If not, well, when the choice is clear, make the clear choice.  Rinse and repeat.

        The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

        by Panurge on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:50:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  When I came of age... (9+ / 0-)

    that period of time when I was "most prone to change cities, religions, political parties, brands of toothpaste" the war in Vietnam was winding down because of people powered protest and the talk was that because of my generation there would never again be a war on foreign soil, that the Woodstock generation would install a fair decent, open and honest government.

    That didn't work out so well. So when I read speculation through rose colored glasses I have trouble understanding how a generation who has only known government as totally nonfunctional will bring about change. Now we have an upcoming generation who feel sarcastic toward a government that serves the one percent. They learned that Democrats only sound good when running for office and don't make a sound once installed. They grew up to the great hope of the 2008 candidacy and then watched as the government didn't miss a beat in continuing in the same direction.  

    The government will attract those who figure they can function within. When I came of age so did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  

    •  So, so true ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ActivistGuy, Th0rn
      When I came of age so did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  
      Every generation will birth the entire spectrum, which is why I find most discussions of generational differences too broad to be very useful. I have 2 ideas about this.

      The whole authoritarian/libertarian issue (versus left/right) is usually left out of these conversations. Within any single generation we will see a mixture of both. I don't think the Rand Paul definition of libertarianism captures the impulses of the libertarian left who reject authoritarian government across the board.

      Looking through this prism, both Bush AND Obama have authoritarian impulses, which explains much liberal disappointment with Obama. As a libertarian leftie, I fear that Hillary would personify Bush's 4th term.

      Secondly, there's a wonderful idea called Generation Flux put forward by Fast Company last year. Essentially, Generation Flux has nothing to do with age but a willingness to work with current conditions, break the rules and create new stuff on the edges. A 60-something member of Generation Flux is as likely to be dancing on the creative edge of change as is a 20-something. I find that supremely inspiring.

      "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

      by annan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:12:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Generation Flux (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ActivistGuy, PsychoSavannah, Th0rn

        To expand and explain my previous comment ...

        I believe that political change is happening locally in ways that are somewhat invisible.

        I think that's where some of the younger Generation Flux flirtation with libertarianism (lower case l) is coming from and it's not a right leaning, Bircher impulse.

        New coalitions are being formed, new enterprise models are being created that are interesting hybrids of profit-non-profit-not-for-profit organizations. Social enterprises and B-Corps with triple bottom lines: people-planet-profit. Transition Towns focused on hyper-localism to counteract the loss of cheap energy.

        All these things are happening around the edges. New ways of organizing and managing lives and livelihoods which will organically inspire new forms of governance.

        When I look at all that's happening, I get inspired and hopeful that big change could happen from the ground up.

        But only if we don't allow ourselves to get trapped by an authoritarian government that fears and stamps out these nascent impluses.

        "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

        by annan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:32:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's One Good Advisor (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's One Good Advisor

    In the insane rush to war

    The event that shows the true colors of our military empire

    The show that shows the linkage of the key players across the decades

    All the fuss and meetings while neglecting what matters on the home front

    This is only one diary about one adviser on one issue, namely war

    I suspect that one could show that this adviser also had good advice on other areas for President Obama

    Hint: the diary linked above is by the same author of this diary

    •  I didn't really like that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean, Aquarius40

      On this issue, I wish Samantha Power made the call.  We should have struck Syria months ago when they mass murdered their own people with chemical weapons.    

      •  Arron David Miller says Obama in control (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean

        this summer in a large presentation at Chautauqua Institution he said that Obama in total control of foreign policy. In his 40 years of working in foreign policy, he has never seen a president this engaged. It is Obama's foreign policy.

        here is his background from his web page

        Aaron David Miller is currently the Vice President for New Initiatives and a Distinguished Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Between 2006 and 2008, he was a Public Policy Scholar when he wrote his fourth book The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace (Bantam, 2008). His other books include The Arab States and the Palestine Question: Between Ideology and Self Interest, The PLO and the Politics of Survival, and The Search for Security, Saudi Arabian Oil and American Fore
        ign Policy.
        For the prior two decades, he served at the Department of State as an advisor to Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the Senior Advisor for Arab-Israeli Negotiations. He also served as the Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator for Arab-Israeli Negotiations, Senior Member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and in the Office of the Historian. He has received the department's Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards.
        Mr. Miller received his Ph.D. in American Diplomatic and Middle East History from the University of Michigan in 1977 and joined the State Department the following year. During 1982 and 1983, he was a Council on Foreign Relations fellow and a resident scholar at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 1984 he served a temporary tour at the American Embassy in Amman, Jordan. Between 1998 and 2000, Mr. Miller served on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. After leaving the state department, Mr. Miller served as president of Seeds of Peace from January 2003 until January 2006. Seeds of Peace is a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering young leaders from regions of conflict with the leadership skills required to advance reconciliation and coexistence (www.seedsofpeace.org).
  •  Will It Come Soon Enough (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, mightymouse

    The Boomers turned out to be a very conservative voting bloc economically. There is a huge group of Democratic Congresspeople who are committed to the conservative Washington consensus of right-wing economic ideas, going all the way up to the leadership. For many of these Democrats, the importance of limited regulation, "free markets" and the like exceeds their instincts even of political self-preservation.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:21:03 AM PDT

  •  Turd Way Democrats (3+ / 0-)

    have proven they are just Corporatists.  Good riddence to them.


    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle. 🍞 & 🎪

    by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:26:18 AM PDT

  •  I'm somewhat cynical about this (0+ / 0-)

    But it is possible that the rise of someone like Bill DiBlasio in NY (who I attended college with though we were barely acquainted) is a sign of this coming political realignment. My generation were the first to despise Reagan whole-heartedly (though admittedly plenty of older folks at the time couldn't stomach him either). However there's an old axiom in politics: anyone can be bought. And the corollary: anyone can be "got to."

  •  facebook (0+ / 0-)

    what is with the site I want to support, but to do so I have to let them do what ever they want with my profile ?

    I cancel out of signing their petitions

  •  i dont buy it (7+ / 0-)

    specifically the pro-labor part. ive never met a millenial that cared about unions, or thought that unions were a bigger asset than they are a liability. ive also never met a millenial who didnt trust Apple and Facebook way more than they trust government. i say this as a millenial.

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:00:24 AM PDT

    •  I can't stand the millennial love of Apple (8+ / 0-)

      I (born in 1988) also fall in that generation, and I can't stand how many peers love and trust Apple. I've developed, in reaction, a strong hatred for Apple because it epitomizes planned obsolescence, for one, and Steve Jobs was a garden variety plutocrat as well. The moment of silence for Jobs's death at the Occupy protests just annoyed me because he represented what they were ostensibly fighting against. Apple also has never had particularly good environmental practices, and their labor practices are atrocious.

      •  All tech is planned obsolescence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        But Macs tend to be supported by OS X longer than many PCs are supported by Windows.  I'm still using an iPhone 4S and it's far from obsolete.  

        Agree though that many Apple form factors are extremely annoying and rather stupid.  Like packaging a 27" IPS display with a weird amalgam of desktop and laptop computer components and expecting people to be happy because it's thin.  I'm using a Mac Pro hexacore that should be good for another 5 years at least, but after that I'll probably have to build a hackintosh or move entirely to a laptop if I'm to keep using OS X.  Given the alternatives, I doubt I'll stop using OS X.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:15:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm still using a Windows machine with XP (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuck utzman, Aquarius40

          on it.  And it works just fine.

          And my laptop is 9 years old and, except for a missing num lock key, is just fine.

          So, the planned obsolescence is complete and total bullshit.  The need for profit is why you need to buy new shit all the time.  So all your folks who hold Apple stock watch it go up, thinking it will do it forever....kind of like the housing market, right?  Getting homeowners on the hamster wheel of improving...never stop improving...keep improving so you can sell at a profit!  God forbid you ever just break even and give the next guy a decent house without having to make a fucking profit.

          And the cost of all the new shit is why families can not pay for dentists anymore.  No one in the 1970's had the equivalent of $8,000 of electronics in their home.  Their CARS didn't cost that much, but that is what is in the average US household right now.  EIGHT GRAND.

          It's downright disgusting that Steve Jobs made all your fucking idiots belieeeeeeeve you just can't function in the world without your iProducts telling you which way to turn while walking down the street.

          /rant  :-)

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:28:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure who you're talking about (0+ / 0-)

            I don't own Apple stock, and I don't believe I need iDevices all that much.  I have an iPhone but my eBook reader is an Android tablet.  My main appreciation of Apple is Mac OS X, all the other stuff is fluff IMO.  

            $8000 of electronics?  Not at my place.  I bought my Mac Pro used and upgraded the CPU, RAM, GPU, and SSDs myself (all used components).  Total cost was way below what you think, and it's a freakin' beast of a workstation.  

            It seems you have an image in you mind of Apple users that is based on media hype rather than reality.  Most Mac users I know are far more tech savvy than the average person, and none of them are anything like the fanboys you describe.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:10:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think s/he's still living in 1995. (0+ / 0-)

              Thing is, Apple has long had a reputation of caring about developers and techs less than Microsoft does, so those communities tend to favor Microsoft over Apple.  Apple makes their systems for users, not techs.  Anyone who thinks Apple somehow "epitomizes" "the hamster wheel of improving" makes me wonder if they know what they're talking about.  Yes, they have that "walled garden" attitude (as it's been put), but that's partly a product of an outlook that says, "Don't intimidate the user."  They're obviously not perfect, but people expect them to be, given what are apparently their stated values, which is why they seem so awful to some, which leads to disappointment, bitterness, cynicism, and despair.  Gosh, sounds familiar, doesn't it?

              DISCLAIMER:  I'm very long AAPL, if only for a few shares.  I bought them early enough, though.

              The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

              by Panurge on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:03:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I can attest its accurate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Th0rn, Situational Lefty

      at least for the millenials I know.  Many of them are fans of the IWW, which has seen a resurgence in membership.  

      "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

      by Betty Pinson on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:24:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well I don't know what crowd you run with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Naniboujou

        I'm guessing that speaking as someone who is actually my age and has been my age my entire life and probably knows a more representative sample of millenials, actually being one, that the millenials you know must be outliers. I've never met anyone my age who know what in the world a wobbly was.

        "Today is who you are" - my wife

        by I Lurked For Years on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 07:08:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'll be glad when turd way gets flushed. eom (0+ / 0-)

    When I cannot sing my heart. I can only speak my mind.

    by Unbozo on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:08:15 AM PDT

  •  This will/won't happen (0+ / 0-)

    due to national and world events.  The Millie liberalism will matter, but less than election results in the next few years.

    The Boomers in the 1970s were quite liberal too.  But Jimmy Carter's perceived failures (mostly not his fault), gave us the Reagan/Clinton era, and the Boomers turned conservative.  Had Ford been reelected in 1976, a Democrat, possibly Jerry Brown would have been elected in 1980, and you would have gotten a much more liberal country, especially on the social issues.

    Same thing in 2016/2020, and the events in between.  I expect another major economic crisis at the end of the decade.  The results of these two elections will determine the path that the country and the Millies take.  And it not clear to me that we won't need another R President to be their Jimmy Carter.

    •  Might Reagan still have been the nominee? (0+ / 0-)

      Could Ted Kennedy or Jerry Brown have beaten him?  Maybe the U.S. would be ready for a change after 12 years of Republican Presidents.

      TBH, it always struck me that things were slowly getting more conservative as early as '75, then again in the late '70s.  It didn't all happen at once.  

      The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

      by Panurge on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:08:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

        1. Reagan would be the nominee.  I'm sure that Bob Dole (Ford's VP nominee, Ford is ineligible to run again.) would have made a last stand for the establishment Rs against Reagan, but Ford's failed presidency (and it would be as much as a failure as Carter's was, Ford would be facing a D supermajority in Congress) would make it likely that Reagan is nominated.

        2. Reagan would have lost in a landslide to Brown, or to Kennedy (Kennedy would have lost some votes due to scandal).  Heck, had he been the nominee in 1976, he would have lost to Carter in a landslide.  A lot of people forget that Reagan was seen as a far-right extremist, sort of like a Goldwater 2.0.  What made Reagan acceptable in 1980 was two things; one a well orchestrated campaign to tone down his conservatism, but two and more importantly, the events of the 1970s.  New Deal liberalism came crashing to a halt in the end with the late 1970s stagflation, and Carter looked like a dunce on foreign policy in Iran and Afghanistan.  The combination basically made Reagan's conservatism seem like an attractive option.  It took the events of the late 1970s and Carter's reaction to them, to make Reagan's conservatism acceptable to mainstream America.
        But with Ford in power, the blame would fall on Ford and his moderate conservatism, so Reagan's conservative alternative would again look like Goldwater 2.0.  People may be uneasy with detente, but they certainly didn't want war with the Soviets, and Reagan would have a hard time convincing them he wasn't going to start one.

        3. There is a difference between Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, although I think Kennedy if elected would have to trim his fiscal liberalism.  Kennedy came off as too wedded to unions and a dying New Deal liberalism.  
        Jerry Brown actually was a perfect fit for the Boomers in this alternate world; a vague anti-government attitude, free-market entrepreneurial viewpoint on economics while retaining the social safety net, socially liberal, and somewhat dovish on foreign policy.  I would guess that Brown refuses to heavily increase military spending, which will allow a lot of the talent that worked in the defense industry to make innovations in the technology and green industry earlier.

  •  This is a nice theory, but you know, (6+ / 0-)

    there are plenty of people of all ages who are fed up with the status quo. My late grandmother  (b. 1920) was fed up with it. My boomer parents are fed up with it. I'm fed up with it. Many of the so-called Millenials I know, however, are deeply apolitical. So it is refreshing to see someone's studying their attitudes and finding that there is a new approach coming with this generation.

    To speak to my generation (X), I am appalled at some of our attitudes. I thought we were supposed to be more liberated than our parents. I was mistaken, apparently.

    I resent that. I demand snark, and overly so -- Markos Moulitsas.

    by commonmass on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:11:29 AM PDT

    •  Too busy running away from HIPPIEEZZZ!!1!! (0+ / 0-)

      GenX apparently wanted its own revolution, so they wound up rebelling against The Sixties, Maaan, thereby inadvertently ratifying the Reagan Reaction by agreeing that things were better before them damn hippies took over.  And some of them were only awakened politically by the events of 1980.  And that's why in 2013 you see guys just out of college who still look like they stepped out of 1962.  Because they heard that rebelling against hippies was the bold, rebellious, and independent-minded thing to be, and there's nothing more un-hippie-like than "conservatism", however you might define it.  Because it's a complete cultural-social-political package, and to ratify one part is to risk ratifying all of it.

      The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

      by Panurge on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:14:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fascinating article (8+ / 0-)

    But I've got a couple of problems with this article. First off, I believe its way too early to judge what kind of mayor Bill de Blasio would be. We've heard politicians make these kinds of promises before, one of them is in the White House. Second is this passage.

    for a moment, Occupy shook the country. At one point in December 2011, Todd Gitlin points out in Occupy Nation, the movement had branches in one-third of the cities and towns in California. Then it collapsed.
    It didn't collapse, it was crushed in a coordinated effort by our government, big difference IMO. Let's hope this "new left" is more than just New Coke.
  •  Socialism & Liberal Politics Are Welcomed by Me, (10+ / 0-)

    and I'm an old man who grew up during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, The JFK, RFK, and MLK, Jr. assassinations, the lunar landing, etc.  

    I wholeheartedly welcome the following:

    Clean & green energy with photovoltaic solar panels on every rooftop and wind turbines on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as on the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico and in the Great Plains from the Canadian border to the Gulf and anywhere else there is wind energy to be harnessed.  (It should have started in 1973 when the OPEC oil embargo took place!)

    Smart electric grid and electric cars everywhere.

    Hyperloop and maglev high-speed rail crisscrossing the country.

    Solar-pwered vapor compression distillation water purification systems.

    Single Payer Medicare-for-All not-for-profit health care.

    A permanent civil rights movement where the bigots, racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc. are forced to crawl back under the woodwork and never again come out safely into the light of day.

    Tuition-free college education for life for anyone who so desires.

    Liveable wages for all workers.

    Re-criminalize bribery of and influence peddling by politicians.

    Criminalize pollution and lack of workplace safety by corporations.

    The death of the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries.

    We need to bravely march forward into the future and lead the world into the 22nd century early in this 21st century instead of trying to return to the not-so-good old days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

  •  I'm not seeing an emergence of (4+ / 0-)

    a new left of any variety at all in the Congressional districts which repeatedly send GOP obstructionists to Washington, D.C.

    Beinart's piece invokes De Blasio's win this week, but slips and falls in suggesting that national voting models could replicate the results of a Democratic primary election in New York City.

    If there's a new left out there in those Congressional districts, let's lightswitch it immediately.  But I don't see it happening so easily as that.  

    •  You're right, it isn't as easy as that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson, Th0rn, Remediator

      and I'd add, if it's for real, it won't begin with elections.  A movement of substance will turn to elections to ratify and make permanent its accomplishments.  It will owe nothing to any politicians, though there will be politicians that will owe a lot to the movement, know it, and act that way.  When pols start coming to you hat in hand,  that's when victory has already been achieved.

      Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

      by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:50:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, I hope it's coming. (7+ / 0-)

    But I'm not holding my breath. I could retire if I had a buck for every post I've read telling me that change was just around the corner. Wasn't Occupy supposed to be the big herald of change?
    Hanging all this optimism on one liberal winning a Democratic primary in a Democratic city seems a bit weak to me.
    So this upcoming surge of youth aren't conditioned by Reagan or Clinton and that's supposed to change the world? Have Bush and Obama really been all that great a difference?
    All our policies are still tilted overwhelmingly towards the rich and powerful.
    I do expect there to be more acceptance of gays and minorities, and that's a certainly a step forward, but if the vast majority of those gays and minorities are still going to be living under the boot heel of the wealthy, like the rest of us, I see that as thin gruel.
    Yes, perhaps we'll be allowed to toke up to ease the pain someday, but I think I'll be cold in the ground before we see a president taking economic advice from a labor leader instead of a Wall St insider.
    I hope to live to see a new left emerge, but so far it keeps receding before me, like chasing a rainbow.

  •  thirdway sucks (3+ / 0-)

    great diary

    thank you!

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Strauss/Howe (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb92, Th0rn, Potalian

    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

    by RF on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:51:14 AM PDT

    •  Brilliant work. Keeps me from losing hope. (4+ / 0-)

      Generations is the most interesting telling of American history that I've seen. Check it out, folks.

      "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

      by tb92 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:18:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Always darkest before the dawn aka me too n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

        by RF on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 03:13:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's an old story. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Th0rn, Aquarius40, Naniboujou

    Every generation of young people is more liberal than their elders.

    Then they graduate college, if they're lucky, get older, get married, have kids, become part of the establishment, learn to despise change, and become conservatives.

    So we hear this over and over again.  I even remember an SAT reading comprehension question, long ago, that had a mini-essay about this very thing, how young people start out liberal and become conservative.  The critique I'm giving you was the correct ABCDE answer.  That's how old this is.

    I hope Beinart's right, but, oh well, it's highly unlikely.  The way to change voter demographics is to promote policies that make elders want to be more liberal.  Like Social Security.  The Democratic Party has been reaping the electoral benefits of the Social Security Act for seventy years.  

    •  Except one part of the equation is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Th0rn, PsychoSavannah, Naniboujou

      missing nowadays - good jobs that pushed one into the middle class with something to lose when once achieved, something to preserve/conserve - your new found status and relative wealth.

      I think conservatism is founded innately on a "I Got Mine" recessive gene that becomes dominant once materialism replaces humanitarianism. This is the core of the "Greed is Good" philosophy that was embraced unironically during the Reagan years.

      Now that the economy is dormant for the 99%, not enough are clawing their way up through Social Darwinism to a higher outcropping where they can look down on those left behind in the valley. Conservatism requires smugness and self-satisfaction as a key component.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:11:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't true. Research has shown (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Th0rn

      that people do NOT get more conservative with age. Political views are set at a fairly young age and stay essentially the same for life. We think that is true because right now the elder generation is more conservative, but at some periods in history the elder generation was more liberal than their kids. The older Millennials are already liberal. The younger ones are forming their opinions now. It's an amazing opportunity for the Liberal community. We have to reach out to these kids and encourage them to participate.

      "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

      by tb92 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:27:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Totally inspiring. I hope it happens. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LibChicAZ, mconvente, tb92, Th0rn

    It seems as if the pendulum is swinging back to caring about the lives of people, which is a very good thing. I'm a GenX'er, but will gladly join in the ranks of the New New Left.

    "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying."Edward Snowden -6.62, -6.92

    by CanyonWren on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:57:49 AM PDT

    •  X-ers tend to be pragmatic. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CanyonWren

      We just want things to work. And the old way is failing spectacularly. Our job is to just keep the planet alive long enough for the Millennials to change it. It's not a glamorous job, and we won't get much credit for what we do, but it's vitally important and very, very exciting. Come on, kids, we've got your back!

      "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

      by tb92 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:30:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "they favor socialism over capitalism" (6+ / 0-)

    I guess 40 years of  "Fuck you, I've got mine.' has been... Instructive.

    France, Canada, all of the Scandanavian countries - have been the envy of informed people for quite a while now.

    We CAN do better.

    FUCK the psychopaths!


    The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

    by No one gets out alive on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:05:01 AM PDT

  •  An important note (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse, mconvente, Th0rn

    brought up by the diarist, and one I've been mulling over for a while:

    Economic security was the framework in which the Reaganite-Clintonian paradigm operated; each philosophy took as its foundation the principle that the American system would ensure economic security for all who chose to seek work.

    That paradigm was fractured early in the Bush II administration, and seriously damaged in the financial collapse of 2007-2008.

    This means a lot of people are going to be seeking a new paradigm, one which promises to restore, and then maintain, economic security for all Americans.

    And that means some really interesting, one might say "radical" without pejorative intent, ideas.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:13:07 AM PDT

  •  i doubt it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shrike, Th0rn, Aquarius40

    i think we will probably continue to see incremental change in the left direction especially with social issues.

    however, i foresee many of those young people becoming disillusioned with politics as they grow older.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:16:31 AM PDT

  •  this: (5+ / 0-)
    Perhaps it's impossible to appreciate privacy if you've grown up with the perniciousness of Facebook. They'll need to get a handle on that if they're going to get the NSA's damn Panopticon off our necks.
    Amen. At the advent of wireless phones, social media, and the craze to conduct "private" conversations in crowded public spaces...what the hell did we think was going to happen?

    In an odd way, it's nearly laughable, this current outrage over privacy violations. I guess they didn't call mine "the Silent Generation" for nothin'.

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:19:33 AM PDT

  •  Yes and there has to be a mindset and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson

    accountability phase.  We are the wild west or better yet..
    Rome is burning..Few smell the smoke and no one is calling the fire dept.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:30:49 AM PDT

  •  Article has some interesting points BUT (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kck, Satya1, Th0rn, PsychoSavannah, orestes1963

    Beinart repeats several common right-wing tropes, which you just glossed over.

    Here's a couple of them:

    Clinton articulated an ideological “third way”: Inclined toward market solutions, not government bureaucracy, focused on economic growth, not economic redistribution, and dedicated to equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
    1. NDL was not focused on redistribution instead of growth, but rather recognizes that growth and equality and security and health are linked. Saying (or more commonly, just assuming, like Beinart does) that they're separate is a pernicious right-wing fallacy.

    2. New Deal liberalism was never about "outcome over opportunity". That is, bluntly, a nasty right-wing lie and should not be repeated. Ever. Outcome is a product of opportunity. NDL simply recognizes that government is the most effective tool to ensure everyone has opportunity. (The flip side of this right-wing lie is other way it gets phrased, that only deregulation creates opportunity. We've all seen how spectacularly that has failed.)

    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:30:51 AM PDT

  •  Good diary. I actually strongly disagree with (5+ / 0-)

    some  of Beinart's article though.  He particularly loses me in the sixth paragraph when after reviewing Mannheim's ideas, names the age cohort that is now in their late 50's in terms of presidential terms.

    A president can be a "historical disruption" but is not always so.  Only a political pundit or junkie would slide so easily into the manner in which Beinart labels these political generations.  Most Americans aren't so focused on party politics and philosophies.  They care about getting along with their busy lives, earning a living, raising the kids.  So the big disruptions for people now in their late 50's were the Vietnam War and the draft, civil rights, "women's liberation movement", The Bomb and the energy crisis.  And of course from each of these influences liberals usually learned one set of lessons while conservatives another.

    I think it is fascinating to think about what events influenced Millennials.  Each of the disruptive historical events had varying effects depending on how close one was to an event.  Hurricane Katrina is arguably one of these disruptive events, but it had less immediate impact on people in the NW of the US for example.

    So what are some of the disruptive events?

    *  9-11
    * Iraq invasion + unprecedented premise for initiating war
    * sluggish economy: Great Recession + high college costs + income inequality at historic highs
    * internet + tablets/smartphone technology
    * social diversity
    * Obama's campaign + organizing methods
    * Katrina

    Are there any other major disruptive events for millennials?

    Also, has the millennial political generation reached its end yet?  If so what marks the end?  Or will it go on longer?

    Good diary.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:43:11 AM PDT

  •  I hope this happens (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente

    I've been pushing for this from democrats for 10 years now. Now that we've gotten over the hump with the social wars, which have settled to a victory for the good guys for the most part, we can now focus on systemic economic injustices.

    I am cynical though. The oligarchy has fine-tuned their greed-mongering to pit once class against the other. Their most powerful tool, religion, has indeed been degraded so the playing field has indeed been leveled somewhat....

    In the end, it will be people's self-interests that make the difference and millennials have nowhere to go but up, and will support policies to that end.... until they get paid off.

  •  Reasonable optimism given the demographics... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Satya1, Th0rn

    ...and we Boomers should learn a lesson and give away control faster to Millenials unlike how the WWII gen wrested control from Boomers at every opportunity. We'll be improved, mistakes and all, if Boomers realize we're all burdened by

    PR- and advertising-mediated capitalist culture
    ... and politics - across the left-right apectrum - with history of gender, race, and economics burdens, pathologies of coming up through oppressive times.  There are 20million more Millenials than there were Boomers born so that demog advantage adds boost o the advantages in the diary as long as we don't throw anchors at every new wind or unfamiliar course change.
  •  As a Millennial myself (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, tb92, mallyroyal, Th0rn, mattc129

    I feel there's much that can be commented about this article.

    You can't argue with the polls and more importantly actual data in the form of election results.  It's clear that my generation is overwhelmingly progressive.  And while progressivism is not monolithic, if you give a Millennial a set of standard liberal and conservative values and attributes, the the Millennial will choose the liberal values/attributes far more often than the conservative ones.

    However, what really concerns me (and has been brought to attention here at Daily Kos fairly recently) is that we cannot assume that my fellow Millennials will automatically stay Democrats.

    You see, all those reported poll results and surveys saying that Millennials don't believe in government's ability to be effective, and how business runs the nation rather than the government.  Well, we held those beliefs before Barack Obama took office and supported him overwhelmingly because we really did believe "Hope and Change".  

    5+ years later, things haven't changed much at all in regard to the effectiveness of government.  And yes, that's largely the Teabagger's fault, but Obama could have been much more forceful for young voter issues (jobs, higher education, student loans, etc.) back in 2009 with our Super Majority and nothing really changed much.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though Millennials are set to take over government shortly, the current government needs to give us something to be happy about or else we'll cede our spot to the Republicans.  Looks like Gandhi's famous quote, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" has never rung more true.  It's up to us Millennials to do it ourselves.

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:59:55 AM PDT

  •  Clinton Bashing (5+ / 0-)

    Everyone bashing on Clinton needs to remember something.  He had to WIN an election in a country that didn't want to elect a hard-left president.  If he had run any left of where he ran, he wouldn't have won.  So criticize him all you want, but he positioned himself politically where he needed to to be elected.  And he sure as hell was a better choice than more years of Bush then whoever would have followed him.

    •  And he (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Th0rn, Aquarius40

      probably only won because of Perot's grudge against GHW Bush that stemmed from hard feelings when Perot was ignored by Reagan and Bush when he wanted to go to Vietnam and look for American POW's....

      Perot was so pissed by the snub that he decided to run against GHW Bush....and ended up grabbing 19% of the vote, 75% of which would have voted for Bush, which would have won the election for Bush.

      Clinton caught a huge break and won the 1992 election with only 43% of the vote.

      It was a huge upset, really as Bush had over 90% favorability ratings only 14 months before the election due to the success of the 1st gulf war.

      It is still very hard for dems to win elections in this country,as we see with the House,and in the states.

    •  You've gotta embrace Clinton's embrace (0+ / 0-)

      of phony Capitalist assholes...

      Or you might have to shop at Wal-Mart.

      -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

      by Situational Lefty on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:29:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The greatest harm from Reagan and Thacher (9+ / 0-)

    is that they made lack of empathy socially acceptable.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:25:20 AM PDT

  •  Gawd, I hope so... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dhshoops, Betty Pinson, Th0rn

    And not every Boomer or Gen-X'er is all nostalgic about Reaganomics or Clintonomics.  Some of us have the gift of self reflection.  Which is why I have a really hard time dealing with people of my generation.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck

    by RichM on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:33:58 AM PDT

  •  Key point: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ActivistGuy, Th0rn
    I can't wait until they're of an age to take the reins of power from the Third Way Democrats we've been forced to support for lack of a better alternative.
    And why would they do that?

    The statement above assumes they won't fall victim to the "Lesser of Two Evils" BS that keeps the status-quo pro-1% policies moving along with nary a pause.

    Why won't they fall victim?

    Answer: (Hopefully) because enough of them recognize the trap and will decide to avoid it, no matter how scary the R flavored Boogeyman appears.

    And then we will have real Change and not Rhetoric You Can Starve On.

    The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:02:53 AM PDT

  •  It's ironic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Th0rn

    that the generation that gives us hope is the one that we've screwed the worst.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:08:12 AM PDT

    •  Their young adulthood years have been bad. (0+ / 0-)

      But remember, these were the children of the Clinton years. Their earliest memories are of a good economy and of a culture that put children first. These were the kids who were given lots of quality time. They were taught to share and to include everyone, and that trying your best was more important than winning. They wouldn't be so loving if they hadn't been so well loved. They know how things CAN be, and they have every intention of claiming what they were promised.

      They are wonderful people and they will change the world. And as their parents, we have every right to be proud.

      "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

      by tb92 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:40:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, I thought that the crash of 2008 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yargityblarg, Th0rn

    was a sufficiently momentous event to reorganize those poles. I was so dumb I even thought Barack Obama would recognize that and help with the reorganization effort.

    But the material facts of getting elected in this country would have to change for anything like that to happen.

    And I think now that he was essentially sent to complete the work of Reagan anyway. They knew we'd never accept the endgame of Reaganism, which is brutal and nihilistic, from a white man. George W. and Cheney proved that. So they took the inspired goal of getting a black man into the Oval Office and used it like a pacifier on us while they continued to dismantle the world.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:24:41 AM PDT

    •  I actually know a few black people who think this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40
      And I think now that he was essentially sent to complete the work of Reagan anyway. They knew we'd never accept the endgame of Reaganism, which is brutal and nihilistic, from a white man. George W. and Cheney proved that. So they took the inspired goal of getting a black man into the Oval Office and used it like a pacifier on us while they continued to dismantle the world.
      they also tend to be very bigoted against whites, especially those who claim the mantle of "the left."

      I happen to think it's a patently ridiculous POV because NOBODY could have predicted his victory in '08.  NOBODY, in their heart of hearts, thought this nation would elect a black president before, say... another 50-60 years had passed.

      add to that the derangement syndromes and various biases his election has exposed, and I don't see how a thinking person could come up with "only a black man could get this done!"

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:24:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, whether it was intended from the beginning (0+ / 0-)

        or not, it's pretty clear that they've figured out how to use him that way now.

        A white man who is a Democrat would have a better shot of getting it done than a Republican, but it takes something really powerful, powerfully positive and symbolic like the 1st African-American to become President, to hold certain parts of the population passive and paralyzed while the ruinous economics of Reaganism take hold.

        Remember, it's not the racists who were opposing Reaganism. They practically worship him as a saint. It wasn't necessary to shut down those people in order to finish the job Reagan started. It was necessary to shut down minorities and white liberals and white progressives, and keep those groups from strongly opposing further Reaganite policy. The way to shut them down was to put someone into office that they would have a really hard time attacking.  They are using one major symbol of the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream--a black POTUS--and attaching that to Reagan's terrible economic policies (and W's shredding of Constitutional rights). This makes it extraordinarily difficult for minorities, white liberals, or white progressives to successfully oppose those policies. Because how do you oppose the policies without in some way opposing the man? And if you oppose the man you're opposing the first African-American president.

        It's actually worked like gangbusters on everything up till the NSA and the war.  The economic stuff only didn't go through because a lot of Republican congressmen are so racist that they're stupid and don't recognize victory for their policies if that victory comes to them in the person of a black man.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:59:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not willing to just wait for the Millenials to fix (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb92, Th0rn

    things, however. We all have to keep working. And learn to work better and smarter.

    Still, good diary.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:25:18 AM PDT

    •  If the Millennials are to change the world, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernLiberalinMD

      we have to keep it alive for them. Our work is vital.

      "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

      by tb92 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:41:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  and yet... (0+ / 0-)

    ...we're all set to vote in 4-8 more years of Clintonism.

    I'm not getting my hopes up that my generation is going to make any noise. The political system is now so rigged that we won't be given a real choice any time soon. That, and we can be easily placated by the establishment giving in on the social issues we value most.

    •  Change is slow, and the Millennials (0+ / 0-)

      are not too powerful yet. But if you look at history, you see that change does happen and things do get better. You just have to be patient and keep working.

      "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

      by tb92 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:43:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Similarities and Differences btw Boomers and Xers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kovie, mallyroyal

    One important way we are the same: we are the Cold War generations.

    A second way, that he doesn't talk about:  We are the first two TV generations. That's a big shift in American politics.

    That said, that doesn't mean there are no differences between Boomers and Xers.

    It's often said that we're the same, or that we're a watered-down version of Boomers, and I take it as being a way in which the political experience of Gen Xers has more or less been elided from public discourse.

    It's a very different thing to be a teenager under Johnson or Nixon than it is to be a teenager under Reagan, Bush I or Clinton. One needs to look not just at who was President, but at where the country was. The country had a far different response to Nixon and his shenanigans than it did to Reagan/Bush and theirs. There was far more capacity for resistance in the late 60s-early 70s, for many reasons. There was a lot more social and political infrastructure that could support it. That's why, despite it being a disillusioning time, it was also a time of resistance and protest.

    I'd argue that a great, or at least a significant, disruption in American politics did separate us from the Boomers: the rise of Reagan and the neocons was such a disruption. Check out Lewis Powell's memo:  sounds like a disruption to me, and the fact that it was written and implemented in secret doesn't change the profound effect it had on teenagers growing up while it was being implemented, an effect largely produced, I'd argue, through the media.

    What's weak in this argument is acting like growing up under Johnson and Nixon in the late 60s and 70s is the same as growing up under Reagan and Bush I in the 80s. Not remotely true.

    To be an X'er is to know that the time when things could be changed is over. It is to know that the prior generation has given up and decided money is the only important thing. Why do you think we have the lowest social engagement and civic impulse (sociologically measured) than any other living generation? Because we grew up on the scrap heap to which the former generations consigned their dreams. Our choices were to be Reaganjugend, or cynical goths, or buck the entire trend of our generation and try to keep fighting against the odds. Not a lot of us did that, though more than usually get noticed (we did some good work with anti-apartheid, ACT UP, and some environmental work here and there).

    But though I like the general trend of this guy's argument, he shouldn't elide the differences between a Reagan-dominated America and a Johnson- or even Nixon-dominated America.

    In the 80s, you never would have heard this in response to Presidential corruption:

    Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."

    Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:45:42 AM PDT

    •  When you say "we" you should make it clear (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernLiberalinMD, mallyroyal

      that "we" (as in you) are an Xer, if I read this comment correctly. I myself don't really know what to call myself because although I'm technically a Boomer, born the last year that qualifies as such, I align myself ideologically more with Xers. People like me, about to start turning 50, were too young to have been strongly shaped by the 60's or early 70's, but were to a large extent shaped by the time Reagan came along.

      Meaning that we were shaped by the now somewhat obscure transitional Ford/Carter era, making us a bit less leftist than the 60's generation (many of whom, of course, since drifted rightward for selfish economic reasons), but definitely to the right of a large part of the Reagan generation. Sadly, I've seen this Reaganism among many members of my generation (again, for what I believe to be selfish economic reasons), so I guess that many of us weren't that fully politically formed when he came along.

      However, if younger generations are turning left, and parts of older ones are too, due to all that's happened politically and economically since the 90's, then hopefully this will all be moot, and Reaganism will finally be dead.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I'm an X'er. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kovie

        And you're, well, you and your ilk are in an odd in-between position, and probably get even less representation and discussion of what it's like to be you than X'ers do. At least we have a label for us, albeit a stupid one. :-)

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:19:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have an "ilk"?!? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD

          I've never been ilked before. It feels...somewhat unsavory... :-)

          Seriously, though, I'm of that transitional micro-generation that found Volvos to be too stodgy but tattoos to be too edgy (not that many members don't have both). I really don't know where we fit in.

          In a way, though, it's kind of liberating, in that we're not expected to fit in or conform to one or the other generational norms.

          We've always "gone rogue". :-)

          Ugh, she's one of us!

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:26:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL that's a great way of describing it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie

            and oh, dear, Palin is one of you.

            So is Obama, for whatever that's worth.

            The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:44:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nah, he's a Boomer at 52 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SouthernLiberalinMD

              Believe it or not even back then I saw a meaningful difference in kids just a few years older. I have absolutely no meaningful recollection of "The 60's", as commonly understood in the west (although I do remember their dying residue in the early 70's). They do, which I think made all the difference. I think that Altamont, the Beatles breaking up, the Manson murders and the bombing of Cambodia and Laos pretty much killed the 60's, even though many were in denial of it for years afterwards (and some still are).

              As for Palin, guilty as charged, Charlie.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:48:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, Obama was only 10 in 1970. (0+ / 0-)

                But I'll leave that to you older folks to fight out LOL

                The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:12:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Although there was a time when I dabbled (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty

    with neoliberalism (even though I didn't use that term at the time) and even neoconservatism (or, more properly, liberal hawkism), in the mid-90's to early 00's, I have always leaned liberal and progressive, and generationally I'm on the dividing line between Boomers and Xers, definitely to the left of the typical Boomer and probably squarely within the Xer cohort politically.

    My generation seems to have skipped that old Churchillian maxim to the effect that if one is young and not a liberal then one has no heart, and if one is old and not a conservative then one is a fool. Well, at least its first part. My generation has been conservative since it came of age, and continues to be so, mostly out of selfish self-interest IMO.

    There are, of course, and thankfully, many notable exceptions. But I'm glad that younger generations are showing more heart and soul and are not just in it for the money, nice house, status job and car.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:02:35 AM PDT

  •  More thoughts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40

    It will take external events to finally kill off Reagan conservatism.   It took Vietnam/Watergate to decrease trust in the government, and then the economic crises in the late 1970s to finally kill off New Deal liberalism.  Similarly, the financial crises and recession of 2008-2009 has substantially decreased trust in corporations and the free market, but it will likely take a more catastrophic event in the late part of this decade to finally kill Reagan conservatism.

    And there is no guarantee that Reaganism will be replaced with  some form of liberalism.  That will depend really on the perception to the events that come before us in the next few years.  It is far from impossible that under the right conditions, some form of populist conservatism may replace Reagan conservatism rather than some form of liberalism.  Reagan conservatism must die, as did New Deal liberalism, but the replacement is unclear.
    It is similar to the situation in the late 1970s.  Had Gerald Ford won in 1976, and presided over the economic disasters of the 1970s, a D would have been elected in 1980, possibly someone like Jerry Brown or Gary Hart.  In that case we would have gotten a reformist, free-market version of liberalism to replace New Deal liberalism.

    •  And of course a form of fascism if things seem to (0+ / 0-)

      be going so out of control the US needs an "iron hand" to protect it. We halfway got to that with 9/11 -- I'm not dismissing the possibility that the next big "catastrophe" (collapse of agriculture due to global warming?) will push the US the rest of the way. You can print lots of money to rebuild burnt-out towns and flood-destroyed landscapes -- you can't print money to make plants grow where they can't.

      Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizam!

      by fourthcornerman on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 04:26:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As long as this: (0+ / 0-)
    They are more liberal, less supportive of war, less likely to accept trampling of their civil liberties, more pro-labor, and more in favor of expanded government services.
    pertains to gun rights as well, then I welcome our NewNew Left overlords!
    •  Does anyone else find it odd that young people... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40

      Claim to be most protective of their privacy, yet nearly all have Facebook accounts, Twitter, etc., basically blogging their whole life story online?  Heck, I'm only 32 and I don't know anyone under 50 besides myself who doesn't have a Facrbook account.  I just don't how someone can be paranoid about surveillance yet stay hooked on social media where everything they say is more or less public.

      Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behavior. -Julian Assange-

      by ChadmanFL on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:31:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

        I think deciding to share a lot of things makes you hyperaware of what you're not sharing.  There's a gap between being a private person and wanting your privacy to be respected: you can hold very few things private in your life, but all that publicity doesn't let anyone intrude.

      •  Christ, will you old people come off it already? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead, Neo Control

        Just because some people blog their lives on Facebook doesn't mean we're all okay with the NSA. People choose to put their info on Facebook. They don't choose to let the NSA know who they're calling and have access to all their phone records. Is that really hard to understand?

        Heck, I'm only 32 and I don't know anyone under 50 besides myself who doesn't have a Facrbook account.
        Happens all the time.

        I don't see why you guys think there's some huge dissonance here. Alot of Millenials know all about the data-mining on Facebook and don't use it for that very reason.

        Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

        by Boogalord on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:42:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  32% millennials say US=#1 - exceptionalism?? (0+ / 0-)

    one of the frames that keeps the status quo in power is Exceptionalism

    it was incredible to see Putin explicitly use the word in his NY Times piece the other day

    interesting article

    32%
    Compared to other generations, a smaller percentage of Millennials say the U.S. is the greatest country in the world.
    A generational gap in American patriotism

    thanks the Daily Show and Colbert Report for educating the youngsters

    sure not learning much from corporate media

  •  Elizabeth Warren (4+ / 0-)

    if she runs against Hilary I am in. I live in MA and would have no problem if she ran for Pres. One of the only Dem's out there making a difference against the tidal wave of Reagan horseshit we have to keep swallowing...

    The era of procrastination, half-measures, soothing & baffling expedients, & delays, is coming to a close. We are entering a period of consequences - Churchill

    by PrometheusUnbound on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:14:52 PM PDT

  •  I would love to have a Warren/Castro ticket (0+ / 0-)

    but I can live with a Hillary/Castro ticket also.

    the last PPPL from just two months ago even shows Hillary beating Rick Perry in Texas for President. Talk about a shocker.

    The younger generation are going to be different and may go Democratic but are worried a lot about the NSA spying scandal and that could hurt Democrats.

    As you can see with Occupy movement, many in the younger movement are tired of the same old, same old. Elizabeth Warren is gaining popularity fast among all generations since she is one of the few Democratic Senators standing up against the banks and the 1%.

    Fighting Liberal at
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” --Gandhi:

    by smokey545 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:23:03 PM PDT

    •  Castro is described in this piece as a fiscal.. (0+ / 0-)

      conservative and pro-NAFTA.
      He's also, sadly, a supporter of NSA surveillance.

      I had high hopes for him too.
      :/

      The nationally visible Democrats rising behind Obama generally share his pro-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic, Reaganized liberalism. The most prominent is 43-year-old Cory Booker, who is famously close to Wall Street and supports introducing market competition into education via government-funded vouchers for private schools. In the words of New York magazine, “Booker is essentially a Clinton Democrat.” Gavin Newsom, the 45-year-old lieutenant governor of California, has embraced Silicon Valley in the same way Booker has embraced Wall Street. His book, Citizenville, calls for Americans to “reinvent government,” a phrase cribbed from Al Gore’s effort to strip away government bureaucracy in the 1990s. “In the private sector,” he told Time, “leaders are willing to take risks and find innovative solutions. In the public sector, politicians are risk-averse.” Julian Castro, the 39-year-old mayor of San Antonio and 2012 Democratic convention keynote speaker, is a fiscal conservative who supports NAFTA.
  •  Fascinating read... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynChi

    both the diary and Beinart's piece.
    It gives me hope the left may yet reawaken & start addressing people's concerns.

    If liberals don't provide solutions, conservatives will provide scapegoats. Of this I'm certain.

  •  I just sent Warren an email asking her to block (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynChi

    Larry Summers with her Banking committee vote & a filibuster if necessary.
    She'll get my full support for POTUS 2016. HRC sure won't.

    Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

    by chuck utzman on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:22:26 PM PDT

  •  Born in '92 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, DeadHead, LynChi

    I'll be 21 in November.

    Maybe I was just in the right place at the right time with the right people. I was born and raised in Portland, OR.

    I grew up being taught by those around me that things like racism, sexism, etc. are things that need to be fought against. Grew up knowing people in poverty, but also being taught that poverty was something to help people out of rather than smirk at.

    But an unfortunate truth was that my political education was 80% school-free. I went to public schools all the way through 10th grade, and while we learned about the structure of government and history, there was ZILCH about how to get involved. In fact, if I ever asked a teacher, more frequently than not I got a response like "we're not allowed to talk about that" or "I could lose my job, it's against school policy." Just what I remember at least.

    My father (ok, give the internet some credit too!) has been my primary source of political education throughout my youth.

    What I have observed about my fellow '90s kiddos that I have encountered has been the following:

    "I would rather party, I don't give a shit about politics"

    "Durrrrr, what's the government? Is that a new song?"

    "Politicians are all the same so it doesn't matter if I vote"

    Apathy, ignorance and cynicism (or some combination thereof) is a majority of what I've run into with my cohorts. Occasionally, I'll catch a few rare birds who do care, are informed, and aren't full of pretentious "I'm too cool/way smarter than you to vote" hipsterism, and I am  overjoyed when I do.

    Young voter outreach is super important! I do it at my local community college and I'd encourage you all (if that's a good avenue of support for you) to do similarly!

    "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi

    by punkRockLiberal on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:39:30 PM PDT

  •  this 53 is ready. my generations of f'king sell (0+ / 0-)

    outs and political cowards to the sell outs ALL need to be unemployed -

    other than Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson, I will NOT give a penny or a dime, a second of time, or a vote to ANY of the current crop of fucking parasites ...

    and I live in Seattle...

    and I voted FOR these sell out fucks, for decades.

    rmm

    p.s. kindly put me on your super secret lists of people who are going to ridicule, disparage, and condemn lying DLC sell outs & politically pathetic whiner fucks. WTF do I have to lose? ha ha ha.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:37:34 PM PDT

  •  The one big problem with Beinart's article - (0+ / 0-)

    and it IS an excellent article, mucho provacativo of thought - is that Beinart can't tell the effing difference between a financial parasite, and someone who is capable of doing something useful and creating real wealth. This one sentence is the giveaway:
     

    Gavin Newsom, the 45-year-old lieutenant governor of California, has embraced Silicon Valley in the same way Booker has embraced Wall Street.
    This is real damn simple, and that sentence indicates to me that Beinart, for all his smarts, does not understand a crucial fact: Wall Street is predatory, useless, and a burden on society. Silicon Valley has its problems, such as supporting free trade, and generations of programmers and executives who have been indoctrinated in Reason magazine's insidiously destructive libertarianism, but at least Silicon Valley has a number of people who undestand, and actually participate in, the actual process of designing, creating, and producing a useful good or service.

    Back in  December 1983, Tom Wolfe wrote a great article for Esquire magazine, The Tinkerings of Robert Noyce: How the Sun Rose on the Silicon Valley, that provides a good look at the creation of semiconductors, the semiconductor industry, and the difference between Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

    One day [Wall Street financier] John Carter came to Mountain Vlew for a close look at Noyce's semiconductor operation. Carter's office in Syosset, Long Island, arranged for a limousine and chauffeur to be at his disposal while he was in California. So Carter arrived at the tilt-up concrete building in Mountain Vlew in the back of a black Cadillac limousine with a driver  in the front wearing the complete chauffeur's uniform - the black suit, the white shirt, the black necktie, and the black visored cap. That in
    itself was enough to turn heads at Fairchild Semiconductor. Nobody had ever seen a limousine and a chauffeur out there before. But that wasn't what fixed the day in everybody's memory. It was the fact that the driver
    stayed out there for almost eight hours, doing nothing. He stayed out there in his uniform, with his visored hat on, in the front seat of the limousine, all day, doing nothing but waiting for a man who was somewhere inside. John Carter was inside having a terrific chief executive officer's time for himself. He took a tour of the plant, he held conferences, he looked at figures, he nodded with satisfaction, he beamed his urbane Fifty-seventh Street Biggie CEO charm. And the driver sat out there all day engaged in the task of supporting a visored cap with his head. People started leaving their workbenches and going to the front windows just to take a look at this phenomenon. It seemed that bizarre. Here was a serf who did nothing all day but wait outside a door in order to be at the service of the haunches of his master instantly, whenever those haunches and the paunch and the jowls might decide to reappear. It wasn't merely that this little peek at the New York-style corporate high life was unusual out here in the brown hills of the Santa Clara Valley. It was that it seemed terribly wrong.

    A certain instinct Noyce had about this new industry and the people who worked in it began to take on the outlines of a concept. Corporations in the East adopted a feudal approach to organization, without
    even being aware of it. There were kings and lords, and there were vassals, soldiers, yeomen, and serfs, with layers of protocol and perquisites, such as the car and driver, to symbolize superiority and establish the boundary lines. Back east the CEOs had offices with carved paneling, fake fireplaces, escritoires, bergeres, leather-bound books, and dressing rooms, like a suite in a baronial manor house. Fairchild Semiconductor needed a strict operating structure, particularly in this period of rapid growth, but it did not need a social structure. In fact, nothing could be worse. Noyce realized how much he detested the eastern corporate system of class and status with its endless gradations, topped off by the CEOs and vice-presidents who conducted their daily lives as if they were a corporate court and aristocracy. He rejected the idea of a social hierarchy at Fairchild.

    Wolfe gives you an anecdotal indication of what the difference is between Wall Street and Silicon Valley. To get the full, rigorous, detailed description of the difference, you have to immerse yourself in Thorstein Veblen, who is far superior to Marx in indenifying and analysing the problems and faults of capitalism. You want to make sure the millenials are steered in the proper, progressive direction? Steep yourself in Veblen.

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:19:37 PM PDT

  •  Will we redistribute wealth? The rest is memorex. (0+ / 0-)
  •  great diary, T&R'd (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans only care about themselves, their money, & their power.

    by jdmorg on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 05:48:22 AM PDT

Meteor Blades, Pat K California, claude, Thumb, Alumbrados, Superskepticalman, Ed in Montana, Sylv, chuck utzman, LeislerNYC, PrahaPartizan, fcvaguy, Chi, Odysseus, grollen, Trendar, Liberal Thinking, native, grumbleberries, emal, wytcld, sacrelicious, Shockwave, Sherri in TX, LynChi, m maddog, billlaurelMD, CleverNickName, cotterperson, eeff, LeftHandedMan, gjohnsit, Bob Friend, MarkInSanFran, Doctor Who, JLFinch, rasbobbo, TheMomCat, bronte17, TracieLynn, Einsteinia, wonkydonkey, whenwego, ehavenot, CoolOnion, joe pittsburgh, chuckvw, mrblifil, roses, retLT, mollyd, jdmorg, tidalwave1, scorpiorising, dejavu, annan, TexDem, Dallasdoc, Subversive, figbash, CitizenOfEarth, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, brainwave, NYFM, Catte Nappe, hazzcon, Calidrissp, liberte, whyvee, papercut, dkmich, Diana in NoVa, zerelda, NapaJulie, ScienceMom, xyz, Emmy, boran2, Sybil Liberty, bibble, Armand451, Gowrie Gal, Ohkwai, weelzup, Skennet Boch, historys mysteries, 3goldens, ichibon, el dorado gal, unclejohn, SherwoodB, newfie, democracy inaction, sc kitty, Alice Venturi, Flint, basquebob, ChemBob, stagemom, YucatanMan, EJP in Maine, reflectionsv37, ratzo, Sun Tzu, Dem Beans, lotlizard, Ice Blue, CompaniaHill, kaliope, Tool, WisePiper, Rusty in PA, Jlukes, Indiana Bob, mightymouse, Jim P, begone, DisNoir36, kovie, Medium Head Boy, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, cybersaur, Mr Bojangles, Themistoclea, cardboardurinal, profundo, Kimball Cross, dopper0189, AoT, aggieric, arlene, blueoasis, Blue Wind, NBBooks, triv33, praenomen, twigg, gpoutney, gooderservice, Libby Shaw, PapaChach, NearlyNormal, el cid, hlsmlane, onionjim, BlueMississippi, CA Nana, blueoregon, shaharazade, Statusquomustgo, FrankieB, markthshark, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, BentLiberal, krwheaton, tegrat, pgm 01, out of left field, Polacolor, hawaii2, camlbacker, Debs2, Dartagnan, EdSF, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, jds1978, karmsy, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, Cofcos, Matt Z, Dave in Northridge, dclawyer06, deepeco, joedemocrat, Unbozo, rantsposition, Aunt Martha, bobswern, CT Hank, Chico David RN, Don midwest, Assaf, theotherside, TomP, Empower Ink, cville townie, MKinTN, mconvente, VelvetElvis, angry hopeful liberal, Steve15, zerone, poligirl, Sixty Something, tbeer, Involuntary Exile, elwior, brooklynbadboy, KJG52, monkeybrainpolitics, Lujane, Liberal Of Limeyland, Gemina13, mosec, HarpboyAK, Nica24, briefer, shortgirl, legendmn, LaFeminista, bluebelle7, maggiejean, cybrestrike, J M F, Satya1, greengemini, dharmasyd, CanyonWren, maryabein, socal altvibe, mkor7, JesseCW, petral, elziax, metro50, mdmslle, jfromga, nocynicism, Larsstephens, Railfan, commonmass, smileycreek, FogCityJohn, piers, angelajean, mookins, Lost and Found, Things Come Undone, ATFILLINOIS, Eddie L, gulfgal98, tb mare, pixxer, Lady Libertine, Kristina40, 4kedtongue, Betty Pinson, MsGrin, kenwards, Floande, science nerd, Neo Control, Mike08, allenjo, Matthew D Jones, Liberal Capitalist, Bob Duck, Jazzenterprises, slowbutsure, vahana, swale44, Zutroy, asterkitty, Situational Lefty, kevin k, deeproots, Gamblndan, marleycat, thomask, muddy boots, MRA NY, wintergreen8694, punkRockLiberal, PhilJD, sound of progress, ratcityreprobate, SoCalSal, SteelerGrrl, dradams, jham710, jadt65, DRo, Mentatmark, SouthernLiberalinMD, caryltoo, jaebone, PrometheusUnbound, No one gets out alive, Azazello, BlueDragon, livingthedream, quill, jeopardydd, anodnhajo, isabelle hayes, Williston Barrett, greenbastard, tb92, orpurple, Betty Clermont, AnnieR, Joieau, Dave in AZ, Horace Boothroyd III, shanesnana, peachcreek, kellius, the Don, rat racer, Victim of Circumstance, ItsaMathJoke, dotdash2u, catchy, George3, Robynhood too, Phoebe Loosinhouse, Quasimodal, Stude Dude, Blue Bell Bookworm, Panacea Paola, countwebb, smokey545, jbob, Linda1961, goodpractice, 3rock, gypsytoo, unfangus, Icicle68, Demeter Rising, tampaedski, Ironic Chef, amparo fan, oslyn7, Kombema, skepticalcitizen, Moravan, richardvjohnson, Stentorian Tone, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, Fish Man, Nattiq, gnosticator, betterdemsonly, Infected Zebra, puckmtl, stitchingasfastasIcan

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site