Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Poliarchy Bulletin, 2015

Polyarchy       2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jul 31, 2015] Just 158 Families Provided Nearly Half of Campaign Cash

"... Unless Bernie can soundly defeat Clinton in the delegate count (an unlikely event) Clinton will win. And Big Money will continue to back Clinton, though Bernie is winning the money battle with small donors. ..."
"... that cool graph entitled - Mostly Backing Republicans . 138 of the 158 are backing Republicans ..."
"... Bernie Sander is running to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What has Sanders ever done to help Democrats get elected? How would Sanders help the down ballot candidates? We have a very winnable Governors race in Indiana but we need help from the top of the ticket, ..."
"... What strikes me most about Sanders supporters is their anger. Anger gives them passion. But anger does not enact policies. The Tea Party is a prime example. They are angry. They demand that the anti-pols they elected deliver what they want. It aint gonna happen. Sanders thinks he can rally angry people on the left and get things to change. NaGonnaHappn. It will be no more effective than the TeaParty. We need a down and dirty politician who knows how to cut deals and turn the screws of power. ..."
Jul 31, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
In case you were wondering, yes, wealth from the energy and finance industries does dominate campaign spending early in campaigns, and flows mostly to Republicans:
Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House, NY Times: They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters..., they reside in ... exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.

Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign... Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision five years ago. ...

...the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right ... contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs. While such measures would help protect their own wealth, the donors describe their embrace of them more broadly, as the surest means of promoting economic growth and preserving a system that would allow others to prosper, too. ...

Most of the families are clustered around just nine cities. ...

Tend to Be Self-Made ...

A number of the families are tied to networks of ideological donors ...

JohnH said...

Just as bad, each of the two parties has rigged the process in favor of insiders--super-delegates control a large number of convention delegates. "the supers will go with the winner in 2016, too. It's technically possible for Clinton to win the nomination by dominating the superdelegate count even if she (narrowly) loses every state: Thanks to strict proportional allocation on the Democratic side, a candidate only gains a small delegate advantage for a small edge in primary votes."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-s-superdelegate-tipping-point

Unless Bernie can soundly defeat Clinton in the delegate count (an unlikely event) Clinton will win. And Big Money will continue to back Clinton, though Bernie is winning the money battle with small donors.

Time to vote third party. The outcome in most states is not at all in doubt long before the general election, so it's pointless to waste your vote on one of the two evils.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33139-do-the-democrats-offer-a-progressive-choice-for-president

pgl said in reply to JohnH...

Did you even read the post? Especially that cool graph entitled - "Mostly Backing Republicans". 138 of the 158 are backing Republicans

anne said in reply to JohnH...

Unless Bernie can soundly defeat Clinton in the delegate count (an unlikely event) Clinton will win. And Big Money will continue to back Clinton, though Bernie is winning the money battle with small donors.

[ I am sure this is correct. ]

bakho said in reply to JohnH...

Bernie Sander is running to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What has Sanders ever done to help Democrats get elected? How would Sanders help the down ballot candidates? We have a very winnable Governors race in Indiana but we need help from the top of the ticket, not a purist who is too pure to help out.

What strikes me most about Sanders supporters is their anger. Anger gives them passion. But anger does not enact policies. The Tea Party is a prime example. They are angry. They demand that the anti-pols they elected deliver what they want. It ain't gonna happen. Sanders thinks he can rally angry people on the left and get things to change. NaGonnaHappn. It will be no more effective than the TeaParty. We need a down and dirty politician who knows how to cut deals and turn the screws of power.

mulp said in reply to JohnH...

How many rich people did it take to destroy Eric Cantor for Speaker of the House?

Oh, wait, he was taken down by maybe 4000 faceless, nameless, angry white conservative men. These are people in the district who spoke their mind and influenced a dozen people to support Brat. Brat got 36 thousand votes, and most people make choices based on the slightest information, going with the status quo 90% of the time because they never hear anything to cause them to look at alternatives. This is the reason people want all of Congress thrown out, EXCEPT their current members of Congress if not in the opposite party.

Brat did not call Cantor names, but he criticized Cantor's positions. Cantor tried a personality hatchet job, calling Brat "liberal". But vocal supporters of Brat could easily attack Cantor's character and policy offering Brat as the clear alternative by quoting Brat or concluding with Brat. And it takes persistence to get through to the political talk shows and get someone like Ingram to talk about Brat. And then reach out to Brat.

When I grew up, every candidate had a few thousand advocates convincing a dozen others to vote for them "in a box". They simply joined them in the Democratic or Republican Party chapter in town and overtime got to know a wider circle of activists who would speak up for you. They would get you into the Rotary or Grange or hundreds of other groups that fit who you were so dozens and hundreds more would know you and be your advocate.

When you attack the parties, you are effectively calling for a campaign of mass market madison avenue or Colonel Sanders finger licken advertising to recruit voters, but when you become lost in the flood of ads, you then need to destroy the mostly well known to force everyone to seek a "new rock". No one knows the candidate better than they know a rock they find in their garden because the only thing you get is the picture painted by the mad men.

I grew up when parties had block captains, they party men and women who knew everyone on the block to influence their vote.

Whenever someone says "each of the two parties has rigged the process in favor of insiders" followed by "Time to vote third party" my only question is,

"when will you have a block captain for your third party on my block and on every block in my State so you can put third party insiders into all the local and State offices?"

Surely you do not expect the Democratic Party to do all the work required to elect the thousand outsiders needed just to shake things up in just one State, do you???

Given the masses no longer seem to get involved in parties of national scale any more, the established parties rely on their "establishment" institutions which can quickly organize campaigns in a box for thousands of elections within a State. No national parties exist, just 50+ State and territory parties for Democrats and Republicans, with a few dozen other parties that have other establishments, with most far from the voters.

See Grist's commentary in 2012, then find any hint of any real Green Party activity in any State in the Union, activity that will lead to winning some noticeable elections that will lead to reporting on the party within just that State.
http://grist.org/news/its-time-for-the-green-party-to-grow-up/

Robert Salzberg said...

Note to Mark Thoma:

It cannot be said enough that despite literally 10,000 pages of evidence of money corrupting political decisions, that 9 members of the Supreme Court decided that since there wasn't compelling evidence of quid pro quo, there wasn't corruption.

Hear no evil, see no evil, evil doesn't exist. I refute thee thus. (Sound of chair being kicked over.) For non-philosophy students, look it up.

likbez said...

In reality the US presidential election degenerated into a show reminding elections in the USSR. Lower level election still make some sense, though.

It will be very sad if this jingoistic, probably psychopathic and not very bright female neocon become the next POTUS. I think none of politicians who voted for Iraq war are eligible for high office.

I still remember how skillfully Bush II, and Obama were sold to muppets (twice). They played the electorate like a musical instrument each time getting the tune they wanted.

It looks like the two party system is a great alternative to the one party system with essentially the same result.

I wonder why Politburo members did not use this opportunity to present the USSR in more favorable light.

Slogan "Change we can believe in" can be viewed as a damning indictment to two party system.

[Sep 30, 2015] Has Pope Francis just cast the first vote in the US presidential race?

"... It is like the Roman Empire. Its military was spread all over the world while the internal core was getting rotten. ..."
"... It will be far more important to see how the conservative US Catholic Bishops' Conference, most of the members of which are far more conservative than most conservative Catholics, and who are culture warrior apparatschiks appointed during the long dark winter of the JPII/BXVI-pontificate, will respond to Pope Francis' words and actions. ..."
"... i highly doubt Francis would have bombed Libya based on lies (as even the US State Department infested Human Rights Watch was clear, after the fact, that it was). Nor would Francis have assisted open Nazis in their coup in Ukraine. Nor would he have armed Wahabists in Syria. ..."
"... A little hypocritical since his predecessors condemned to death a lot of heretics, which is what political prisoners were called. The Office of the Inquisition lasted until 1964, when, like ACORN, it simply had its name changed. ..."
"...
..."
"... I didn't say anything about "faithful" Catholics -- you inserted that word. I said that the majority of Catholics in the United States oppose the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. As evidence, I would cite this Univision poll, which found only 21% of American Catholics support the Church's opposition to abortion. 10% believe it should be allowed in all cases and 66% believe it should be allowed in some cases. ..."
"... Don't be a hypocrite, governments are the ones responsible to control corporations and stop the destruction of humankind. ..."
"... I think if the Pope's visit boosted any candidate, it was Bernie Sanders, who not only focuses on the equity issues the Pope emphasized, but is willing to reach out without judgment to all who will listen. ..."
"... Chomsky describes the present day GOP as not a party but a "radical insurgency". ..."
"... The largest (and fastest growing) growing demographic in America are the "religiously unafilliated" (atheists, agnostics, and nones). They represent about 35% of the US population. ..."
"... How dare someone else from one of those little countries who should be doing and thinking what their told not as they want. They don't want people preaching at them? Stop the worldwide policing and judgment of the rest of the world. ..."
"...

..."

"... Add a "Neo" and you are correct. Neoliberals from both corporate owned and operated parties, Republican and Democratic, voted for the war. Socialists and others opposed the war. ..."
Sep 30, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

Throughout his American visit the pope's approach was deft and nuanced, but challenging. He could speak softly because he carried a big stick; he had fiercely denounced unfettered capitalism in his documents Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato si', which both identified common causes in the rich world's indifference to the planet and to the poor.

This pope is a tactician as well as a moralist. All this could have a significant impact in the US. Politically, there has been a shift that could prove pivotal in terms of the quarter of the electorate that identifies as Catholic.

Under the previous two popes, Republicans could count on papal endorsement for their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances. Catholic Democrats, by contrast, had a trickier time, treading a tightrope between voicing respect for the pope and for their electorate on such issues.

tjt77 -> ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 20:08

by the time the election actually yawns its way into being, some 14 months away, the public will have long forgotten the visit of Pope Francis..although wahtever current titlilating juicy 'news /entertainment' story plus the words that the still standing bought and paid for clowns utter a few days before might have some impact on the majority voter in (to quote the late Gore Vidal) "the United States of Amenesia."

Dave "marmite71" -> O Robert Cuminale 29 Sep 2015 19:12

No confusion - Every Catholic will say the creed with these words "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. This is said in every Mass.
I think I was eight when I was taught for my first communion that meant belief in the Catholic church as the only legitimate christian church and church hierarchy headed by the that guy who lives in Rome.

But what would I know, I was only catholic for 25 years, as was all my wider family, two of whom are priests.

Okasis -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 19:10

Many Progressives Do Give a Damn. Every time I have to listen to one of the Catholic Bigots on the esteemed Supreme Court, I want to puke! Most of us are pretty unhappy about the Anti-Abortion/Gay/Immigrant/Women trash that passes for political dialogue in the US - Much of it aided and abetted by the Catholic Bishops, in all their wisdom...

Robert Cuminale -> Dave "marmite71" O 29 Sep 2015 18:41

I know the Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed and The Athanasion Creed. I'm not Catholic so I asked others who are and they don't what it is either.
Are you confusing that small "c" in catholic (universal) with the large "C" as in the name of the denomination?

Maqbool Qurashi -> talenttruth 29 Sep 2015 17:30

It is like the Roman Empire. Its military was spread all over the world while the internal core was getting rotten.

Our infrastructure is rotting. The water system in the Washington DC is 150 years old and leaking 15% of the water. The rate at which they are repairing, it will take another 70 years to fix it.

Education system is in a chaos. As we ignore these deficiencies, the problems become worse. Hey, we do have the largest and well equipped military in the world and we keep feeding it.


John Kayoss -> John Kayoss 29 Sep 2015 16:11

Here's a couple articles, well sourced ones, to begin your education with:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hypocrisy-of-human-rights-watch/5367940


Dave "marmite71" -> O MXJones 29 Sep 2015 15:52

Most Americans aren't Protestant - the pew survey last year http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
lists Protestants at 46.5 and it declined 4.8% from the last survey in 2007 when they were 51.3%.

I also don't think the dispirit numbers of Protestants voters are as dead set against Papal advice as you seem to believe. My Methodist father-in-law was very impressed by him for instance.

What I think the article makes a case for (poorly articulated I confess -pardon the pun) is that without the American catholic clergy's pushing just narrow moral issues like stopping abortions and gay marriage and failing to mention the church's social justice positions to catholic voters that will make a difference in a key voting demographic, i.e. Catholic Voters.

Even a relatively small switch in the groups voting patterns will have major impact in US elections.


namjodh -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 14:30

A few things ...

1. The Catholic Church in the United States is part of the worldwide Catholic Church. With 69.4 million members, it is the largest religious body in the United States, comprising 22% of the population.

2. Separation of Church and State ... ummmmmmm tell that to the frigging Tea Party, dude, or Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee for that matter.

Your comment like most "Conservative" comments is both factually incorrect and simply bullshit.


ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 13:40

Time will tell whether the pope has a decisive influence upon the 2016 race for the White House.

It will be far more important to see how the conservative US Catholic Bishops' Conference, most of the members of which are far more conservative than most conservative Catholics, and who are culture warrior apparatschiks appointed during the long dark winter of the JPII/BXVI-pontificate, will respond to Pope Francis' words and actions.

We will know soon enough during the Synod, which opens its Second Session on October 4 and is slated to last two weeks, or potentially more, given the expected highly controversial debate.

There is a reason why Pope Francis added, by appointment, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich to the number of participants in the Synod, and this must not have escaped Mr. Vallelly. It is Blase Cupich, after all, who most profoundly "gets" what Francis intends to achieve.

Meanwhile, among the US bishops there are still some very recalcitrant holdouts (e.g. the prelates in San Francisco, CA, or Providence, RI, to name only two) who would love to see Francis gone.

What can be said, I think, is that it has become a bit more difficult for the USCCB to unashamedly broadcast the Republican Party Line as it did, to the embarrassment and diminishment of its own moral authority, during the previous Presidential Election Campaign. In that sense, Pope Francis may well have left many Catholics a precious, and certainly by some bishops despised, gift: vote according to your informed conscience, vote for the Gospel, for peace, justice, and equality for all.

chanayutr 29 Sep 2015 13:31

There is simply no way that the timing of Boehner's announcement is completely unrelated to the Pope's visit, so in that way, at least, the Pope has had an influence, insofar as the teabilly faction will be put off for a couple more months, at least. What happens after that will (most likely) be the responsibility of another Irish-American politician, Kevin McCarthy. The timing of the next teabilly-inspired government shutdown, debt-ceiling crisis, or other near death experience has been moved back in such a way that it could very well influence the Nov., 2016 election. So, yeah, in a way, the Pope did cast his vote against the conservatives.

John Kayoss -> Aaron King 29 Sep 2015 12:53

i highly doubt Francis would have bombed Libya based on lies (as even the US State Department infested Human Rights Watch was clear, after the fact, that it was). Nor would Francis have assisted open Nazis in their coup in Ukraine. Nor would he have armed Wahabists in Syria.

Nor would he have used drones to kill a 16 yr old American citizen, simply because the kid chose to have a father that the US didn't like.

This pope would not have given a free pass to Wall Street, nor would he have arranged a nationwide violent crackdown on those who protested this free pass.

The pope would not have jailed Chelsea Manning for documenting the truth about what informed people already knew, nor would he have imprisoned John Kariakou (sp?) for blowing the whistle on torture (nor would he have remained silent as the torture ring run domestically under the leadership of John Burge, in the same area Obama used to "represent", was exposed)

Nor would he have had the plane of a Head of State (who is far closer to Francis's positions than a corporatist like Obama could ever hope to be) grounded, based on a rumor proven to be false.

Of course, to claim that a man who the banks have invested so heavily in, only to be repaid in appointments, and who tries to push monstrosities like TTIP and TPP onto a public whose "representatives" are not even allowed to speak about the details, as being somehow "left" is indicative of the level of (self?) deception needed to support Obama.

And please, do tell me about how Francis had his opposition chained to a desk for 8 hours at a black site during the debates, to keep the media ignorant of her existence. (As Obama did in 2012).

Obama is not fit to kiss the shoes of the Bishop of Rome, much less be equated with him.

fredimeyer -> Al Simballa 29 Sep 2015 12:31

you raise an extremely worrying point. look at the knesset, where parties with a handful of followers with the most bizarre religious notions can sometimes control certain votes.

In America, splinter 'religious' groups from the scientologists to the mormons to the amish have very specific one or two issue political agendas. and Americans fall over backwards to accommodate any mention of 'religious freedom'

Voters do not seem to mind that candidate x is a total nutter and denies the very fabric of science, or wears magic under clothing or insists of snipping the johnsons of baby boys. no matter how whacky, it is 'religious freedom'.

The massive turnout for the leader of a barbaric and medieval 'religion' was frightening. but experience, so far, suggests that even his most devoted followers do not put into practice and of his preachings.


George Williams YorkerBouncer 29 Sep 2015 11:48

A little hypocritical since his predecessors condemned to death a lot of heretics, which is what political prisoners were called. The Office of the Inquisition lasted until 1964, when, like ACORN, it simply had its name changed.


GreenLake Cooper2345 29 Sep 2015 11:10

There is no evidence to support your claim that the majority of faithful Catholics oppose the church's teaching on the sanctity of life.

I didn't say anything about "faithful" Catholics -- you inserted that word. I said that the majority of Catholics in the United States oppose the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. As evidence, I would cite this Univision poll, which found only 21% of American Catholics support the Church's opposition to abortion. 10% believe it should be allowed in all cases and 66% believe it should be allowed in some cases.

Opposition to the Church's position on every other social issue is even more overwhelming.


StevoKingoftheNewts -> Kevin Parcell 29 Sep 2015 11:07

Hmm. Seems like out of the frying pan into the fire.

A remarkable number of my schoolmates have killed themselves over the years. I believe this is down to the activities of the local priest, who buggered many of them (not me, thankfully) and was helpfully moved by the bishop to another diocese where he did it again. The actual case was reported in the Observer.

I'd no sooner send my child to a Catholic school than I'd sign them up to the junior Ku Klux Klan.

FWIW, I wouldn't send my kid to private school either.


John Kennedy 29 Sep 2015 09:55

The Pope is a great man and a great leader, but I doubt he will have any impact on the election. I think you over estimate the partisan impact, the Pope was very balanced, I suspect on purpose. In fact, I would even venture to say he was a mirror, that reflected your own basis's and views back upon you in a thoughtful manner. I am not surprised that this paper saw this reflection in the mirror.

Daniel P. Ferreira -> bbqtv 29 Sep 2015 09:45

Change has to come gradually, and he is spearheading the biggest change the church has experienced in centuries.

Don't be a hypocrite, governments are the ones responsible to control corporations and stop the destruction of humankind.
Mindless greed in form of short term "profits" at any cost cannot be offset by selling Vatican works of art, which is nothing but another short term fix.

We are a sick society, and we can only enjoy our existence by not caring about others suffering or turning a blind eye.

He has leverage and he is using it.
I am an atheist, but highly respect him.


BaronVonAmericano 29 Sep 2015 09:18

The Pope does not put wind under the wings of all Democrats. It's hard to see how so-called "centrist" Democrats get much out of the Pope's remonstrations. Those candidates are just as wedded to the golden calf as any Republican, and they are opposed to the Pope's position on gay rights and abortion. In other words, the only good things about right-wing Democrats find no support from the Pope, putting them somewhere behind even Republicans as far as this visit goes.

I think if the Pope's visit boosted any candidate, it was Bernie Sanders, who not only focuses on the equity issues the Pope emphasized, but is willing to reach out without judgment to all who will listen.


Captain_Smartypants -> conifer2 29 Sep 2015 08:44

I did say something about you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.

So you've didn't get involved in the original point, and brought in something completely irrelevant instead. Christianity and the Church is hardly one thing, and the Church acts less by Christian values than many an atheist. I don't think we're even having a debate here, unless you're still going to argue for that Christianity (a very different thing from the Church, for the umpteenth time) favours credit.

conifer2 -> Captain_Smartypants 29 Sep 2015 08:39

To make it even simpler for you, it would be like requesting myself to lecture people on debt on the sole basis of myself being a lender. There's nothing in my status as a lender that would require me to do such a thing - in fact, as one I should probably understand that an inherent part of interest is to cover the risk of credit loss, in other words the non-payment of debt, and that this is widespread and part of the business model of any lender.

To make it simpler for you - I didn't say anything about the Pope lecturing Argentina on it's debt. I did say something about you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.


Lysicamus -> Keo2008 29 Sep 2015 06:05

I understand that the Bible forbids usury, lending or changing money for profit. This was why the Jews were moneylenders in Britain; the Church did not want Christians to transgress but didn't care if the Jews did. When the Christians had borrowed too much they expelled the Jews to avoid paying back what they owed.


rivelle -> Zepp 29 Sep 2015 05:56

Chomsky describes the present day GOP as not a party but a "radical insurgency".

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/23/noam_chomsky_right_wing_extremism_from_trump_may_be_comic_relief_but_its_not_that_different_from_the_mainstream/

Whatever their other disagreements, the people at the magazine "The American Conservative" would probably agree with Chomsky's description.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/who-we-are/


Captain_Smartypants -> conifer2 29 Sep 2015 05:31

I think you'll find that Christian churches have no problem with credit or the profits from it. Many churches have investment portfolios.

I would not confuse a pragmatic approach to investing surplus funds with the Christian message though, as the latter doesn't moralise about debt and its repayment. I'm pretty sure it's in the Pope's job description to promote Christianity and its values rather than give debt management advice...


DoctorStrangeglove -> JimPNY 29 Sep 2015 00:56

If you somehow see hypocrisy in those not hyde-bound to a religionist-myth version of American history, if that imaginary phantasm is problem for you, then you've no effin' idea what either "separation of church and state", "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." or "freedom of religion" mean.


Gordon Stanly 29 Sep 2015 00:50

The Guardian needs to stop over-exaggerating the Pope's influence. The latest polls show that only 20% of the US population identifies as 'Catholic'.

Most of the Catholic population in America are immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Britain, and South America.

The largest (and fastest growing) growing demographic in America are the "religiously unafilliated" (atheists, agnostics, and nones). They represent about 35% of the US population.

Religion has lost it's influence.


spinnyspace -> Esslloyd 28 Sep 2015 23:48

How dare the Elected Pope attempt to interfere with the 'sole pastime' of the USA in their passion for interfering with other countries leadership.

How dare someone else from one of those little countries who should be doing and thinking what their told not as they want. They don't want people preaching at them? Stop the worldwide policing and judgment of the rest of the world.

peacefulmilitant -> GreenLake 28 Sep 2015 22:51

as the number of white Catholics declines and Hispanic Catholics increases, the trend will probably build more in the Democrats favor.

Except Hispanics are the most likely US Catholics to abandon the Church.

capitalismsucks1 -> Meme Mine 28 Sep 2015 22:40

Add a "Neo" and you are correct. Neoliberals from both corporate owned and operated parties, Republican and Democratic, voted for the war. Socialists and others opposed the war.

Francizek 28 Sep 2015 21:59

Above all, the Pope is realistic and pragmatic. Not so many years ago, the western world was beset with an unsustainable birth rate, and an horrendous infant mortality rate, not so different from the current situation in so-called third world countries today. Medical improvements have certainly helped enormously to change this situation, but equally obviously changes in cultural attitudes involving birth control have had just as big an effect. These changes will not be reversed.

[Sep 28, 2015] The Only Two Things That Matter: Why I'm Supporting Larry Lessig

"... We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good. ..."
"... The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick. ..."
Sep 28, 2015 | baselinescenario.com

We have lots of problems: Expensive yet mediocre health care. Lack of retirement security. Out-of-control megabanks. Inequality of opportunity. And, of course, climate change.

At the end of the day, though, there are only two things that matter: early childhood education and electoral reform.

We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good.

michaelhendrickson | September 26, 2015 at 9:47 pm

The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick.

[Sep 28, 2015] A Progressive Pope or Greenwashing the Vatican

"... he refuses to critique or attack empire, or the military-industrial complex, which is hollowing the country out, destroying our country from the inside out. He has voted for every military appropriations bill. He has voted slavishly for every pro-Israel bill and resolution that's ever been passed through the Senate. And if we don't confront the disease of empire and an arms industry that is now swallowing–I mean, the best estimates are about $1.6 or $1.7 trillion a year. I mean, officially it's about 54 percent of the budget, about $600 million. But then they hide all sorts of military expenditures, the Veterans' Affairs administration, the nuclear weapons industry and research. As well as all sorts of black budgets that go into military activities that we as citizens are not allowed to see. ..."
"... But some people are–the extent to which the pope is being embraced here without keeping in mind that there's a side to the pope's message which is just fight against greed, just the immoralism of capitalism. And in some ways it ideologically disarms people in terms of what needs to be done to actually do something about these ills. ..."
Sep 28, 2015 | naked capitalism
HEDGES: Yes, because it acknowledges reality. And unfortunately the Catholic church, going back to the long tenure of John Paul II, pushed out thousands of vocations, of priests, sisters, brothers, layworkers, who acknowledged the truth about global income disparity and the rapacious nature of capitalism, especially in the developing world. And by doing so they empowered an extremely right-wing elite centered around groups like Opus Dei, which saw even the acknowledgement of that reality as a kind of heresy. So what the pope is doing is he is shifting the church back onto a ground where at least it speaks about the reality that most–and remember, the largest growing segment of Catholics in the United States are Hispanic–that the largest constituency or certainly a very large constituency of the Catholic church faces every day. And that is an important step.

However, he has not stood up and offered an alternative. He has named the excesses and distortions of unfettered capitalism and the cruelty of unfettered capitalism, but neither he nor the church has said what should take its place.

... ... ...

HEDGES: Yes. I mean, you know, I think in many ways as pope and as an institution they're acknowledging this reality rather late, given what neoliberal economics have done in terms of reconfiguring the global economy into virtually a form of neofeudalism. So we're very, very far down the road. And somehow not to acknowledge this reality would be, I think–you know, continue to keep the hierarchy of the church in what is in essence a non-reality-based worldview.

So it is a good thing, yes, without question that the pope is acknowledging the effects of climate change, is acknowledging the effects of neoliberal economics and globalization. But as I said before, acknowledging it at this point is simply acquiescing to a reality that most of the members of the Catholic church already know.

JAY: I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, because I'm still a little bit on the fence about how to assess, in the end is this kind of language, rhetoric positive or not. But he sits next to President Obama. President Obama, in a recent article you wrote, should actually be charged with crimes after–.

HEDGES: Preemptive–that's not even, I mean, preemptive war under post-Nuremberg laws is a criminal act of aggression.

JAY: And also is not actually going and charging President Bush and Vice President Cheney is actually a violation of international law.

HEDGES: [Yes.]

... ... ...

HEDGES: Well, he comes out of that traditional Franciscan ethos, which is the closer you are to the poor the closer you are to God. And that is a particular theological–he is a Jesuit, but that is a particular theological strain within the Catholic church, and I think that very much describes where he's coming from.

So he's reading between the lines, he's asking for a kinder, gentler system for people to take into account the suffering that global capitalism has inflicted, lifting up the voices of the poor. But in the end as far as I can tell, it's about charity. It's not about justice. And that's how he can stand next to Obama. He's not–he's, you know, even in the passage you read he's critiquing the excesses of the system, and nowhere does he critique the system itself. And you're exactly right, there is–there are no impediments, internal or external, now within global capitalism for it to reform itself. In fact, of course, things are getting worse. We are moving into this kind of oligarchic domain where two-thirds of the country, including in the United States, are hanging on by their fingertips.

So that's on the one hand, he has moved the church back into the realm of reality, which I think is a good thing. But I don't think by any stretch of the imagination he can be called a radical.

... ... ...

JAY: I'm talking more ordinary people who are kind of influenced by various things, which I think a lot of people are. And hearing the pope come down so strongly, certainly on at least Catholics and maybe even other religious people, it might give them some pause to think about this.

HEDGES: Well, and it also highlights the importance of the issue, which I think is good.

JAY: It raises a question, as well. This language, as I said earlier, is kind of in the realm of kind of social democracy, which means can we get rid of the excesses of capitalism but you don't have to actually challenge who owns stuff and change who owns stuff, and not really change who has power. And you're saying this has a positive effect even though you can see all the negatives of this. Does that same analysis apply to, say, a Bernie Sanders, who essentially has social democratic rhetoric. He–same thing. I mean, Sanders doesn't really question how things are owned in the United States. He's not making proposals. Like, even on his proposals for infrastructure and investment it's still mostly as far as we can tell about private-public partnerships. It's not building out a public sector, which one would think is a more socialistic way to do it.

On the other hand, the rhetoric against the billionaire class, does it not have a positive effect in terms of public opinion in the same way the pope does?

HEDGES: No. Because–two reasons. One, of course, he's working within the confines of the Democratic party and is himself –- sits with the Democratic caucus, has seniority within the caucus, is in essence an unofficial member of the Democratic party. As Howard Dean has pointed out he votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time. He has been the main obstacle to creating a third party within Vermont. So that's the first problem. He's a member of the Democratic establishment. He campaigned for Clinton in '92, again in '96. He campaigned for Obama. So if he was serious about taking on the billionaire class, he would take on the Democratic party. He's not. That's the first thing.

But the second thing, and here he would diverge from the pope, is that he is–he refuses to critique or attack empire, or the military-industrial complex, which is hollowing the country out, destroying our country from the inside out. He has voted for every military appropriations bill. He has voted slavishly for every pro-Israel bill and resolution that's ever been passed through the Senate. And if we don't confront the disease of empire and an arms industry that is now swallowing–I mean, the best estimates are about $1.6 or $1.7 trillion a year. I mean, officially it's about 54 percent of the budget, about $600 million. But then they hide all sorts of military expenditures, the Veterans' Affairs administration, the nuclear weapons industry and research. As well as all sorts of black budgets that go into military activities that we as citizens are not allowed to see.

And the pope is no friend of empire. I mean, even John Paul II was no friend of empire in terms–and Bernie Sanders in that sense, I think, has one more strike against him than the pope.

JAY: Well, but you could do a whole list of things about the pope if you want to go into his negative positions. I mean, certainly on social issues–. And go on and on.

HEDGES: On misogyny and–of course. But in terms of critiquing power he [said]–.

JAY: But he sits next to President Obama and he doesn't say anything about President Obama's participation in various wars and drone strikes.

HEDGES: No, but he's–no, he doesn't. But he's not an active enabler of empire. Bernie Sanders is.

JAY: Because Bernie Sanders voted for–he voted against the Iraq war, you could give him that.

HEDGES: Well he had, you know, that's about it. Because after that there wasn't a military appropriations bill he didn't sign on for.

JAY: The–but the Vatican, and I can't say this pope has been out, he hasn't perhaps had a war where he's had to take that kind of position on. Although on the previous Iraq war I think the Vatican was against the invasion of Iraq and has taken some decent positions on some of these things. But then, so did Sanders. But if you don't really come out and critique empire, I have not heard this pope critique empire. He critiques inequality.

HEDGES: He hasn't. But–.

JAY: I'm not–I'm saying that you wind up with the pope of having a certain propaganda value, say, on climate change. Well, why doesn't Sanders–Sanders is not going to win. We know that. So it winds up being is the words, is the rhetoric, is the arguments that people are hearing, does it have some positive effect on public opinion? Given everything you've said about him.

HEDGES: [Inaud.] because he's appealing to widespread sentiments in the same way that Obama did in 2008. But he has promised that he will campaign on behalf of whoever the nominee is, and the system's rigged, fixed. And if it's not Hillary Clinton will be another anointed member of the Democratic establishment. And Sanders will play the role that Van Jones played in the last election which is, you know, we can't have whoever the Republican nominee is. She may not be perfect, don't be a purist, and he will funnel this energy back into a dead political system and we're right back where we are. You cannot call yourself a socialist unless you're an anti-militarist and an anti-imperialist, and he's neither.

JAY: And you think the pope is?

HEDGES: I think–we don't know, because he hasn't issued any statements. But traditionally the Vatican hierarchy has certainly not in any way been enthusiastic about American imperialism and at times has…

JAY: [Inaud.] the American church, certainly not.

HEDGES: Oh, without question.

JAY: With the support of the Vietnam war, and so on.

HEDGES: Yeah. But for instance, at the inception of the Iraq war, the Vatican was against the invasion. And I was speaking around the country about, you know, why we shouldn't invade Iraq. And probably 25 percent of my speaking invitations came from Catholic colleges that had peace and justice studies. And the thing about a Catholic, unlike a Protestant, I myself come out of the Presbyterian tradition, is that there is a sense of a community beyond your borders. There is a kind of–Catholicism doesn't lend itself as well to the kind of nationalism that is often endemic to Protestantism. And so yes, the Catholic hierarchy certainly was waving the flag, without question. And the pope comes out of Argentina, when the Catholic hierarchy was defending the dirty war, the disappearance of 30,000 Argentines by their own military and security forces. That's common. But because–.

JAY: This particular pope has had some accusations against his participation.

HEDGES: Yes. Well he didn't, he was very passive at a moment of horror for his country. But Catholics do have a sense that there are fellow co-believers who do not carry their passport. And I think that's a kind of sign of health within the church and gives the church at least wider scope for a range of views

JAY: Do you think that some of the left, and I would include in this the Cuban government to some extent, are going a little too far in this praising of the pope? I can understand the positive elements of the things you're saying. The thing I read off the top was quite powerful. And you know, he doesn't say capitalist system. But at least as a critique it certainly is strongly anti-capitalist. I take your point, the alternative is not presented. But that's a big deal, as we discussed earlier, that the alternative is not presented.

But some people are–the extent to which the pope is being embraced here without keeping in mind that there's a side to the pope's message which is just fight against greed, just the immoralism of capitalism. And in some ways it ideologically disarms people in terms of what needs to be done to actually do something about these ills.

HEDGES: Right. And you know, and it allows you to kind of read things into the pope that probably aren't there. I mean, what he's really presenting is very basic Christian theology against idolatry. I mean, that's where it comes from. It's against idols. And that's been part of Christian theology since before Augustine.

... ... ...

[Sep 27, 2015] Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for Russian Foreign Ministry, grades Nuland's paper

September 16, 2015 | Fort Russ/Komsomolskaya Pravda

It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall.

Translated from Russian by Tom Winter

Translator's note: this press account is based on a post on Maria Zakharova's facebook page, and I have changed this account slightly in alignment with Zakharova's original text. It was not clear in KP what was Zakharova and what was KP. I think it is in this translation...

Head of the Information Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry wrote a "critical review" on the "Yalta speech" of the assistant US Secretary of State.

In Kiev, there was a conference "Yalta European Strategy". Already amazing. Yalta is in the Russian Crimea, and the "Yalta" conference was held in the Ukrainian capital. Well and good -- you couldn't miss that one!. But at this Yalta conference came the assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Yes, the same one that passed out the cookies. But now, considered a shadow ruler of Ukraine, she points out to the Kiev authorities what to do. This time, Nuland said in a public speech:

- There should be no tolerance for those oligarchs who do not pay taxes. There must be zero tolerance for bribery and corruption, to those who would use violence for political ends.

And these words of the grande dame of the State Department could not be overlooked. Just think, Americans don't like it when their loans to Ukraine get stolen. And anti-oligarchic Maidan brought the very oligarchs to power, and corruption in the country has become even greater. Some of us have grown weary of this talk. But, let Nuland drone on ...

But then Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesman Maria Zakharova replied. So much so that not a stone was left on stone in the American's "Yalta speech":

"All this a little bit, just a little, looks like a lecture to the fox about how bad it is to steal chickens, but actually it surprised in other ways. As soon as Russian authorities began exposing the tax evasion, bribery, or corruption of the oligarchs, Victoria Nuland's office hastened to call zero tolerance "political repression" - Zakharova wrote on her facebook page.

It would be great to see the Department of State "show that same zero tolerance and inquire a bit about how the initial capital of the Russian (and Ukrainian would not hurt) oligarchs got started, those oligarchs who have been accused of corruption at home, but who, once in London, feel protected by the authorities, enjoying all the benefits of membership in the Club of Victims of Political Persecution" - continued Zakharova.

"It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall. Giving the green light to the dirty money from Russia and the former Soviet Union, the Western world is only boosting the zeal with which the domestic thieves shove their loot in foreign bins."

"Though perhaps," wonders the Foreign Minstiry spokesman "this is the actual purpose of the imaginary zero tolerance?"

"Why do people on Interpol's lists, by the decision of the Russian courts, prove their financial immorality, as they thrive in the Western capitals, and no alarm bells go off in the State Department?"

It turns out to be an interesting story: Taking fetid streams of notes, the West has just one requirement at the border crossing. Scream "victim of the regime." That's it! and you're in spades!

This calls to mind the old Soviet bribery password translated into modern American:

- In Soviet times, it was common phrase, revealing corrupt intent to proceed with plans insidious in varying degrees: "I'm from Ivan Ivanovich." Today the corresponding "Open Sesame" that opens the doors "in Europe and the best houses in Philadelphia," is the phrase "I'm running away from Vladimir".

Victoria, if you're going to start cleaning out the cockroaches, stop feeding them on your side.

[Sep 26, 2015] U.S. Billionaires Political Power Index

Sep 26, 2015 | Brookings Institution

In September 2014, Darrell West published a Billionaire Political Power Index based on his Brookings Institution Press book, Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust. It examined the political influence individuals of great wealth, ranking their power based on a number of factors including campaign expenditures, activism through nonprofit organizations and foundations, holding public office, media ownership, policy thought leadership, and behind-the-scenes influence.

He has updated this index to account for billionaires' more recent election activism, campaign donations, and influence leading up to the 2014 midterms. There are several individuals who have moved up the list: Peter Thiel, Bob Mercer, Joe Ricketts, Paul Singer, Jim Simons, and David Geffen.

Others have seen their rankings drop: Penny Pritzker, Warren Buffett, Peter Peterson, Donald Trump, and Alice Walton.

Find out more about Billionaires: Reflections of the Upper Crust "

Hover Over a Billionaire's Photo to See More Details

# Names
1 Charles & David Koch
2 Michael Bloomberg
3 Tom Steyer
4 Sheldon Adelson
5 Rupert Murdoch
6 John "Joe" Ricketts
7 Robert "Bob" Mercer
8 Paul Singer
9 Peter Thiel
10 George and Jonathan Soros
11 John and Laura Arnold
12 Bill and Melinda Gates
13 Family of the late Peter Lewis
14 Mark and Priscilla Zuckerberg
15 Warren Buffett
16 Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos
17 Pierre and Pamela Omidyar
18 James "Jim" Simons
19 David Geffen
20 Penny Pritzker
21 Marc Andreessen
22 Peter Peterson
23 Donald Trump
24 Alice Walton

[Sep 26, 2015] John Boehner left because Republicans true faith is incompatible with governing

"... If you genuinely believe the idiotic Reagan slogan that government is the problem, then shutting it down is not a tactic, it is the objective. ..."
"... The Tea Party mysteriously appeared about 10 minutes after Obama's first inauguration. They purported to be a grassroots movement sprung from righteous anger but were in fact a carefully orchestrated anti-liberal, anti-black, anti-Obama initiative funded by Dick Armey's Koch-financed Freedomworks organization. ..."
"... The US paranoia when it comes to government is disturbing. In Europe a government is something they elect to run the country and make sure all the services run smoothly. In the US it seems like it's viewed as a foreign power occupied the country and it has to be fought at all cost. ..."
"... Fronting for a party that's desperately trying to dismantle the government totally to give free reign to robber barons must be frustrating. If they succeed the US will see an inequality that makes the current situation look like Scandinavia. ..."
"... There is no process to call early elections or remove the House. It is a hole in the Constitution. Nobody imagined this one. ..."
"... Wrong! When a woman is forced to carry something inside her body she does wish to, whether by accident, rape, incest, or however, that takes away HER right to pursuit of happiness and more. You damn G.O.PIGS just want a child born but then forget about the nurturing and support it needs after birth. You cut every damn program that exists to help them. No wonder you're an "EX"-chief. ..."
"... Hence, GOP = American Taliban, or worse. And CCarrier is just a blatant demonstration of how single-minded (if minded at all) they have become. ..."
Sep 25, 2015 | theguardian.com

skeptikos, 26 Sep 2015 01:05

If you genuinely believe the idiotic Reagan slogan that government is the problem, then shutting it down is not a tactic, it is the objective.

Zepp -> swanstep 26 Sep 2015 00:46

That's already the case. They lost the popular vote overall for the House last year, 52-47, but maintain a fairly large majority of thirty or so seats. Case in point: Pennsylvania, where they lost the overall vote by eight points and won 13 of the 18 seats.

A large and engaged voter turnout could stop this, but that would be asking Americans to get up off their asses and save themselves, and too many of them are convinced that they don't need saving from this sort of thing, because this is America, and it's exceptional!


BaldwinP -> MarkThomason 26 Sep 2015 00:31

Excellent analysis.

To which I would add the Tea Party believe very firmly in government in one situation - when they want it to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone else by outlawing abortion and homosexuality.


MelFrontier -> USfan 26 Sep 2015 00:23

The Tea Party mysteriously appeared about 10 minutes after Obama's first inauguration. They purported to be a grassroots movement sprung from righteous anger but were in fact a carefully orchestrated anti-liberal, anti-black, anti-Obama initiative funded by Dick Armey's Koch-financed Freedomworks organization.

greven -> hillbillyzombie 25 Sep 2015 22:57

The US paranoia when it comes to government is disturbing. In Europe a government is something they elect to run the country and make sure all the services run smoothly. In the US it seems like it's viewed as a foreign power occupied the country and it has to be fought at all cost.


greven -> dudemanguy 25 Sep 2015 22:53

The Koch brothers started the Tea Party as a means to dismantle the state, black lives matter is more borne from desperation.

greven 25 Sep 2015 22:48

Fronting for a party that's desperately trying to dismantle the government totally to give free reign to robber barons must be frustrating. If they succeed the US will see an inequality that makes the current situation look like Scandinavia. Expect 300 million desperately poor people living from hand to mouth with nothing and the number of billionaires double at least.


MarkThomason 25 Sep 2015 22:34

What are we going to do if we now discover the House of Representatives is truly broken?

We can and have removed a President. We can and have removed judges.

There is no process to call early elections or remove the House. It is a hole in the Constitution. Nobody imagined this one.

They should have. English history had its share of dysfunctional Houses which had to go:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

We have no way to do that.

I do hope the two parties can set aside the Hastert Rule and govern without the extreme. If they won't, we are in trouble.

We don't have any good options except to trust them, and they have already betrayed that trust.


Timothy Everton -> Exchief 25 Sep 2015 22:28

Wrong! When a woman is forced to carry something inside her body she does wish to, whether by accident, rape, incest, or however, that takes away HER right to pursuit of happiness and more. You damn G.O.PIGS just want a child born but then forget about the nurturing and support it needs after birth. You cut every damn program that exists to help them. No wonder you're an "EX"-chief.


Timothy Everton -> PamelaKatz 25 Sep 2015 22:20

Hence, GOP = American Taliban, or worse. And CCarrier is just a blatant demonstration of how single-minded (if minded at all) they have become. Mr. Speaker saw this and knew, in good conscience, that he could not satisfy these hoodlums and govern as was meant to be. Someone quick! Round up the Teabaggers and their ilk and take no prisoners - IF We, The People, want our government to survive.


dudemanguy 25 Sep 2015 22:01

I thought the Bush presidency had finished the GOP off, but they were reborn with a phoney wall street funded grass roots movement, the tea party, and are more dangerous and destructive than ever.

The democrats have their own problems as well. The so called blacklivesmatter movement has breathed new life into the Republican party by managing to drive away both democratic moderates tired of being screamed at, bullied and called a racist, and some African Americans whove have been convinced that the only issue that matters is the media driven notion that there is an epidemic of racist killer cops looking for any excuse to kill black people, and every democratic politician that doesn't bow down to a movement that has been responsible for two years of rioting violence and racial strife, is somehow racist. I'm still not convinced the 1% hasnt been fomenting this movement in order to harm the democrats. Is it a coincidence BLM's biggest target has been Bernie Sanders?

In the end the 1% win and the rest of America loses.

[Sep 26, 2015] Wild card Trevor Noah ready to revamp the Daily Show with an outsider twist

Sep 26, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

Speaking at a press breakfast to launch the new Daily Show, which starts on Monday 28 September, the South African comedian said he would use his position as an outsider in the US to look at some of the more bizarre elements of the country's political system without preconceptions.

... ... ...

Jon Stewart's final year in charge at the Daily Show saw the programme win three Emmys for outstanding variety talk series, outstanding writing for a variety series and outstanding directing for a variety series.

[Sep 21, 2015] Is Everything Carly Fiorina Says a Lie, Including "And" and "The"?

"... Fiorina as a toxic leader. (You think toxic leaders don't gain authority through their very toxicity? Hmmm.) ..."
"... The fourth lesson taken from watching Fiorina may be the most important. As we struggle with understanding what makes leaders "successful," people frequently overlook the fact that success depends very much on how that term gets defined and measured. In business and in politics, the interests of leaders and their organizations don't perfectly coincide. ..."
"... At Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina was well-known for not tolerating dissent or disagreement, particularly on important strategic issues. ..."
September 21, 2015 | The naked capitalism

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

Let me provide the spoiler at once: Not entirely.

Much of what Fiorina says is vacuous, and (as with all the Republican candidates) there is the occasional gem amidst the muck. But wowsers! Fiorina's relationship to the truth is, at the very best, non-custodial. To come to this conclusion, I read Fiorina's answers to questions in the recent Republican debate (transcript here). I apologize for not color-coding the text, but the length is so extreme, and in any case I want to focus not on rhetoric, but just the facts. So, I'm going to skip the answers I regard as vacuous, and focus only on the answers that contain outright falsehoods, which I will helpfully underline, and the rare cases of genuine insight.

This is a campaign of firsts: The first socialist Presidential candidate, the first woman Presidential candidate, the first billionaire[1] candidate, and, with Fiorina, the first corporate executive Presidential candidate. And each of these candidates has a different source for their personal authority or ethos: Sanders with genuine, long-held and consistent policy views, Clinton with smarts and [1] process expertise, Trump as the wealthy mass media personality, and now Fiorina as a toxic leader. (You think toxic leaders don't gain authority through their very toxicity? Hmmm.)

In the Financial Times ("Leadership BS") Dan Pfeffer, Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, comments on Fiorina as an executive:

[E]ven "people who have presided over catastrophes" suffer no negative consequences. On the contrary. Ms Fiorina, "who by any objective measure was a horrible CEO, is running for president on her business record. I love it! . . . You can't make this stuff up — it's too good!"

Yes, we laugh that we may not weep; I've often felt that way, even this early in the 2016 campaign. In CNN, Pfeffer ("Leadership 101") comments on Fiorina's toxicity:

Here are four things that anyone, running for president or not, can and should do:

Number one, tell your story. If you won't, no one else will. By telling your story repeatedly [like Clinton and Trump, but not Sanders], you can construct your own narrative. …

Second, Fiorina [like Trump] has and is building a brand — a public presence. Recognizable brands have real economic value. … Running for president, even if unsuccessful, transforms people into public figures often widely sought on the speaking circuit, so in many ways, they win even if they lose.

Third, don't worry about being liked — Fiorina doesn't. … In that choice, Fiorina is following the wisdom of Machiavelli, who noted that while it was wonderful to be feared and loved, if you had to choose one, being feared was safer than being loved [like Trump and Clinton, but not Sanders. "Nobody hates Bernie," as one insider commented."]

The fourth lesson taken from watching Fiorina may be the most important. As we struggle with understanding what makes leaders "successful," people frequently overlook the fact that success depends very much on how that term gets defined and measured. In business and in politics, the interests of leaders and their organizations don't perfectly coincide. [Oddly, since Trump is a brand, his corporate and personal interests do coincide. And since the Clinton Foundation is a money-laundering influence-peddling operation, its interests and Clinton's coincide as well. Sanders has no business interests.]

At Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina was well-known for not tolerating dissent or disagreement, particularly on important strategic issues. As someone quite senior in H-P's strategy group told me, disagreeing with Fiorina in a meeting was a reasonably sure path out the door. By not brooking dissent, Fiorina ensured that few opponents would be around to challenge her power. But disagreement often surfaces different perspectives that result in better decisions. The famous business leader Alfred P. Sloan noted that if everyone was in agreement, the discussion should be postponed until people could ascertain the weaknesses in the proposed choice.

Fiorina has a pragmatic view of what it takes to be successful. And that's one reason she should not be underestimated, regardless of the opinions about her career at H-P.[3]

The fourth point is especially toxic, and may show up — despite the current adulation — further along on the campaign trail. If Fiorina insists on surrounding herself with sycophants, and on making all the strategic decisions herself, will her Presidential campaign turn into the trainwreck (see under "demon sheep") her Senate race did?[4]

To the transcript!

* * *

FIORINA: Good evening. My story, from secretary to CEO, is only possible in this nation, and proves that everyone of us has potential. My husband, Frank, of 30 years, started out driving a tow truck for a family owned auto body shop.

Anybody listening to this might conclude that Fiorina rose from working class roots — especially with the borrowed cachet of a truck driving man for a husband — to CEO, and at H-P. Her actual biography paints a different picture. Here's her background and career path, from WikiPedia:

Fiorina's father was a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. He would later become dean of Duke University School of Law, Deputy Attorney General, and judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Her mother was an abstract painter. [S]he was raised Episcopalian.

Oh. An Episcopalian secretary.

During her summers, she worked as a secretary for Kelly Services.[27] She attended the UCLA School of Law in 1976 but dropped out[28] after one semester and worked as a receptionist for six months at a real estate firm Marcus & Millichap, moving up to a broker position before leaving for Bologna, Italy, where she taught English.

So, speaking of bologna…

Fiorina received a Master of Business Administration in marketing from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, College Park in 1980. She obtained a Master of Science in management at the MIT Sloan School of Management under the Sloan Fellows program in 1989.[30]

So that's when Fiorina's rise began; with degrees in marketing and management. Fiorina's one of those MBAs you get called into a windowless conference room to hear how you're going to lose your job because bullet points. That's what she was trained to do, and that's what she does.

***

FIORINA: Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn't talk to him at all. We've talked way too much to him.

What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states. I'd probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message. …

Russia is a bad actor, but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk to, because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side, and we have all of that within our control.

We could rebuild the Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven't.

On the Sixth Fleet and imperial strategy generally, Ezra Klein comments:

The Sixth Fleet is already huge, and it's hard to say why adding to its capabilities would intimidate Putin — after all, America has enough nuclear weapons pointed at Russia to level the country thousands of times over. Her proposal for more military exercises in the Baltics seemed odd in light of the fact that President Obama is already conducting military exercises in the Baltics. And the US already has around 40,000 troops stationed in Germany, so it's hard to say what good "a few thousand" more would do.

And pushing on a missile defense system in Poland is a very long-term solution to a very current problem. In total, Fiorina's laundry list of proposals sure sounded like a plan, but on inspection, it's hard to see why any of them would convince Putin to change course.

... ... ...

[Sep 20, 2015] Donald Trump and the Art of the Public Sector Deal

"...A lot of conservatives have criticized public spending on convention centers as a subsidy to the hotel industry, but Mr. Trump called the publicly funded convention center project "critical to reviving the city's image and, ultimately, to putting its economy back on track." ...."
"... But these are not so much arguments against government as against stupidity. Cost overruns on the Javits Center could have been avoided, Mr. Trump wrote, if the city had awarded the construction contract to him as he had suggested. Not surprisingly, this year, he has talked about the need for infrastructure spending with the zeal of many Democrats — while insisting he can deliver needed upgrades much more cheaply than the government would. ..."
"... As president, Mr. Trump likes to say, he'd call up the chief of Ford with a threat: Move your factories back from Mexico or I'll slap a huge tax on your imports. This is antithetical to the conservative approach that says markets, not the government, should determine the allocation of business capital. But it is fully in line with the ideas in "The Art of the Deal." ..."
"... Government is inextricably entangled with business at every level from building aircraft carriers to cutting grass or revitalizing downtown areas. Unfortunately the Republican passion for the simplistic and unequivocal can only be sustained by eye shutting and make believe ..."
"... Trump is calling out his fellow Republicans (and Megan Kelly is correct to suspect he is a RINO) on their attempt to not say what is so obviously true, that they are anti-worker and anti-livable pay, with absolutely no explanation as to how this is in any way good for the people of this country. ..."
"... The film, "Trump: What's the Deal? has been released on line for free. It is a primer on how Donald does business and with whom. Watch it. www.trumpthemovie.com . ..."
"... Further proof that that the republican mantra of small government is a red herring. ..."
"... Barro's piece has provided a very valuable contribution as to the world DT exists in, as do Carson and Fiorina - very few occupations are as autocratic in our society as CEO's and neuro-surgeons, so it is important to know how people who have never held a public office/never made campaign promises that had to be backed up with actions/results, think the way the world works. ..."
"... DT's CEO/billionaire mentality does not bring with it some magic wand that will erase his fellow GOPers' aversion to raising funds, as almost every GOP'er has signed the anti-tax pledge of Grover Norquist's group. ..."
"... The sad part is how the concept of public service has been subsumed by self service. ..."
"... Ever since at least Adam Smith, market enthusiasts have recognized a role for government. Up until the 60s or so, conservatives had the decency to acknowledge that government was at least needed to enforce contracts; today's Right Wing, especially many self-described "Libertarians," are happy with simply exerting their raw economic power. Hardly surprising that ultra-big businesses are behind the current mode. ..."
"... the mob has been the cornerstone of the construction and trades forces in this city to say nothing about the trash hauling and transportation business's ..."
"... Get a grip US! And he's the best [of] the crony capitalists, parasites if the truth be known can muster! And the rest is A Confederacy of Dunces! Why are you giving this band of know nothing's including Trump free cards? Ask a business person to define western civilization and you get a blank stare! ..."
"... Honestly, you have to wonder what a "conservative" is. They're opposed to government subsidies, but not government contracts for their own corporations? Corporate America and the entire military industrial complex are presumably based on mutual love and dewy-eyed looks of longing, is that it? ..."
"... Meanwhile, we have a demand to lower taxes by very rich people who don't pay taxes. Trump is talking about business, they're talking about some distinction between actual real world free enterprise and "crony capitalism" as if they were different things? Have to say, if Trump looks like sweet reason compared to conservative views, something has to be very wrong somewhere. Looks more like psychosis than conservatism to me. ..."
Sep 18, 2015 | www.nytimes.com

" I wrote 'The Art of the Deal,' " said Donald Trump, introducing himself at the beginning of Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, before moving on to his next qualification for the nation's highest elected office. "I say, not in a braggadocious way, I've made billions and billions of dollars dealing with people all over the world."

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump frequently calls "The Art of the Deal," published in 1987, his second-favorite book in the world after the Bible. He has repeatedly said it's the best-selling business book of all time, a claim that isn't true but might be an example of what he terms "truthful hyperbole" on Page 58 of "The Art of the Deal." In July, he said the United States made a bad deal with Iran because our negotiators failed to read his book.

I read the book this week, with an eye toward what it says about the government, since the next deal Mr. Trump wants to do involves running it. What shone through is a view of government that is more critical on waste and incompetence than you would typically see from the left, but that lacks the leave-us-alone edge of the right.

"The Art of the Deal" is not a free-market book.

This isn't surprising given the exact nature of Mr. Trump's business background. It's hard to make a living constructing large buildings in New York if you can't stomach public involvement in private enterprise. The government was often a valued partner in the deals of "The Art of the Deal" — providing zoning variances, offering generous tax abatements and in one case buying a piece of land in which Mr. Trump had an interest in order to build a convention center. And in the book, Mr. Trump repeatedly showed off his superior skill in government relations — as when he obtained an Atlantic City casino license that even Hilton Hotels couldn't get.

"There is no real estate without government," says Julia Vitullo-Martin, a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association, an urban planning research organization in New York. "Donald Trump and his dad built their fortunes on government."

Fred Trump, Donald's father, made his money building modest apartments for lower- and middle-income people in Brooklyn and Queens with subsidized loans from the Federal Housing Administration. But, as the younger Mr. Trump wrote in "The Art of the Deal," nobody was doing that by the 1980s because "it's not profitable and government subsidies have been eliminated." So the younger Mr. Trump shifted toward higher-profile projects in Manhattan, which also depended on government assistance in the form of tax abatements.

His earliest major construction deal in Manhattan was the redevelopment of the Commodore Hotel near Grand Central Terminal , now the glass-covered Grand Hyatt. Mr. Trump sought and won a 40-year property tax abatement (one so long it is still in place today) over the objections of other hotel operators. Before that, he helped persuade the city to build the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center on a former Penn Central rail yard on the Far West Side; Trump earned an $833,000 fee when the city bought the land, on which he held a purchase option.

A lot of conservatives have criticized public spending on convention centers as a subsidy to the hotel industry, but Mr. Trump called the publicly funded convention center project "critical to reviving the city's image and, ultimately, to putting its economy back on track."

When seeking tax abatements and zoning variances for his private projects, Mr. Trump emphasized how great his developments would be for the city. The tax breaks for the Grand Hyatt, he said, were the only way to stop the existing building from becoming a closed, blighted eyesore. His planned Television City development (a now scrapped proposal to bring NBC to a site on the Hudson River in the West 60s) would bring "business worth at least $500 million a year from new residents."

Sometimes public officials bought these arguments and sometimes they didn't. But nowhere in the book is there a contention that he shouldn't have to make them. Never does he say that it's none of the government's business how he does business.

This is more evidence for what some conservatives have been shouting with increasing alarm: Donald Trump is not one of us, does not share a gut-level suspicion of government, is not a true believer in free enterprise. Mr. Trump is an enthusiast of business, but as conservative critics of "crony capitalism" emphasize, being pro-business is not the same as being pro-market.

That said, while "The Art of the Deal" is not antigovernment in general, it does contain a lot of complaints about specific actions of government. For example, he disliked Ronald Reagan's 1986 tax reform, which abolished various tax deductions related to real estate. This move, he wrote, "will be a disaster for the country, since it eliminates the incentives to invest and build — particularly in secondary locations, where no building will occur unless there are incentives." That is, while Mr. Trump i running on a platform of tax simplification today, he was against it 30 years ago.

Parts of the book presage Mr. Trump's recent rants about "stupid" politicians. Mayor Ed Koch, he wrote, "has achieved something quite miraculous. He's presided over an administration that is both pervasively corrupt and totally incompetent." One chapter is devoted to an almost gleeful description of how the construction of an ice rink in Central Park was botched — they tried to build it on a slope, can you believe that? — and then Mr. Trump took over and got done in six months what the city had failed to do inside six years.

But these are not so much arguments against government as against stupidity. Cost overruns on the Javits Center could have been avoided, Mr. Trump wrote, if the city had awarded the construction contract to him as he had suggested. Not surprisingly, this year, he has talked about the need for infrastructure spending with the zeal of many Democrats — while insisting he can deliver needed upgrades much more cheaply than the government would.

Twenty-nine years is a long time, and "The Art of the Deal," which he wrote with Tony Schwartz, who is now a contributor to The New York Times, will not necessarily be Mr. Trump's blueprint for governing. But in his campaign speeches, Mr. Trump has often echoed the meddlesome approach to business he learned from New York City officials. As president, Mr. Trump likes to say, he'd call up the chief of Ford with a threat: Move your factories back from Mexico or I'll slap a huge tax on your imports.

This is antithetical to the conservative approach that says markets, not the government, should determine the allocation of business capital. But it is fully in line with the ideas in "The Art of the Deal."

John, a trusted commenter Hartford

Not surprising really. The whole Republican small government mantra is a complete fantasy. We live in a modern administrative state which reflects the complexity of 21st century society. Government at the federal, state and local level spends over $6 trillion a year which is more than a third of GDP.

Government is inextricably entangled with business at every level from building aircraft carriers to cutting grass or revitalizing downtown areas. Unfortunately the Republican passion for the simplistic and unequivocal can only be sustained by eye shutting and make believe which is what is happening with Trump of course.

Walt Bennett, Harrisburg PA 8 hours ago

...and what is most delicious about Trump is that he is revealing Republican lies from the inside. You can't be both pro-free-markets and pro-jobs. You can't be both pro-unfettered capitalism and pro-livable wages.

Trump is calling out his fellow Republicans (and Megan Kelly is correct to suspect he is a RINO) on their attempt to not say what is so obviously true, that they are anti-worker and anti-livable pay, with absolutely no explanation as to how this is in any way good for the people of this country.

And that is exactly why he may win.

Arthur Silen, Davis California 1 day ago

As it happens, I've had considerable experience with public sector infrastructure dealmaking, and I can speak to that point. What Mr. Trump might characterize as waste and incompetence are really political constituencies. These include mayors, governors, state legislatures, urban and regional interests, downtown and more broad-based business interests, consumers of governmental services, like mass transit, airports highways, public parks and recreation, and the like. Typically there is an area wide or regional planning process that is supposed to evaluate development proposals and assign priorities.

But it doesn't always work that way. Back in the mid-1970s, the city of Philadelphia wanted to link two stub-end railroad terminals so that passengers could travel from North Philadelphia to South Philadelphia without having to change trains. The federal agency for whom I worked did not think much of the project, but the Secretary of Transportation, William T Coleman, himself a Philadelphian, acceded to the wishes of the city and he approved the $300 million project because on balance the project benefited Philadelphia in the long-term, and in the short term it provided substantial employment.

I can't say that this project was the best way to spend public money, but it had much wider public benefits than sports stadiums that principally benefit wealthy sports team owners. And it certainly beats sweetheart deals benefiting gambling interests, where Trump made much of his money.

Langley, NYC

Interesting take on "The Art of the Deal." Interesting that Donald, who benefited from government hand outs is running for President as a republican. 25 years ago, Donald suppressed a documentary we produced. He screamed and yelled and threatened lawsuits. This paper wrote about the controversy. The film, "Trump: What's the Deal? has been released on line for free. It is a primer on how Donald does business and with whom. Watch it. www.trumpthemovie.com .

Steph, Florida

Further proof that that the republican mantra of small government is a red herring. It's more a case of government for whom as Trump's book clearly points out.

Lonely Republican, In NYC

This article could have been written about most anyone in politics today. Why not Andrew Cuomo or Jeb Bush? How much donor money they raked in from common core, charter schools and other silly schemes to fork over public monies to billionaires? Would either be where they are today without their fathers?

Fdo Centeno, San Antonio, Tx

This activity is otherwise known as P3 - public/private partnerships - which could be a good win-win situation, BUT we the public never get to know the details "the deal", we never understand the actual public benefits. Over many years, empirical studies have shown that these deals are nothing but a huge drain of public dollars.

The Gov't Accounting Standards Board just passed Rule 77, aimed to make transparency in their public accounting reports, it doesn't go far enough, but it's a move in the right direction. The underlying problem is that the commercial real estate industry legally (?) contribute to politician coffers for election, so the deck is stacked in favor of the "artist" at play.

Patrick, NYC 1 day ago

You neglect to provide the context. For the most recent instance in Wednesday's Debate, Mr. Trump was debunking the age old Republican panacea, the Flat Tax. He replied that there had been a graduated income tax for a long time, and that, no, it is not a socialistic thing. But you knew that, I'd venture to bet.

RBSF, San Fancisco, CA

Of course Trump needs the government -- first to be able do what he wants to do (zoning variances, tax breaks, gambling licenses, etc.), and equally importantly, NOT to let others have the same. Once these developers, corporations, etc. get what they want, they want the government to step out of the way and not pay their due taxes, etc. This applies to big oil ($2.5 billion annually in tax breaks) to environmentally-correct companies like Tesla (ALL of the profits from tax breaks or selling zero emission credits). Only the middle class individuals and small companies really pay the taxes.

R. Law, is a trusted commenter Texas

Barro's piece has provided a very valuable contribution as to the world DT exists in, as do Carson and Fiorina - very few occupations are as autocratic in our society as CEO's and neuro-surgeons, so it is important to know how people who have never held a public office/never made campaign promises that had to be backed up with actions/results, think the way the world works.

Especially in the CEO-bubble, where even the board of directors that a CEO supposedly answers to, are hand-picked buddies, making it a wonder that board meetings of the Fortune 500 have not been more accurately depicted as the CEO-union hall confabs that they really are :)

Bringing up the subject " How in the world does pie-in-the-sky " DT think he would get GOP'ers in the egregiously Gerry-mandered Congress to vote monies for infrastructure that they would not give when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stood up and said such projects were needed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/18/chamber-of-commerce-spending_n_...

the very politicians the Chamber had supported with campaign funds ?

DT's CEO/billionaire mentality does not bring with it some magic wand that will erase his fellow GOPers' aversion to raising funds, as almost every GOP'er has signed the anti-tax pledge of Grover Norquist's group.

The same Norquist strictures against raising taxes (heavily backed by Wall Street billionaires' funding) apply when DT pretends GOP'ers will do anything about the carried interest tax loop-hole.

ZoetMB, New York 11 hours ago

The article implies that the developments built by Fred C. Trump in Brooklyn and Queens did not have tax abatements. But they were all built under the Mitchell-Lama program and they all did have tax abatements. Whether they also received other government subsidies is not something I have knowledge of. In most developments, the way the program worked was that rents were kept low and tenant taxable income could not exceed 7x the rent. In return, taxes were abated for anywhere from 10 to 30 years. In a building near Trump Village, a typical rent for a 3-bedroom apartment in 1966 was $210 a month, including gas, electricity and parking ($1545 in 2015 dollars). That means resident taxable income on that apartment couldn't exceed $17,640 a year ($130,000 in 2015 dollars).

The City and State let landlords buy their way out of the Mitchell-Lama program and as a result we've lost tens of thousands of reasonably priced apartments. They never should have let landlords buy out of the program.

If Donald had continued to build housing for the middle-class of this City and had done so successfully, he'd have my vote in spite of the fact that he's a vulgar, immature fool. But he didn't.

... ... ...

Christine McMorrow, Waltham, MA, 02452

Fascinating. More because Trump does and did what was ultimately always in his self interest. He claims not to be a politician. I'd say the self-interest part makes him a natural for any political job (not that I'd ever vote for him). The sad part is how the concept of public service has been subsumed by self service.

Walt French, Oakland, CA

Ever since at least Adam Smith, market enthusiasts have recognized a role for government. Up until the 60s or so, conservatives had the decency to acknowledge that government was at least needed to enforce contracts; today's Right Wing, especially many self-described "Libertarians," are happy with simply exerting their raw economic power. Hardly surprising that ultra-big businesses are behind the current mode.

But some of us more on the left celebrate markets, enough that we want MORE market actions. A market for CO2, for example, where I could get paid by those who convert the oxygen in our shared air, into a pollutant. I'm a big fan of cars, electricity, air travel and other activities that generate CO2, but today, a few players are taking all the profits, heedless of the costs. That's an example of the Big Lie of many supposed "Free Market" advocates—to claim that there's a level playing field without government.

I'm no fan of Trump, nor the sort of deals that he specializes in, deals that give him 90% of the economic advantage at rock-bottom prices. But at least he knows there *IS* an important role for honest government to make markets work best.

doug, tomkins cove, ny

How true, virtually forever the mob has been the cornerstone of the construction and trades forces in this city to say nothing about the trash hauling and transportation business's

Why has the media never investigated how "efficiently" Trump has been able bring all his projects to completion on time if not early and under budget.
This guy has to be dirtier than any one of his numerous construction projects over his career.

Trump is a supremely scary entity, while he boasts of not being beholden to the billionaire interests, he has to be under someone's influence, the $64 question obviously, is WHO?

Dwight McFee, Toronto, Canada

A real estate developer as the leader of the supposedly free world! Get a grip US! And he's the best the crony capitalists, parasites if the truth be known can muster! And the rest and conferacy of Dunces! Why are you giving this band of know nothing's including Trump the get out of jtruth free cards? Ask a business person to define western civilization and you get a blank stare!

The New York Times should be burying these fools with facts and history but instead we get he said she said. As a Canadian whose authoritarian government has hooked our little red wagon to your self serving imperialism, at least call out the fools and parasites for what they are!

Paul Wallis, Sydney, Australia

Honestly, you have to wonder what a "conservative" is. They're opposed to government subsidies, but not government contracts for their own corporations? Corporate America and the entire military industrial complex are presumably based on mutual love and dewy-eyed looks of longing, is that it?

Meanwhile, we have a demand to lower taxes by very rich people who don't pay taxes. Trump is talking about business, they're talking about some distinction between actual real world free enterprise and "crony capitalism" as if they were different things? Have to say, if Trump looks like sweet reason compared to conservative views, something has to be very wrong somewhere. Looks more like psychosis than conservatism to me.

Robert, New York

Government encouraging private business and working in partnership goes back to Alexander Hamilton's Report on the Subject of Manufactures of 1791. It has served this country well, not withstanding stupidity and corruption.

At the time Trump developed the old Commodore no one was investing in that part of Midtown. It had been left to rot with tons of homeless people sleeping in Grand Central. I went through the Commodore when it was an abandoned building. It was spectacular. The top of the Chrysler Building across the street was practically in the room of the Presidential Suite. I have always given credit to Trump for making that investment, contributing to the revitalization Midtown around Grand Central. That's why you see all those politicians in the photo.

For my taste most of his subsequent development in New York is tacky. He's also a xenophobic jerk, and I would never vote for him. But I give credit where credit is due.

[Sep 19, 2015] Graham won the debate in my opinion

NeoRandian

Graham won the debate in my opinion.

"LG, what do you think about Planned Parenthood?"

"We have to kill all the muslims or there won't be any babies to abort!"

"LG, what do you think about the economy?"

"We have to kill all the muslims or there won't be any economy!"

"LG, what do you think about immigration?"

"We have to kill all the muslims or there won't be anywhere to immigrate to!"

"LG, what do you..."

"Don't you get it? We have to kill all the muslims before they throw me off a roof!"

Bay Area Guy

I'll laugh my ass off if the response Ash Carter gets from his Russian counterpart on coordinating activities is, "That's ok. We got this."

CHoward

To quote the great real estate developer "We're a nation being led by idiots!!" So true.

SirBarksAlot

Remember that great song from the '80s?

"The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum."

https://youtu.be/7aItpjF5vXc

[Sep 18, 2015]Republican Candidates Just Can't Quit Neoconservatism

"...In any event, what last night's ridiculous and at times rather alarming GOP debate showed is a party that remains in thrall to a bankrupt neoconservative ideology, willfully deaf to reason, blind to reality and unable and unwilling to learn from its multitude of past mistakes."

thenation.com

With the partial exception of Rand Paul, the GOP field for US president remains in thrall to a bankrupt ideology

A 'debate' where everyone is toeing the same line

As a result of President Obama's success in getting the Iranian nuclear accord past a well-coordinated and obscenely well-funded American-Israeli effort to derail it, a spate of stories have appeared over the last week suggesting that the Israel lobby, and perhaps American neoconservatism generally, may be now something of a spent force in Republican politics.

Yet anyone watching the second Republican primary debate last evening would be quickly disabused of such a notion. If the candidates' positions on foreign policy were anything to go by, the neocon outlook—which is in essence a frightened, xenophobic, reflexive militarism—continues to have a stranglehold on a Grand Old Party, which cannot seem to shake some Very Bad Ideas.

It was clear from the outset that nearly all of the candidates who made their way to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library last night had, at a minimum, two objectives: first, to pay sufficient fealty to the memory of the "the Gipper" and, second, try to derail the Donald Trump juggernaut.

The one exception, naturally, was Trump himself, who did manage to pay due respect to the late president's memory, all the while finding ample time, as he always does, to sing a song of himself.

... ... ...

According to several long-time Republican Party watchers I spoke to recently, Rand is finding far less success than his father had at similar points in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, not simply because he is a lackluster and disinterested candidate, but because his brand of foreign policy realism now holds little purchase among Republican primary voters who are obsessing over the degradations of the Islamic State.

It seems Paul's problem is that in the current environment of ISIS hysteria, the more he touts his opposition to the Iraq, Libya and Syrian debacles, the deeper he sinks into oblivion.

... ... ...

In any event, what last night's ridiculous and at times rather alarming GOP debate showed is a party that remains in thrall to a bankrupt neoconservative ideology, willfully deaf to reason, blind to reality and unable and unwilling to learn from its multitude of past mistakes.

[Sep 18, 2015] Hillary "Sniper" Clinton has absolutely no room to be calling anyone else a war criminal

marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 10:39 am
"Western diplomats at the UN refused to speak on the record about Ahtisaari's claim, but pointed out that after a year of the Syrian conflict, Assad's forces had already carried out multiple massacres, and the main opposition groups refused to accept any proposal that left him in power. A few days after Ahtisaari's visit to New York, Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, branded the Syrian leader a war criminal."

Hillary "Sniper" Clinton has absolutely no room to be calling anyone else a war criminal, considering her support of the Poroshenko "government" and its murder of civilians in Indiscriminate Attacks, which are a war crime. And "Western diplomats at the UN" are a bunch of know-nothings who get all their information from partisan activists – the newspaper reports of the time were replete with "activists said" and "according to activists". Virtually everything that was sourced at all came from activists, including the daily body count from the activist-fed Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. "Western diplomats at the UN" completely ignored the report of the League of Arab States Mission to Syria, which was damning for the fake opposition and largely bore out Assad's side of the story; it did not identify any "massacres" by Assad's forces. The entire western effort in Syria is a preplanned operation wholly in western interests, completely ignoring the will of the Syrian people. The Arab League's Mission was discontinued right after the report was released, on the grounds that the mission had been "ineffective".

[Sep 18, 2015] The capture of the Democratic leadership by the neolibs made the neoliberal argument conventional wisdom

drb48 said in reply to Dan Kervick... September 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM

The "political heavy lifting" would be a lot less heavy if there had been a sustained effort by the Democrats to make the case for it instead of running from it. Sanders reception indicates that there is - and doubtless always was - an audience. But the capture of the Democratic leadership by the neolibs a couple of decades ago has now made the neoliberal argument conventional wisdom. Reversing that will require a sea change in public perception which is going to take more than just Bernie Sanders stumping the country to achieve IMHO. In fact it's probably going to require corporate leaders to recognize that putting more money into the pockets of workers is good business - something they used to understand - and for them to get behind the necessary policy changes before we get any traction on redistribution.

EMichael said in reply to drb48... September 14, 2015 at 12:41 PM

Putting Henry Ford aside, I do not think corporate leaders ever thought "that putting more money into the pockets of workers is good business".

They did it because the labor market was tight or unions made them do it.

Peter K. said in reply to drb48... September 14, 2015 at 01:20 PM

"In fact it's probably going to require corporate leaders to recognize that putting more money into the pockets of workers is good business - something they used to understand - "

I would put it the way DeLong does: in the post-war years corporate leaders believed in a high-pressure economy with full employment and growing aggregate demand. It's is good for business.

But around the 1970s they stopped believing it. Maybe it was inflation. Maybe it was the end of the Cold War. Maybe it is that the financial sector / creditors have taken over and their priority is low inflation, not a high pressure full employment economy.

Peter K. said... September 14, 2015 at 09:19 AM

If Hillary read Krugman's column, what would she think?

Given the popularity of Sanders are there similar dynamics at play here in America?

"Consider the contrast with the United States, where deficit scolds dominated Beltway discourse in 2010-2011 but never managed to dictate the terms of political debate, and where mainstream Democrats no longer sound like Republicans-lite. "

Obama went along with cutting the deficit and didn't argue that we shouldn't cut the deficit until the recovery is complete.

The deficit was cut from 10 percent down to 2.3 percent. The recovery would have been worse if not for monetary policy.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/jeremy-corbyns-victory-and-the-demise-of-new-labour

John Cassidy has a longer, better take.

"Like the leaders of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and Sinn Féin in Ireland, [Corbyn] benefitted greatly from his outsider status. Of the three candidates standing against him, two of them—Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper—were cabinet ministers in the last Labour government. Corbyn's third opponent, Liz Kendall, didn't become an M.P. until 2010, but many prominent Blairites endorsed her. Tony Blair didn't back any particular candidate himself, but he did twice issue public statements warning that choosing Corbyn as leader would lead to an electoral disaster for Labour. Among the Party's grassroots, Blair is so unpopular these days that his interventions helped assure Corbyn's victory."

Dan Kervick said in reply to Peter K.... September 14, 2015 at 09:24 AM

I read Krugman's column as a kind of indirect warning to the US center left.

Paine said in reply to Dan Kervick... September 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM

Yes

And he still plays for their team regrettably

The acid test
Support Bernie in an independent run for the white house if he is the non nom as we all expect he will be
I'd like Bernie trump Hillary and bush on the November ballot

And let the GOP house elect the next president

Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

This is what Cassidy said about Labour and it is partly true about the Democrats as well:

"Rather than making the traditional Keynesian argument that cutting spending during a recession is counterproductive, Miliband and other Party leaders also pledged to reduce the budget deficit and hack away at Britain's public debt, which rose rapidly during the Great Recession—just not quite as fast as the government.

The Party's triangulation strategy wasn't based on economics. It reflected a political judgment by Miliband and other Labour leaders that the British electorate, which blamed the Party for the collapse in public finances after 2008, wouldn't listen to anti-austerity arguments. If Labour had won the general election, its pragmatism might have been vindicated. But, after the Tories won a majority in Parliament and Labour lost twenty-six seats, many Labour supporters felt deflated. "We had no confidence in our own arguments," one Labour centrist told me. "The Tory lie became hegemonic, despite being a lie.""

Likewise Obama lost the Senate because of a crappy recovery.

[Sep 18, 2015] Clinton Calls For Tougher Response To Russia On Ukraine, Syria

Oui | Sep 12, 2015 1:48:33 AM | 51

HRC joins Republicans in anti-Russia propaganda ...

Hillary spoke at the Brookings Institute ... illustrious think-tank on the Potomac river. From a recent presentation:

"U.S. defense analysts argue that the best way to preserve stability is by forward deploying conventional and nuclear forces while sending unequivocal signals of U.S. resolve. This includes sending a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons to Europe, dual-capable aircraft to Poland, and theater missile defenses that would erode the killing power of Russia's large arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles."

Piotr Berman | Sep 12, 2015 3:11:18 AM | 54

Great link in 50: Oui. HRC in the photo would look even better if she had a winged helmet, she really looks as if she sung "Hoioto ho! Hoioto ho! Heiaha" (battle cry of a Valkyrie, Wagnerian music, soprano).

Increasing Russian presence is also reported by Almasdar News http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-marines-begin-large-scale-military-exercises-inside-syria/

They also reported that Russian are training Syria "at the outskirts of Homs". I think that Putin is dropping half-measures, which were somewhat discrete supplies to Syrian military. On several occasions in the past Israeli air force destroyed some of them, so now Russians are almost ostentatious, and with seriously armed ships, I would imagine, bristling with missiles. By the way, the only sources citing Erdogan as treatening to close Bosporus to Russian ships were Ukrainian, and cited reasons were hilarious -- Erdogan's concern about Russian aggression in Ukraine and the fate of Crimean Tatars. Sure. All to often, Ukrainian propagandists do not even try to be plausible. If true, it would be an act of war like the one Israel used as a reason to attack Egypt in 1967. Even Erdogan is not that insane, and he has like ten fronts of a civil war to fight (PKK, HDP, CHP, Guelinists, ecologists, alcoholics, smokers, insolent laughing women etc.), so Russia would have many options which anti-Erdogan group it chooses to support -- perhaps alcoholics?

I think that Israel was raring to bomb Syrian arsenals once more, and it is currently egged on by Washington, so Putin decided to discourage such ideas as forcefully as he can. And arm Syrians with more modern weapons that may change the game, especially in open areas outside cities. I am almost certain that Iran will send some troops with combat roles.

[Sep 18, 2015] Paul Krugman: Labour's Dead Center

"...In theory, perhaps, but the political reality is that it could never happen without obliterating the modern Republican Party and a good chunk of the Democrats."
.
"...A healthy economy is more than healthy banks."
.
"...A characteristic of the neoliberal era in both the US and UK is that the center left parties took a turn toward conservative economics coupled with liberal social policies. This collapse on the economic side has been in progress for 30 years. All of the current crop of center left politicians learned their political rhetoric in the context of the reigning conservative economic orthodoxy. Many of them abandoned economic thought and policy altogether, basically handing economics over to the markets. That's why they have to employ other people to tell them what to think when things go haywire economically, and are so muddled and lost at sea."
"Mr. Corbyn's triumph isn't that surprising":
Labour's Dead Center, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time leftist dissident, has won a stunning victory in the contest for leadership of Britain's Labour Party. Political pundits say that this means doom for Labour's electoral prospects; they could be right, although I'm not the only person wondering why commentators who completely failed to predict the Corbyn phenomenon have so much confidence in their analyses...

But I won't ... get into that game. What I want to do instead is talk about one crucial piece of background to the Corbyn surge — the implosion of Labour's moderates. On economic policy, in particular, the striking thing ... was that every candidate other than Mr. Corbyn essentially supported the Conservative government's austerity policies.

Worse, they all implicitly accepted the bogus justification for those policies, in effect pleading guilty to policy crimes that Labour did not ... commit. If you want a U.S. analogy, it's as if all the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2004 had gone around declaring, "We were weak on national security, and 9/11 was our fault." Would we have been surprised if Democratic primary voters had turned to a candidate who rejected that canard, whatever other views he or she held?

In the British case, the false accusations against Labour involve ... claims that the Labour governments that ruled Britain from 1997 to 2010 spent far beyond their means, creating a ... debt crisis that..., in turn, supposedly left no alternative to severe cuts in spending, especially spending that helps the poor.

These claims have ... echoed by almost all British news media ... as facts. It has been an amazing thing to watch —... every piece of this conventional narrative is ... nonsense. ... And all of Mr. Corbyn's rivals for Labour leadership bought fully into that conventional nonsense, in effect accepting the Conservative case that their party did a terrible job of managing the economy, which simply isn't true. So as I said, Mr. Corbyn's triumph isn't that surprising given the determination of moderate Labour politicians to accept false claims about past malfeasance.

This still leaves the question of why Labour's moderates have been so hapless.... Labour's political establishment seems to lack all conviction, for reasons I don't fully understand. And this means that the Corbyn upset isn't about a sudden left turn on the part of Labour supporters. It's mainly about the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates.

Comments (117)

BillTuckerUS said...

"the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates" happened quite a while ago, when Tony Blair became Prime Minister.

Lafayette said in reply to DrDick...

Here, here.

There was a collapse of progressive-values that would seek less Income Disparity than the kind of arch unfairness that Reckless Ronnie's hatchet-job upon upper income-taxation brought.

It sealed our fate, of sorts, in the US for decades to come. And we are still trying to find a way out of the mess, before the house-of-cards of this present market-economy comes down about our ears.

From the weight of too much good-fortune going to far too few for no good reason whatsoever ...

cm said in reply to Benedict@Large...

Good rejoinder, but I'd say Thatcher too was just a consequence/expression of underlying trends.

Similar things happened in some other countries. E.g. 90's Germany (1.5 (?) election cycles after the reunification) saw an essentially neoliberal "Social Democratic"/Green administration under chancellor Schröder which brought major safety net "reforms" and a vision of various "market liberalizations" on the way.

Schröder himself saw it not unfit to e.g. pose for photos in Armani suits or smoking cigars, which among other things earned him the nickname "comrade of the bosses". That was just one superficial pattern of expression of "labor center" corruption or cooption. Consequences included popular vote losses and splintering off of a "left party" that partially merged with or formed coalitions with East German "ex communists", which made it unpalatable to many people who (understandably) viewed them in a bad light due to association and being kind of a legal and moral successor of corrupt East German elites (even though the "East German communists" are mostly new faces and not the discredited old timers).

Overall, it looks very similar - the "moderates" are corrupted/coopted, leading to splintering into a discredited name-carrying entity and "extremists" that most still-honest members clinging to the former ideals don't want to associate with - even though the "extremists" probably represent (a subset of?) these ideals more so than anybody else.

DrDick said in reply to Eric377...

Right. The state of Michigan deliberately starving the city and imposing unnecessary draconian measures are the fault of the city leaders. As is the case with Britain, Detroit's problems are the result of economic collapse (the auto industry) and subsequent outsourcing of much manufacturing.

Paine said in reply to DrDick...

Goose chasing

The point

Uncle Sam using correct regional policy and the limitless money mine and limited but powerful taxing authority
Could easily prevent detroits from happening

Hell even rusty probably believes enough of this possible reality to admit
Detroit was a butchered by negligence greed and a democrat party that prevents
Real progressives from gaining The power of federal office

DrDick said in reply to Paine ...

In theory, perhaps, but the political reality is that it could never happen without obliterating the modern Republican Party and a good chunk of the Democrats.

bakho said...

People are unhappy with Obama because his Republican Econ team of Geithner and Bernanke bailed out the banks and dropped the ball on cramdown and bailout for the middle class. A healthy economy is more than healthy banks. Part of the message of the crash was that BigF is too bloated and needs to downsize. Instead we propped it up to the detriment of the economy. Same with Corbyn. People are unhappy with Austerity. The GOP is getting ready to shutdown the gov. The message should be, "You risk tanking the economy. " Then if it happens blame Congress.

Laundry Bank & Trust said in reply to bakho...

"healthy economy is more than healthy banks. Part of the message of the crash was that BigF is too bloated and needs to downsize. Instead we propped it up to the detriment of the economy. "
~~bakho~

A healthy Main Street is a dying Bank Street. We don't need another marble coated bank. We need another saw-mill and another cargo-ship.

Did Ayn Rand once advise, "Since the smallest and most minor of all minorities is the individual, those who claim to subsidize minorities should stop crushing small business with repressive regulation, legislation and taxation against Main Street. Stop with talking the walk then walk the talk!"?

Imprecisely, yet put us onto the bloodhound's trek.

Happy
trails

Benedict@Large said in reply to bakho...

"A healthy economy is more than healthy banks."

Except that Obama did not leave the banks healthy. He left them stuffed with excess reserves they cannot lend because they are still stuffed with excess bad debt. Banks cannot be healthy when the markets they've lent into are not healthy, and Obama/Geithner did almost nothing to address this.

[This BTW is the REAL crisis of the repeal of Glass-Steagal; it left the investment bankers in charge of the commercial operations they knew (know) nothing about. In the IB world, every problem can be solved by the addition of more money.

The CB world is more complicated. Problems there require that some of the bad loans actually be paid, and Obama/Geithner, led on by their friends in IB, never thought to do that.]

Dan Kervick said...

"And this means that the Corbyn upset isn't about a sudden left turn on the part of Labour supporters. It's mainly about the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates."

A characteristic of the neoliberal era in both the US and UK is that the center left parties took a turn toward conservative economics coupled with liberal social policies. This collapse on the economic side has been in progress for 30 years. All of the current crop of center left politicians learned their political rhetoric in the context of the reigning conservative economic orthodoxy. Many of them abandoned economic thought and policy altogether, basically handing economics over to the markets. That's why they have to employ other people to tell them what to think when things go haywire economically, and are so muddled and lost at sea.

Unlike the Democrats in the US, Labour was in the top political seat in the UK for years, so the responsibility for the financial collapse was laid at their door. They had to take the blame for something. Instead of continuing to take the blame for failing to rein in the banking and finance sector, they have recently decided to shift the blame to their own fiscal policies. Maybe that's because the financial guys own the media and own the politicians, so they call the tune.

Remember that in the US, the politicians also failed to blame the FIRE sector and decided to blame fiscal profligacy. Barack Obaama's first Attorney General infamously let the banksters off the hook. And Joe Biden went around in 2012 telling people that the cause of the financial crisis was that "George Bush put two wars on a credit card." And of course, the Obama administration spent a three years working on the idea that economic Job One was putting the fiscal house in order. Because the Republicans were in the White House in 2007/8, though, Democrats were able to blame both fiscal recklessness *and* the Republicans.

So far in the 2015/16 campaign, the cause of the financial crisis seems like ancient history. The media elite seems to have concluded that the crisis was just one of those things that sometimes happen, and it was nobody's fault. If anything, the problem was juts a short-term technocratic mismanagement issue: failing to deal with Lehman properly, prematurely tightening monetary policy. 30 years of deregulated flim-flam, greed and bubble-making has been swept under the rug.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-overspending-did-not-cause-financial-crisis

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123785266231219605

JohnH said in reply to Dan Kervick...

Yes, more people should be asking why the Democratic Party is so hapless.

But the answer is obvious...Big Money.

Let's hope that Sanders crushes the corrupt septuagenarians currently driving the party into the ground led from behind by Obama the Wall Sreet neoliberal.

pgl said in reply to JohnH...

Did you even bother to read what Krugman wrote. Let me assist:

"the false accusations against Labour involve fiscal policy, specifically claims that the Labour governments that ruled Britain from 1997 to 2010 spent far beyond their means, creating a deficit and debt crisis that caused the broader economic crisis. The fiscal crisis, in turn, supposedly left no alternative to severe cuts in spending, especially spending that helps the poor. These claims have, one must admit, been picked up and echoed by almost all British news media."

Of course these false accusations were spread by Cameron as his excuse for fiscal austerity which turned out to be a real economic disaster.

Oh wait - there is a reason that you could not address what Krugman was writing about. You were praising Cameron and his stupid fiscal austerity.

My apologies for interrupting your rant.

JohnH said in reply to pgl...

pgl whines about what I say about him...and then he posts the lie that I support Cameron, which is pure BS.

But pgl can't defend corrupt Democrats, much as he tries, so all he can do is make up lies.

Paine said in reply to JohnH...

No


The bastards really wanted to move right on economics
Thy really saw the great society as a failed vision

JohnH said in reply to Peter K....

In the end he had to comprise...the problem with Obama is that he gave Republicans austerity before any negotiations ever began...any idiot understands that you don't start negotiations by giving the store away to the other side...which is what Obama did.

reason said...

Interesting in Australia, inner party coup unseats Prime Minister. That makes twice in a row, in opposing parties. That is what a living democracy looks like. In America, you seem to have forgotten.

pgl said in reply to DrDick...

Bernie Sanders 2015 is not quite George McGovern 1972. And as awful as Nixon was - he's better than any of the remaining 16 Republican clowns (Perry had the good sense to drop out).


DrDick said in reply to pgl...

Bernie's policy positions are actually quite popular, which could not be said of McGovern (who I voted for in my first ever election).

DrDick said in reply to DrDick...

The link for that: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/senator-bernie-sanders-policy-platform-presidential-campaign

pgl said in reply to DrDick...

I was too young but I thought McGovern would have been a very good President. He lost because Nixon lied in October 1972 about peace being at hand. Nixon was almost as dishonest in campaigns as Karl Rove and Mitt Romney.

DrDick said in reply to pgl...

Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan, reactionaries and liars all, are the parents of modern conservatism.

[Sep 13, 2015] Putin attacks U.S. electoral college system 'There is no democracy there'

The Washington Post

ravensfan20008

I can't believe I'm saying this...but Putin is right. You want to talk about a system that should cease to exist, it's this one.

And before you point to the Constitution and say "not gonna happen," there are plans out there that would render it a moot point, like states pledging to award electors to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide. And they'd easily pass constitutional muster.

jaysonrex1

Actually, Putin is right. After all these years, it is high the time a constitutional amendment changes this system for the straight voting method used in the entire world by democracies and even by dictatorships.

And while we are at it, maybe it is also high the time U.S. abandons the imperial system (it inherited from Britain - a country that already abandoned it many years ago) and finally adopts the metric system thus joining the civilized world - so to say.

And while we are at it, U.S. should get rid of the Senate. It serves no useful purpose apart from representing a unacceptable drain of public funds.

And while we are at it, .....

mvymvy

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

[Sep 08, 2015] Paul Krugman Trump Is Right on Economics

"...Rosa Luxemburg is renowned for being the first post-Marx Marxist to argue that the accumulation of capital hinges not only on the internal temporal dynamics of particular capitalist societies but most of all on capitalism's spatial penetration and destruction of the non-capitalist world. ..."
.
"...The problem for the Republican Party is that they are reaping what they have actively sowed for the past 40 years. The used race baiting and xenophobia to attract middle income whites and convince them to vote against their own interests. Now the heart and soul of the party is racism and xenophobia and the money boys are losing control."
September 07, 2015 | Economist's View
The Republican base "doesn't actually share the Republican establishment's economic delusions":
Trump Is Right on Economics, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: So Jeb Bush is finally going after Donald Trump. ... Mr. Bush has chosen to attack Mr. Trump as a false conservative, a proposition that is supposedly demonstrated by his deviations from current Republican economic orthodoxy: his willingness to raise taxes on the rich, his positive words about universal health care. And that tells you a lot about the dire state of the G.O.P. For the issues the Bush campaign is using to attack its unexpected nemesis are precisely the issues on which Mr. Trump happens to be right, and the Republican establishment has been proved utterly wrong.
To see what I mean, consider what was at stake in the last presidential election, and how things turned out after Mitt Romney lost.
During the campaign, Mr. Romney accused President Obama of favoring redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, and the truth is that Mr. Obama's re-election did mean a significant move in that direction. Taxes on the top 1 percent went up substantially...
Conservatives were very clear about what would happen as a result. Raising taxes on "job creators," they insisted, would destroy incentives. And they were absolutely certain that the Affordable Care Act would be a "job killer."
So what actually happened? As of last month, the U.S. unemployment rate, which was 7.8 percent when Mr. Obama took office, had fallen to 5.1 percent..., lower than it ever got under Ronald Reagan. And the main reason unemployment has fallen so much is job growth in the private sector, which has added more than seven million workers since the end of 2012. ...
And here's what's interesting: all indications are that Mr. Bush's attacks on Mr. Trump are falling flat, because the Republican base doesn't actually share the Republican establishment's economic delusions.
The thing is, we didn't really know that until Mr. Trump came along. ... This is a real revelation, which may have a lasting impact on our politics. ...
I'm not making a case for Mr. Trump. There are lots of other politicians out there who also refuse to buy into right-wing economic nonsense, but who do so without proposing to scour the countryside in search of immigrants to deport, or to rip up our international economic agreements and start a trade war. The point, however, is that none of these reasonable politicians is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

Posted by Mark Thoma on Monday, September 7, 2015 at 08:53 AM in Economics, Politics | Permalink Comments (61)

Fred.C. Dobbs said...

*** Krugman Endorses Trump ***

(However, he goes on to write...)

... So am I saying that Mr. Trump is better and more serious than he's given credit for being? Not at all — he is exactly the ignorant blowhard he seems to be. It's when it comes to his rivals that appearances can be deceiving. Some of them may come across as reasonable and thoughtful, but in reality they are anything but. ...

(FYI) Even Paul Krugman is now 'off-shored'.

Paul Krugman is distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center, The Graduate Center, City University of New York...

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Centers-and-Institutes/Luxembourg-Income-Study-Center/Paul-Krugman,-Distinguished-Scholar

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Centers-and-Institutes/Luxembourg-Income-Study-Center

http://www.lisdatacenter.org/

'The Luxembourg Income Study Center at the Graduate Center (LIS Center) is a research, development, and administrative satellite of LIS.'

(Fun fact!) Qatar is the richest country in
the world followed by Luxembourg, ... one of
the smallest countries in the world, located
in northwestern Europe, ...

Fred.C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred.C. Dobbs...

LIS is, of course hq'd in Luxembourg.

In case you were thinking it
had something to do with
Rosa Luxembourg.

The Dialectic of the Spatial Determination of Capital: Rosa Luxemburg's Accumulation of Capital Reconsidered http://logosjournal.com/2014/hudis/
Peter Hudis - Logos - Summer 2015

Rosa Luxemburg is renowned for being the first post-Marx Marxist to argue that the accumulation of capital hinges not only on the internal temporal dynamics of particular capitalist societies but most of all on capitalism's spatial penetration and destruction of the non-capitalist world. ...

DrDick said in reply to Peter K....

The problem for the Republican Party is that they are reaping what they have actively sowed for the past 40 years. The used race baiting and xenophobia to attract middle income whites and convince them to vote against their own interests. Now the heart and soul of the party is racism and xenophobia and the money boys are losing control.

Peter K. said...

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/09/links-for-09-07-15.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201b8d15410f2970c

JohnH said in reply to anne...

Krugman wearing his partisan hack hat again: "I'm not saying that everything is great in the U.S. economy, because it isn't. There's good reason to believe that we're still a substantial distance from full employment, and while the number of jobs has grown a lot, wages haven't."

AKA making a silk purse out of a sow's ear...fact is, only about 2 million jobs have been added since 2008...half the growth in population. Yet Krugman paints the picture as generally not bad!"

Eric Blair said in reply to EMichael...

Actually, Krugman could have just said "public or private", since the total number of jobs created since the end of 2012 is also seven million: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001

Eric Blair said in reply to Peter K....

Assuming you're computing from the very peak Bush jobs number (January 2008), then it's 4 million now, see the links in my other post.

Ron Waller said...

Krugan's free-trade ideology rhetoric shows he's more New Keynesian (neoclassical synthesis) than Keynesian. More neoliberal than liberal.

Remember folks: the post-war Keynesian era was a terrible time with low GDP growth, stagnant real incomes and skyrocketing debt because of all the "trade wars." Except there were no trade wars, GDP growth was stellar, real incomes grew with GDP and governments paid off most of their war-time debt burdens.

Just imagine the dangers of Mexico waging a trade war. All the new American cars that their workers buy on $3/hr down the toilet!


pgl said...

What happened to Grover Norquist? I thought any Republican who either favored keeping Social Security and dared to raise taxes on the rich was doomed. But Trump - despite his racist other tendencies - is a like a progressive on this two core issues. So he should have been banned from the Grover Norquist party. And yet he leads in the GOP race. No wonder Jeb! hates the DONALD!

Peter K. said in reply to pgl...

Turd blossom Karl Rove wants Donald destroyed. The Republicans and Fox News created this monster and it turned on them.

Kind of like Hitler and the conservative German business elite. (!)

Yeah I did go there!

Lafayette said...

PRIME-TIME FARCE

{... his willingness to raise taxes on the rich, his positive words about universal health care. And that tells you a lot about the dire state of the G.O.P.}

Very bad strategy.

Trump has signed a document stipulating that he will campaign as a Replicant. Which helps with the donors.

So, he can promise HealthCare (or whatever social-service makes him THINK he can attract Dem-voters) but he will not have a Congress that will vote it through to the Oval office for his signature. Which is just one aspect of his present silliness.

They guy's a joke. Like so many other super-duper rich sons 'n daughters who don't know what to do with their lives. So, becoming PotUS (as with Romney) or being able to manipulate the office (like the Koch Bros. do with SCotUS) amuses the hell outta them.

Democracy in America has become a prime-time farce ...

Lafayette said...

POOR SUCKER

{... they've made some money over the course of their lives, they believe that all of it reflects their own virtue, and they think they know from that experience what it takes to create wealth.}

The noise of hitting a nail on its head ...

Rich people think they deserve to be rich. Ipso-facto, they KNOW that low costs of production and high prices are the two most important factors to huge successes in a market-economy. And the sweet topping is upper-income taxation that is somewhere between 25 and 30% of revenues (and never ever more). Thus risking investment is really quite worthwhile, for as long as the booty is sooooo very remunerative financially.

Which is why our plutocrats hate unions (that exert upward pressure on wages) and love market consolidation (that allows them to set prices without the hardship of competition). In either circumstance, the poor-sucker is the American worker employed at substandard wages and paying higher than need-be prices for goods/services.

Anybody has to be a fool to allow a market-economy to be influenced by the above game rules. Which foolishness characterizes rather well the present American body-politic.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves ...

[Sep 03, 2015] How Donald Trump can win - Vox

Donald Trump has been underestimated enough times in 2015 that it's worth offering him a little bit of benefit of the doubt. The odds against him remain daunting given the way he's alienated the Republican Party's dominant tax cuts uber alles faction, but his combination of wealth, celebrity, and apparent popularity against the GOP rank and file gives him at least a sliver of the shot. Winning would take a lot of hard work (much of it not very Trump-like) and some good luck. But then again, what winning campaign doesn't? Here's the formula Trump needs to apply.

Seal the deal with conservative talk radio

Conservative talk radio in America is far less "visible" in the media or in academia than its objective importance as a political institution warrants. And as Rosie Gray observes, "Some of the biggest names in conservative talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and [Michael] Savage — have praised Trump and his bashing of the politically correct left and Republican establishment."

This is far and away Trump's biggest and most important bastion of institutional support, and job number one for mounting a winning campaign is to lock it down.

At the moment, the problem is that it's far from clear what exactly conservative talkers are trying to accomplish with their Trump love. Do they actually want him to be the nominee, or are they mostly just trolling the party establishment over immigration? If Limbaugh and Hannity decide to start telling their audience on a daily basis that Trump isn't much of an orthodox conservative, and Scott Walker can be trusted not to push an immigration reform bill over the objections of House Republicans (both of which are probably true), then Trump is likely toast.

Get national security hawks on board

Conservatives primarily interested in military and national security issues are relatively thin on the ground. But Trump already has a meaningful level of mass appeal. And due to the difficulties sequester budget cuts have posed for the military, they have enemies in common with Trump.

The above remark from hawk extraordinaire Bill Kristol suggests that he, at least, is open to the argument that Trump's centrist take on entitlements is a reasonable concession to public opinion that Republicans should at least consider endorsing.

Trump's problem, so far, is that he has no real foreign policy ideas except stealing Iraqi oil. But having made enemies with the most powerful Republican faction, he can't afford to take anyone else for granted. He needs to sit down with leading hawks, convince them that he'll take their lead on policy, and sell them on the idea that his willingness to defy party economic orthodoxy is actually a strength.

It's really not far-fetched. Governors with little foreign policy experience win nominations all the time and find themselves dependent on national security tutors. If Trump can muster a little not-so-Trump-like humility, he can get the job done.

Ransack the failing campaigns

Donald Trump already poached Rick Perry's Iowa chair, and he needs to do a lot more of this. Between Perry, Bobby Jindal, Christ Christie, and John Kasich, there are a bunch of legitimate Republican Party politicians staffed by real Republican Party political operatives working for campaigns that are hopelessly behind in the polls. Trump needs to hire as many of these people as possible.

In part, it's for their political skills. But more fundamentally, it's for their connections. Outsider shtick has a lot of appeal to the mass market, but Trump needs a team that can reassure a whole range of stakeholders — state and local Republican elected officials, potential staffers of a Trump administration, midlevel donors and activists — that Trump is for real. The best way to do that is to be for real, and that means loading up on real Republican operatives.

Sell a deeper conversion story on abortion

Anti-abortion activists have no major conflicts with economic conservatives, and several points of alliance around questions of government funding for various reproductive health services. Nonetheless, the individual people who are primarily interested in abortion tend to be different from the tax cut crowd. And Trump needs to be considered an absolutely rock-solid choice by anti-abortion activists.

Having previously been vocally pro-choice and lacking any personal affinity for evangelical Protestantism, Trump simply can't claim the kind of lifelong commitment to the issue that Scott Walker has.

But everyone loves a good conversion story. After all, if you believe you're right, then you should be willing to believe other people have been sincerely persuaded of your rightness. Trump's weakness is that right now his official conversion story is a bit vague and shallow. He needs to work on making this deeper and more heartfelt. And he probably needs to hire a staffer or two from the world of pro-life activism and start laying out some policy positions that show he really understands the movement's priorities in detail — or at least is willing to listen to those who do.

Last but by no means least, he ought to make the argument that the abortion issue has too often been used by the GOP donor class as a tool to mobilize activists only to see the policy energy thrown into tax issues. Given the advanced age of several Supreme Court justices, does it really make sense to hold the chance of overturning Roe v. Wade hostage to an unpopular stance on Social Security?

Talk to trade-skeptical House Republicans

You heard very little about them during the debate over the Trans Pacific Partnership, but about fifty House Republicans voted against giving Obama the Trade Promotion Authority that he wanted and that the GOP leadership wanted him to have. Trump needs to talk to these guys, and to work as hard as possible to secure endorsements or at least vaguely positive comments from some of them.

Trump obviously isn't going to win the party establishment or the party leadership over to his side, but nobody can win as a purely anti-party candidate.

What he needs to do is branch out from his base in talk radio and build alliances with other groups that are at odds with the current leadership. Trade-skeptical House Republicans are willing to break with the congressional leadership on an important priority, and willing to do something that the party's donor base disagrees with. Their actions align with the broadly nationalist themes Trump has been striking in his campaign appearances.

More boring policy papers

Needless to say, boring policy papers don't win elections. Nobody cares about them. But Trump himself had a smart take on this during a Meet the Press segment.

"You know, when you put out policy, like a 14-point plan, a lot of times in the first our of negotiation that 14-point plan goes astray," he said, "but you may end up with a better deal. That's the way it works. That's the way really life works. When I do a deal, I don't say, 'Oh, here's 14 points.' I got out and do it. I don't sit down and talk about 14 points."

"But I know the press wants it," he continued. "I don't think the people care. I think they trust me. I think they know I'm going to make good deals for them."

There really is something pointless about the campaign ritual of the white paper. The health-care law President Obama signed in 2010, for example, looked a lot more like the one described in Hillary Clinton's campaign documents than it did Obama's proposals. The logic of a campaign season policy development process and the logic of a legislative bargaining process are simply very different.

But the press does want it. It's the media equivalent of going to the Iowa State Fair or chatting in diners in New Hampshire. Especially for someone like Trump who doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'd really be interested in wonky policy papers, showing that he can do it would go a long way. So he needs some. Not just the allegedly forthcoming one on tax reform, but some proposals on more obscure topics people don't necessarily care about. As a former real estate developer, maybe Trump has some thoughts on reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a private jet enthusiast, maybe he has ideas about air traffic control modernization or the use of congestion pricing to better manage limited runway capacity.

What he actually says matters less than simply showing that he can think through policy issues with his team and frame viable ideas about what to do about them.

Don't get complacent

The last item on the list is the most important. As August draws to a close, Trump is in a much better position than nearly anyone thought he would find himself in three months ago. But the one thing history tells us clearly about presidential nominating contests is that polls can move very quickly.

Trump's current standing in the polls gives him the opportunity to be taken seriously by a wide range of political actors who would otherwise dismiss him as a sideshow. But to take it as a sign that he can start coasting would be an enormous mistake. Early polling leads simply aren't predictive of final outcomes, and Trump's challenge remains daunting. The only way to meet it is to keep taking it seriously, working assiduously to build on his strengths and cultivate new allies.

[Sep 03, 2015] Eight Things to Watch For in Donald Trump

Fred C. Dobbs said...

(Trump watch.)

Eight Things to Watch For in Donald Trump's
Tax Plan http://nyti.ms/1Umr0bx via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Josh Barro - Sep 2

Donald Trump is expected to release a tax plan in the next few weeks. What will it say?

It's always risky to predict what Mr. Trump will do, but we can find some clues from his recent comments on taxes, which have spooked supply-side tax-cutting conservatives with their extensive hints about his unorthodox approach to tax policy.

First, the good news for anti-tax conservatives: He has identified three areas in which he wants to cut taxes.

1. Mr. Trump wants a middle-class tax cut. There are many different ways to do that (for example, some "reform conservatives" have called for a larger child tax credit to benefit middle-class families with children). But in other comments on taxes, Mr. Trump has emphasized the need to simplify the tax code by eliminating credits and deductions while lowering rates. So it's likely Mr. Trump would structure his middle-class tax cut in the simplest way possible: by reducing the marginal tax rates that apply to moderate incomes.

2. He is also looking to cut taxes on some wealthy people. "I want to lower taxes for people that are making a lot of money that need incentives," he said in a Bloomberg interview last Wednesday. That could mean a lot of different things — he may want to cut tax rates all the way to the top of the income spectrum, or he could simply be restating his desire to cut corporate income taxes, as discussed below.

3. He says he wants to lower corporate income taxes to encourage companies to invest here instead of lower-tax countries abroad. ...

Mr. Trump has also talked about the problem of so-called corporate inversions: when American companies relocate their headquarters abroad for better tax treatment. But unlike many Democrats, who want to find a way to prohibit inversions, he has focused on encouraging American companies to bring their overseas profits home with a tax break like a repatriation holiday, which allows them to do so while paying less American corporate income tax than would usually be required. ...

Then there are three kinds of tax increases Mr. Trump has floated.

4. He has said he would abolish various tax deductions and credits. This would be a part of his effort to simplify the tax code so he can, as he put it in August, "put H&R Block out of business, knock them out, put them out of business."

Mr. Trump hasn't said which deductions and credits he would eliminate, which isn't unusual for a Republican candidate for president. ...

It's the other two ways Mr. Trump would raise taxes that set him apart from most Republicans.

5. He has called for higher tariffs on certain imports. In June, he called the North American Free Trade Agreement a "disaster." He also said he would induce Ford to move an auto plant back to the United States by threatening a 35 percent import tax on cars produced in Mexico. The prime goal of such tariffs would be to discourage imports and encourage companies to produce domestically. But to the extent people continued to buy imported goods despite new tariffs, the government would collect new tariff revenue.

6. Mr. Trump has called for higher taxes on hedge fund managers and other people who earn "carried interest" income, and said it's "outrageous" how little tax some very rich people pay. Carried interest is a kind of income that arises in investment funds that have limited partners (people who invest money) and general partners (people who manage the funds and provide expertise.) The general partners receive an equity stake in the fund in exchange for their work, and generally, the fund is set up to provide a very high rate of return on the general partners' equity if the fund performs well.

Economically, that income is labor income, because the fund managers are receiving it in exchange for their work managing the fund. But because it is treated as investment income for tax law purposes, the managers enjoy the preferential tax rates typically associated with capital income, which can be about 20 points lower than tax rates on labor income.

Carried interest gets a lot of attention because the current policy of preferential taxation is hard to justify; even if (like many economists) you believe there are good reasons to tax capital income at a preferential rate, it's hard to make the case that carried interest income is really capital income. But the fiscal impact of taxing carried interest income at ordinary income rates would be small: about $2 billion a year in added revenue within a nearly $4 trillion federal budget.

The key question is how broadly Mr. Trump is speaking when he says, as he did last Wednesday with Bloomberg, "I would let people that are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay some tax, because right now they're paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous." If he is just talking about the (symbolically appealing but small) issue of carried interest, his tax hikes on the rich won't go very far toward paying for middle-class tax cuts.

But if he really wants to collect significantly more taxes on people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, he could propose raising tax rates on capital income, or greatly curtailing the availability of tax deductions to people with high incomes, or even raising tax rates on ordinary income at the top of the income spectrum.

Back in 2000, when he was flirting with a run on the Reform Party line, Mr. Trump proposed a 14.25 percent one-time wealth tax on people with high net worth in order to pay down the national debt. I don't expect him to resurface that proposal — such a tax is probably unconstitutional, and the politics are different now, especially because he's running as a Republican — but his past proposal suggests he does not have a strong, ideological aversion to significantly higher taxes on the rich.

Mr. Trump has also made two key statements about the structure of the tax code that are likely to shape what he proposes.

7. He has defended graduated taxes. In usual Donald Trump style, his statements about the flat tax have meandered into self-contradictory territory. Repeatedly in interviews, he has held out the flat tax as a possible long-run reform, though he says he prefers to start by simplifying the existing tax code. But last week on Fox & Friends, he offered a major concern about the flat tax:

'The one problem I have with a flat tax is that rich people are paying the same as people that are making very little money, and I think that there should be graduation of some kind, because as you make a certain amount of money you should graduate upward.'

Of course, lack of graduation is the defining feature of a flat tax; if you are in favor of graduated rates, you're against a flat tax.

8. He has said he wants to reduce taxes over all. In 2012, Mr. Romney ran into trouble when discussing his tax plan because of his promise of revenue neutrality. The federal budget deficit was very large, and he promised his plan to reduce tax rates by 20 percent would not reduce government revenues over all. Unfortunately, the math of that promise proved impossible when combined with his promise not to raise taxes on any taxpayers making less than $200,000.

Mr. Trump is making no such bean-counterly promises. Even as he is open to raising taxes on some individuals, he is running on a net tax cut over all.

"We're the most highly taxed nation in the world," he said, incorrectly, on Fox News last week. "That's why taxes have to come down." ...

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
'Back in 2000, when he was flirting with a run on the Reform Party line, Mr. Trump proposed a 14.25 percent one-time wealth tax on people with high net worth in order to pay down the national debt.'

Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
Phil Hirschkorn/CNN - November 9, 1999

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.

The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures. ...

(Of course, that never happened, but
the national debt has since tripled.)

[Sep 03, 2015] Bernie Sanders 8 1/2 hour filibuster against the extension Bush tax cuts.

Mitch said...

Bernie Sanders 8 1/2 hour filibuster against the extension Bush tax cuts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLNKNq9soLE

pgl said in reply to Mitch...

Bernie! This footage needs to be replayed over and over!

[Sep 02, 2015] Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets

Liberty Street

comments from Economist's View Links for 09-02-15

Second Best said...

'Repugnance laws go above and beyond existing laws to enforce the desire by members of society to prohibit certain types of behavior that otherwise would be legal. In short, such laws are justified on the grounds that allowing repugnant actions imposes a negative externality on everyone (not just the parties involved) and lowers the public good.'

---

In the U.S. voting as a negative externality is repugnant to a democracy and has been replaced by money as more effective speech.

Due to the rational ignorance effect, many voters don't vote because one more vote doesn't matter. This is repugnant to the rest, who replace the void of people votes with money votes.

The result is suppression of repugnant votes that generate negative externalities, replaced with virtuous votes that generate positive externalities both, to those who buy votes and those who sell them.

The narrow cream of single issue virtuous votes rises to the top to decide which virtuous leaders will continue to suppress the repugnance of voting for democracy in the U.S.

[Aug 31, 2015] Bernie Sanders Interview: The Business Model of Wall Street Is Fraud

"...The biggest problem with popular movements is that they either tend to be co-opted by the most powerful in the status quo and used badly, misdirected and deceived, as in the case of the Tea Party, or diffused by too many factions and lack of prioritization resulting in a lack of effective cohesion, as in the case of the Occupy Movement. "
.
"...And so we have the ascendancy of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, and the Koch Brothers wing of the Republicans."
.
"...the more focused, non-establishment campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump shaking up the accepted norms in political campaigning wisdom."
.
"...the power of money and of powerful connections between the shadow government and the moneyed interests is still there, still lurking in the shadows and pulling strings."
Aug 30, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

Most people are sick and tired of the system as it is now. And they are once again attempting to reject the status quo, having been badly disappointed by Obama and the Congress. And this gives rise to popular movements and even third parties.

The biggest problem with popular movements is that they either tend to be co-opted by the most powerful in the status quo and used badly, misdirected and deceived, as in the case of the Tea Party, or diffused by too many factions and lack of prioritization resulting in a lack of effective cohesion, as in the case of the Occupy Movement.

And so we have the ascendancy of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, and the Koch Brothers wing of the Republicans.

And the corrupting power of Big Money underlies all of it, in part thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that defined corporations as having the rights but not the obligations of people, and money as free speech, while doing nothing to remediate the actual use of free speech by real people except in special zones and restricted venues, subject to some of the most oppressive abuse of the secrecy laws..

Contrast this with the anti-War movement of the 1960's which was driven by a single issue: end the war in Vietnam. The message was simple and clear, and it took hold, frightening the political establishment and hounding first Johnson to withdraw, and then Nixon to be so weakened and desperately foolish that he caused his own downfall.

And so we have the more focused, non-establishment campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump shaking up the accepted norms in political campaigning wisdom.

I would like to think that finally, after all these misspent years, the 'same old same old,' no matter how artfully the spin machines may brand them, cannot win again.

The probability for change is higher now than in the past. But how it eventually turns out is another question. The electoral process is still very young, and many things may happen between now and next November. And the power of money and of powerful connections between the shadow government and the moneyed interests is still there, still lurking in the shadows and pulling strings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QRztZ7p_65k

Interesting times.

[Aug 27, 2015] Why Biden Would Be a TERRIBLE President

Aug 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Able Ape

If Joe is smart, he certainly hides it well....

Bay Area Guy

I can imagine a debate between Republican candidate Trump and Democratic candidate Biden would be incredibly entertaining. Between bluster and malaprops, the pay per view take could be enormous.

Spiritof42

By now, we should be beyond thinking about who is terrible and who makes a better president. I dream of living long enough to see the DC establishment go broke and lose its legitimacy.

From the establishment point of view, Biden would make a fine president. I believe he graduated dead last in college. He got this far on charm and good looks.

Urban Redneck

His official nickname for DECADES while in the Senate was THE SENATOR FROM MBNA (now BofA).

MBNA/FAUXCAHONTAS '16 - give the fucking retard sheeple what they deserve.

And to all that bitches fan boys at ZH - if she isn't sucking Brian Moynihan's cock like the banker whore she actually is - then why isn't she out shouting No Way, No How! to suggestions of MBNA/FAUXCAHONTAS '16 in the press?

(That should balance out my 2 critiques of the replitards the last few days - equal opportunity bigotry is a blast... and they make is sooooo easy these days...)

DaveyJones

Why Biden Would be a Terrible President"

Because He's Biden

If was listeneing to the news on Guatemala as they heroically attempt to prosecute and punish they're political leaders for years of theft, murder and deception and I laughed thinking we'd never see indictments in Texas or Illinois for the last two criminal regimes here. Do you think there's a connection between that phenomenon and the fact that we propped up their murderers down south

Tarzan

Biden is not considering a run, he's being recruited to run, huge difference. He wouldn't even give it a second thought (running against Billary) if it weren't for the panic by the pundits over her debacle of a campaign.

The pundits are trying to spoon feed the American people their choice and we're having non of it!

Jeb is a complete failure, polling in 3rd, with nearly half the support of Ben Carson, yet they talk over Ben as if Jeb is on Trumps heels, Trumps only competition.

They're pretending Clinton/Bush are the peoples front runners while a load mouth billionaire who speaks his mind with no PC constraints and a socialist promising to punish the rich and be the people's Santa Clause pack the house at every event!

Clinton/Bush, What were they thinking? They can hardly pack a tiny room. It's pathetic!

It's hilarious watching the pundits artificially prop up the Elite's lap dogs, hoping the people will capitulate. Almost as if we're watching the DOW, scratching our heads in wonder at the minipulation.

The Elite are finding the people harder and harder to control. If the people pit together two outsiders in the General election they will crap their pants and Marshal law would cancel the election.

Can you say King Obama without crying?


[Aug 23, 2015] Trump-Kane If I don't look after the interests of the underprivileged ...

Aug 16, 2015 | M of A

The U.S. presidential campaign season is usually a drag. It is much too long and the lies and false promises get so obvious that refuting them is no fun and senseless.

But watching Donald Trump is fun. He seems to be unbriefed and says whatever he thinks in that moment. His foreign policy opinions are refreshing. Here he is bashing the Saudis:

Trump called on Riyadh to share its vast wealth with the U.S. in exchange for the alliance between the two nations.
"They make a billion dollars a day," he told host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Saudi Arabia, if it weren't for us, they wouldn't be here," Trump said. "They wouldn't exist."
"They should pay us," he added. "Like it or don't like it, people have backed Saudi Arabia. What I really mind though is we back it at tremendous expense. We get nothing for it."

The Saudis would of course disagree. The U.S. weapons industry is making lots of profits by selling its useless junk to the Saudis and other Gulf countries. But anyway this point is smart.

"Look, Saudi Arabia is going to be in big trouble pretty soon," he added. "And they're going to need help. I think Saudi Arabia is a major target, a major target."

I agree.

Trump does not care about the Ukraine joining NATO. He seems to find it a rather useless country. He is right in that too. No wonder Trump was rated public enemy no. 9 and a "Kremlin agent" on some Ukrainian list.

The Republican party apparatus will do everything to make a Trump candidacy impossible and to put one of its pliant usual suspects into the front position. But Trump could run on his own. And that would mean more fun.

Someone compared Trump to the Citizen Kane character in the 1941 Orson Wells movie. Citizen Kane was a portrait of the rightwing newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. In the Cítizen Kane movie there is a line that Donald Trump would probably use to explain why he is running at all. Mr. Kane therein says of himself:

Charles Foster Kane is a scoundrel, his paper should be run out of town; a committee should be formed to boycott him. You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of one thousand dollars. On the other hand, I am the publisher of the Inquirer! As such, it is my duty - and I'll let you in on a little secret, it's also my pleasure - to see to it that the decent, hard-working people in this community aren't robbed blind by a pack of money-mad pirates just because - they haven't anybody to look after their interests. I'll let you in on another little secret, Mr. Thatcher. I think I'm the one to do it; you see, I have money and property. If I don't look after the interests of the underprivileged, maybe somebody else will - maybe somebody without any money or property - and that would be too bad...
Posted by b at 02:06 PM | Comments (78)

Chuck Roste | Aug 16, 2015 2:54:14 PM | 1

Trump continues to be the devil to the Republican establishment and a foil to the plans to use a gigantic presidential field of freaks, zealots, warmongers, psychopaths and a token black, Hispanic and woman to allow the Bush restoration to take place. After Trumpzilla's latest round of comments in the Chuck Todd interview on Press the Meat the big donors have to be reading the riot act to hapless dolt Reince Priebus. They threw.it all at Trump over the ginned up controversy about the phantom comment over Megyn Kelly's vaginal excretions and he emerged unscathed and more popular than ever. Trump isn't going away of his own volition. He may however want to read up on what happens to those who cross the Bush crime family though because there are probably already contingency plans in the works to remove him as a threat to "Jeb!" If he doesn't self immolate.

MRW | Aug 16, 2015 2:57:49 PM | 2

"They make a billion dollars a day," he proclaims.

The US federal government pays for Saudi Arabian oil with US reserve currency keystrokes.

We get their resources. They get our keystrokes. Not a bad deal. For us.

Since we pay in USD, those dollars can't leave the US banking system. Therefore, the Saudis buy our treasury securities (equiv. to a Bank CD) and park their treasury securities in their 'savings account'* at the NY Fed.

Trump doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, but he'll relieve the drudgery of another presidential campaign with his antics and total lack of understanding of how the federal monetary system works for a while. I agree with his single-payer health care idea, tho'.
=======================

* Technically called a (Federal Reserve) Securities Account.

MRW | Aug 16, 2015 3:13:00 PM | 3

Trump- saying this shows he has no clue:


"They should pay us," he added. "Like it or don't like it, people have backed Saudi Arabia. What I really mind though is we back it at tremendous expense. We get nothing for it."
Doesn't this guy read? Whoever wrote Confessions of an Economic Hitman described in some detail how the US Treasury--Executive Branch--made a special deal with the Saudis to funnel a lot of their oil profits during the late 70s and 80s through the US Treasury to avoid having to involve Congress (Legislative Branch).

That's how Bechtel and Halliburton built Saudi Arabia's infrastructure with SA money, and no congressional interference. Kissinger promised in 1975 to keep the price of oil high. No skin off the federal government's back. With oil now firmly denominated in USD--gold standard was over internationally on August 15, 1971--the US reserve currency status was assured, which was Kissinger's point in agreeing to keep prices high.

Piotr Berman | Aug 16, 2015 3:42:04 PM | 4

Trump is incredibly tacky, perhaps more narcistic than the average politician (but not a total outlier in that group), and his business acumen is a mixed story: on the negative side, he was bankrupt more than once, on the positive side, a lesser man would be out of business, in other words, he knows how to scrape and recover. And he knowns that there are times to splurge and times to pinch pennies.

Apparently, so far he runs rather thrifty campaign and spends much less time on fundraising than his staff was recommending. He is clearly too poor to pay for the campaign all by himself, but once his brand is solid enough there will be enough donations from fellow rich people loath to miss the boat that he will get back the money he loaned to his campaign. This is what Trump knows best.

Concerning "unorthodox/misguided policy positions", Trump gives positive surprises. Wall on Mexican border is GOP staple, the original part is demagogical promise that he will make Mexico to pay for it. The idea that USA needs some kind of protectionism/tariffs to preserve the industrial base raised hackles, but I personally think that this is precisely what is needed. In the link, he was accused of being ignorant on Ukraine, and I am not sure. First, he has central-European/Slavic family connections, his daughter name is Ivanka, the region is not the other side of the Moon to him. Second, the question is not "do you want X" (unless X stinks as such) but "how much are you ready to pay for X". And we can make a quick rundown: unique or widely marketable industrial products (NO, except for weapons that require cooperation with Russia), minerals (NO), agricultural products (grain and other stuff, the other stuff is more marketable in Russia than in the West), vacation properties (Russians took the best ones). Nothing too enticing yet.

The quality of the management team: freshly improved by a bunch of guys fired from their positions in Georgia, most famous of the fact that their proved that a small country can wage a direct war with Russia (without "and win" part). Since those losers represent an improvement over the local talent, hm. Stability: volunteer battalions shlep around the country, sometimes shooting, sometimes making something more hilarious, and if so inclined, fight rebels in the East. Since they disagree with each other, the threat to the central government is so far minor.

Balance sheet: previous government "ruined the country" and as a result, the external debt was so-so, now "Greek trajectory" is reproduced, rescue loans increase the debt while the size of economy spirals down. Good news: Ukraine is able to collapse the exchange rate and collapse internal consumption so the balance of payment is not as bad as in Greece. Bad news: shlepping volunteer battalion object to the sensible step to reduce the consumption, so it is not clear how long it can last.

Conclusions: the deal makes no sense without some creative approaches. Swap Ukraine for Detroit?

tom | Aug 16, 2015 3:57:56 PM | 5

Depending how much suspicion and anger there is of the two big criminal parties in the US, Trump getting kicked out of the Republican Party could be the huge push that he could claim that he is outside the corrupt system.
'Since they kicked him out from the Republican Party, he must be outside the insider corruption', idiots will tell themselves.

But that is is only from the right, fascist or middle perspective. He has no pull with a left wing due to his racist, misogynist and warmongering from the Reich side.

colinjames | Aug 16, 2015 3:59:13 PM | 6

At this point, anything that shakes up the selection er election while providing some dang fine entertainment in the process can only be a good thing. And his candor about how politicians are bought and sold was an invaluable service.

Hopefully he assumed some light on more uncomfortable truths, and I do agree a small plane crash or untimely heart attack might be headed his way if he were a real threat to the establishment.

Rg an LG | Aug 16, 2015 4:02:12 PM | 8

I think I agree with many of the points listed THUS far. I am particularly in agreement with the fact that the Donald had best watch his back regarding the Familia Bush. Living near Tx and the machinations of that particular gang, it is never far-fetched to find the Bush Gang up to their eye-balls with the Saudi's (who the Donald may have offended), the CIA and the rest of the dark underbelly of the American Way of ... death?/life?

I will predict that unless something transpires to make Jeb impossible, remember what happened in 2000 ... the Bush gang always get their way. I'm not sure how Clinton got past them in 1992, but I'm sure they didn't really object. Maybe Poppy didn't really want the job. Maybe it is better to operate from the shadows with his cronies than to be the front man. In that case, Hillary is a seriously acceptible option.

Vintage Red | Aug 16, 2015 5:12:14 PM | 9

@Rg an LG, 8:

"remember what happened in 2000 ... the Bush gang always get their way. I'm not sure how Clinton got past them in 1992, but I'm sure they didn't really object."

The Democrats got past them in '92 and '96 because of Perot splitting the Republican "base" (such as it is), the same Trump threatens to do. They did object but their revenge was not denied, only delayed till the PNAC coup of 2000, brewed to perfection during those eight years.

Agreed that no matter how rich he is, he'd be smart to watch his back. Not being a typical oligarch working through cronies, the corporate media might not be able to "Howard Dean" him (he may be teflon to that), but other agencies might certainly "Paul Wellstone" him...

"the American Way of ... death?/life?"

Split the difference: the American Way of Undeath.

rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 5:36:53 PM | 10

PB at 4 --

More hypotheticals? "He runs a thrifty campaign." Yeah, one he's willing to spend a billion on. Damn thrifty, that. He has an Czech ex-wife, so he's competent to deal with the Ukraine?

When I was a Ph.D. student in the field, it was axiomatic in Soviet and East European Studies -- emigres are the worst sources of reliable info. and analysis. They left for a reason, usually carry heavy baggage, and will tend to paint the bleakest, blackest picture possible. Typically, they sought to maneuver the US into carrying water for the restoration of the ancien regime.

If you doubt this, it's been the Ukrainian emigre community that is responsible for much of the state of our current policy in the region.

And where does he actually get his advice from? Courtesy of Crooks and Liars, it seems The Donald gets his info. on international affairs from Chuck Todd and John Bolton. So in the unlikely event he wins the Presidency, we are like totally freaking screwed.

Trump just lost whatever high ground he might have had when it comes to criticizing Jeb Bush if he thinks taking advice from an even bigger neocon like Bolton is a good idea. I'll be surprised if it makes one bit of difference to his supporters though. They like him because he's a flame thrower.

Familiarity seems to breed contempt in The Donald. He's a full-moon braying Tea Partier on Mexican immigration -- and those folks live and work among us, the country is just to the south. He says he's got thousands working for him, I guess he got the few that weren't rapists, theives, murderers, and litterbugs.

Surely you jest about the wall.

If we really don't want Mexican and other immigrants pouring over the border to do shit work for sub-minimum wages, maybe we should start arresting and imprisoning the petty-bourgeois Republican small-businessmen that hire them, and then whine about "loosing their country." And then legalize their status, so these "tired and huddled masses" can securely insist upon their human rights and dignity.

And by the way, the loss of the industrial base is due to the export of our industrial capacity, not cheap migrant labor doing construction and domestic work. Mexicans aren't undercutting domestic labor at USX or Chrysler. It's the tax, tariff, and industrial policies of our elite off-shoring production.

Why pay your neighbor a decent wage in a safe environment when you can run a hazardous sweatshop in Bangladesh and make the same or even more profit, and rid yourself of those pesky labor organizations in the bargain? Those displaced workers can be programmers. Oh, wait... Indians are cheaper now. Care to drive for Uber, then? Or rent out rooms to total strangers?

And you would expect him to be better on European policy because...?

Let's be fair, though. C&L is right, if he does win, it will be because of his bluster, not his thoughtful opinions on foreign and domestic policy.

Frankly, I think your biggest mistake was swallowing The Donald's self-promotion. Here's a nice corrective, Exposing How Donald Trump Really Made His Fortune: Inheritance from Dad and the Government's Protection Mostly Did the Trick. Aren't quotable bluster and and sympathetic PR wonderful?

Let's keep Detroit and send Trump to the Ukraine, shall we? Trump seems a natural successor to Poroshenko, who's got plenty of Americans, as well as Russian and Georgian emigres, on staff already.

Please, don't compare the Ukraine to Greece, its apples vs. oranges. The Ukraine is a reliable client, the IMF is already breaking their rules to finance the ongoing war. The discontent of the Greek masses poses a sharp challenge to the Eurozone and indeed, perhaps, to the whole rule of finance capital. To punish their bad taste in questioning Frankfurt's diktat, the troika tightened the fetters. Kid gloves for the former, the thumbscrews for the latter.

PS to Rg an LG, colinjames, & tom, 5-8 --

Folks, you are forgetting -- Trump is The Establishment. The whole freakin' lot of them, too. So please do enjoy the circus our elite has kindly put on for us. He continues to coarsen the political discourse and make genuine change impossible. Trump would accelerate, not reverse the decline. He is a Medici, not a Savonarola.

It's going to be fun watching Liberals twist and turn purple when Trump is found to be to the left of HRC on many issues or at least more moderate, such as on Russia.

Trump's attack on Latino immigrants may be the best thing that's happened for them now that Liberals will have to prove their support by actually doing something besides watching Obama oversee the arrest and deportation of millions.

Trump has already shown that the Political Class are nothing more than parasites so lets save time and money and have the real power, the Oligarchs run things directly.

Wayoutwest | Aug 16, 2015 6:57:39 PM | 11

guest77 | Aug 16, 2015 7:05:18 PM | 12

It is bound to happen that a few of the folks who have been allowed to make hundreds of millions and billions of dollars by this fucked up freak out of an economic system will start thinking they have other rights too, like political ones, etc.

I would like to think that this dripping, dangling, penis of a man, Donald Trump, would expose the USA for being an idiotic playground of rich buffoons. But unfortunately that is't what the USA is - not entirely anyway. The USA is a vicious, violent place where a guy like Donald Trump won't have the political weight of a dry leaf when the tremendous hurricane of the intelligence services and military industrial complex start blowing.

I agree with b, it is amusing. You're watching a man who believes all the propaganda that's been put out shoot off his mouth. But he doesn't know the real history, he doesn't know where the bodies are buried, and he doesn't have the real connections like the Bushes do. An idiot such as this cannot be President of the USA. Can you imagine President Trump try and deal with someone he doesn't have power over? Trump vs. Putin? Trump vs. Xi? No way.

This is just the first act of a long, long, loooong circus. Another bunch of theater to provide "teachable moments" to the rubes.

guest77 | Aug 16, 2015 7:14:54 PM | 13

Though it will be interesting if some weird hangup in Trump's ego propels him forward against the established political order to the point where the established order may have no choice except to do something really disgraceful.

Something about an immovable object meeting irresistible force, isnt' that the phrase?

This is certainly part of the neo-liberal dynamic I've been trying to describe: you make a large class of super-wealthy, insanely powerful people, you start pumping them full of propaganda about how their venal spasms of selfish greed is actually evidence that they are the apex of human morality doing god's work here on earth and ...
sure as shit they will begin to do battle amongst themselves. And then anything can happen, I'd guess.

guest77 | Aug 16, 2015 7:23:38 PM | 14

@rufus: "Folks, you are forgetting -- Trump is The Establishment."

Yes and no. He's certainly a part of the economic establishment, but as C. Wright Mills evidenced, the neo-liberal corporate establishment ain't the whole burrito.

Trump is a very definite "thing", but he isn't the whole thing. He can easily become a burr under the saddle of the RNC I think.

Anonymous | Aug 16, 2015 7:38:01 PM | 15

@8

"...Hillary is a seriously acceptable option."

Damn right she is. The left needs to not take its eye off the ball. Hillary's no one's choice in an ideal world. But she's the only thing standing in the way of a Bush revival. Another Bush in the White House - my God.

rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 7:44:07 PM | 16

Wayout at 11 --

You don't seem to have noticed decades of demagoguery about race and immigration as part of the Rethuglicans "Southern Strategy." Why is Trump's really any different? He broadcast in plain what GOP has been transmitting in code.

Why would the odd random correct position disquiet the Democrats? For every decent idea, there are about a thousand howlers out of the Grand Old Party.

You should really give up posting random musings for effect and try to develop some actual sources of information and analysis. Less looking foolish and back-peddling, IMHO.

guest77 at 12 --

Don't underestimate the power of money to buy the needed NatSec connections -- Bolton knows where a few bodies are buried, I'd think.

I personally do not get the presumed hostility of the deep state to The Donald. As a plutocrat, we can be reasonably sure their interests are more in common than not -- that's who they defend, right?

Jebbie or HRC might be their preferred beards, but I'm sure they could work with The Donald if needed. You keep him as the loud-mouthed, unpredictable figurehead (could have tactical advantages in negotiations) and make sure he appoints the right people to responsible posts.

That he's not really suitable as a public sector manager or political negotiator is probably more to the point.

But of course, if once he's elected he tells the Congress "You're fired" and becomes the authoritarian many on the right are looking for, that won't matter. "The only restraint on Donald Trump will be voters, but Republican voters love authoritarian leaders." Not the "Man on the White Horse," but the "Man on the Black Balance Sheet."

rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 8:14:49 PM | 17

g77 at 14 --

Ah, a trip down memory lane, Mills The Power Elite. Back before the "End of History," when liberal academics wanted to co-opt/denature the sociological analysis of Marx. Class analysis without class. A piece with Domhoff's Who Rules America?

So he's a parvenu, not old money. Skull and Bones will eventually get over it.

You're right about the self image -- "the apex of human morality doing god's work...."

fast freddy | Aug 16, 2015 8:55:37 PM | 18

of course, if once he's elected he tells the Congress "You're fired" and becomes the authoritarian many on the right are looking for, that won't matter. "The only restraint on Donald Trump will be voters, but Republican voters love authoritarian leaders." Not the "Man on the White Horse," but the "Man on the Black Balance Sheet."

Congress, primarily the House, fired itself 30yrs ago. The Senate - R or D majority matters not - serves at the beck and call of the MIC, AIPAC and Multinational Corporations.

The House is useless for the common citizen - and worse - enablers of destructive policy. Senate is totally corrupt, likewise most of the high courts.

It has been theorized that the train to hell runs more slowly when the D Party plays defense - pretending to oppose draconian republican shit.

Jeb! or Hillary - there won't be any change you can believe in.

fast freddy | Aug 16, 2015 9:15:16 PM | 19

(I am)-- "the apex of human morality doing god's work...." -Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman, Goldman Sachs

The Ant and The Grasshopper, Teach a man to fish, Grab those bootstraps, grab your ankles.

Conservative Philosophy requires two things for the common citizen to buy it:

He must be convinced that he has exceptional intelligence, skills, etc. He is an exceptional human being. (No vocational training for me!) USA is exceptional and number one. He is an arbiter of religious and moral virtue (Sundays, if no football).

He must be convinced that he was born on a level playing field with any given trust fund millionaire. (Every American is born with an equal opportunity for success!)

If things don't pan out, it is the fault of Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, etc.

rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 9:25:40 PM | 20

fast freddy at 18 --

I demur, they are still working but on verylight duty. Congress did stop Our Nobel Laureate from launching a war over his "red line" in Syria.

Frankly, I'd expect him to govern rather like Gov. LePage in Maine. Dismissing Congress outright is probably a bridge too far -- at this time.

Piotr Berman | Aug 16, 2015 9:33:07 PM | 21

Rufus magister: it remains a fact that "I do not care if Ukraine joins NATO" is the most sensible statement on Ukraine uttered by a Presidential candidate. (Strangely enough, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence around GOP number two in polls, phenomenally well funded Jeb Bush. What he said about trade is somewhat sensible too, at least he notices the problem. It is my sincere hope that he will win the nomination, but then again, I am not a friend of GOP. However, even a very primitive type of cost/gain calculations that Trump presents is an improvement in that party. If you want, say, Ukraine or a wall on the border, you need to think how much does it cost.

My provocative remark about Detroit and Ukraine had this hidden subtext: a region with problems presents very different values to different countries. Detroit area, and even the city presents some value to USA and it would be wise to invest something so it does not go to waste. For Russia, not so much. Reverse with Ukraine, especially the part that is called Novorossiya (by those who would call the other part Malorossiya). The analogy to Greece is important because both Ukraine and Greece are economic basket cases with some common reasons. The extend of the decline is similar. "The West" does not have a stellar record in putting such economies on sound footing. (Twenty years ago I thought that EU would know how to turn Kosovo into a thriving oasis of the Balkans, one can live, observe and learn.)

guest77 | Aug 16, 2015 10:27:20 PM | 22

Interesting points, well taken. I do find the social position of the Bush family to be extremely important to their power though. Sure, America has an interest in keeping the Saudis on their toes and in their place (a sort of geopolitical stress position, if you will) but you'll never hear a Bush talk bad about the Saudis because they are not just familiar politically, they are "come down to the ranch and a kiss hello" family friends.

The Bushes are real American royalty in the way the Kennedy were promoted as being... and then totally murdered/scandaled out of being. Donald Trump is a crass, obnoxious, self-inflated, tacky (thanks PB, excellent choice of words) idiot of a man, even as billionaires go.

I bet Jeb is pleased as punch to see The Donald both go after the Saudis and Hispanics, only if because now he can go back and say "see, you don't want this asshole to win the primaries, do you?" and pocket the checks.

C Wright Mills and Domhoff are both pretty excellent in my opinion, despite not being Marxists. Though your point on what I would consider McCarthyite repression of US Cold War intellectual life is well taken.

Here is Domhoff's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwKkg-h2-Nx2WouQp47yReg though I really recommend this Alternative Views episode: https://archive.org/details/AV_334-WHO_RULES_AMERICA-PART_I though its a bit dated.

Also very interesting - Alternative View's Frank Morrow does his interpretation of the same topic of "The US Power Structure": https://archive.org/details/AV_516-AMERICAN_POWER_STRUCTURE_UPDATE-PART_I

psychohistorian | Aug 16, 2015 10:33:20 PM | 23

Trump is providing some interesting speculative 2016 races like Trump/Sanders or even Trump/Hillary(the non-woman/woman).

The problem is that the global plutocrats own all the bull horns and as long as that continues the brainwashing and propaganda output will keep the zombies, zombies.

Here is a flight of fiction for us old folk, what would a Trump/JFK race look like today? When are going to stop believing the myth that anyone coming from inherited wealth is fit to lead anyone but their grandmother, like to the bathroom? It is amazing to watch Trump being accorded any level of respectability give his obvious racist and women demeaning attitudes. That said, I agree with rufus magister above that The Donald could be worked with by the GOP like puppet Ronnie Reagan. Or, The Donald will go the way of JFK, but for entirely different reasons.

All this while the potential human extinction clock from Fukushima, climate change, etc. keeps ticking.

rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 10:38:55 PM | 24

PB at 21 --

I think you hid your subtext too well.

"Detroit has value, so invest." My calculus is much simpler -- the people who live there, like the rest of us, should not be screwed out of their work, their dignity, and their lives by plutocrats and their financiers looking for a "better business environment" in which to gorge on "above market" returns. Neo-liberal "investment" in projects for the 1 pct. will do nothing to help the masses ruined by de-industrialization.

There are superficial similarities between Greece and the Ukraine. Both have economic difficulties, which are to large degree due to the corruption of their ruling classes. But the theft of the collective property in the former Union is a much different, more pervasive and brutal sort of corruption than the routine tax-evasion and inside dealing of Greek shipowners and bankers.

And of course, the Ukraine had the Russian Federation willing to help out. But American manipulation, a naive middle class with fantasies of European integration, and a fascist putsch put paid to that idea.

Greece, with proper political and economic stewardship, could conceivably revive, even in the context of the Eurozone. Recovery from the civil war in the Ukraine will be much more difficult, politically, economically, and socially.

Rand Paul says sensible things (well, he used to, anyway) about foreign policy and the criminal justice system. But his libertarian economics is, shall we say, problematic. Trump might be right on the Ukraine, but does his base really give a rat's ass about that? Except as another (minor) bad thing about our "madrassa-educated" "Kenyan Mau-Mau" president, of course.

Benghazi and HRC's server are the big foreign policy issues in Tea Party circles. Bald misogyny, chauvinism, and immigrant-baiting got him the big applause, not nuance on international relations.

g77 at 22 --

Don't get me wrong, Mills and Domhoff both did good work, I have them both on the shelves 'round here somewhere (though not Domhoff's Who Rules America Now). At least they recognized their existence, instead of eliding it. We're all middle class here, right, even the millionaires (but not the poor, of course)? Their data is good, if I might put it in slightly different frame with different conclusions.

I really have to read another classic from that era, Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life."

To be fair -- Ted Kennedy really scandaled himself out of it. And his sabotage of Carter in the name of his vain presidential hopes helped bring Reagan into power. I don't think the pressure of having to stand in for his three deceased elder brothers did his psyche any good (Joe Jr. being a war casualty; his loss forced JFK into politics).

The House of Bush are WASP old money, the House of Kennedy is Irish-Catholic new money. Both are American royalty, think York vs. Lancaster.

I was thinking more about post-Cold War triumphalism, but you do raise a good point about the difficulties posed by McCarthyism. They were hardly the only academics or politicians trying to navigate the mythical "Third Way" between capitalism and socialism.

rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 11:07:19 PM | 25

rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 11:16:57 PM | 26
ps to 55 -- My point being, back in the day, approve of his work or not, you had to deal with Marx. Now, not so much. "One World, One Market, One Ideology." To paraphrase O'Brien in 1984 -- If you want a view of the future, picture a Gucci loafer smashing a human face, forever.

Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2015 12:25:21 AM | 27

Vintage Red | Aug 16, 2015 5:12:14 PM | 9

Yes, Interesting point about Ross Perot but this article by Mark Ames in Pando: Behind the scenes of the Donald Trump - Roger Stone show: Anti-establishment politics is a racket has a deeper account of the electorial shinanigans in US politics.

Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2015 12:31:16 AM | 28

Re: rufus magister | Aug 16, 2015 5:36:53 PM | 10

Reading about his remarks is not sufficient.

I saw the interview where he said this. He was winging it. At first his answer was that he got his foreign policy ideas from "the shows" (meaning US political TV shows). Then he, when pressed, he mentioned two well-known Republican names.

My immediate thought was: he can't say that this go-to person on foreign policy is the Clintons.

C'mon! Is it really believable that he has not consulted ANYONE on foreign policy matters? Would any serious candidate act that way?

Joe Tedesky | Aug 17, 2015 12:35:34 AM | 29

I get annoyed seeing our politicians play the celebrity roll.

Like when they attend the White House Correspondence Dinner. Then I read some history that only goes to prove that this is nothing new. As far back as time began the psychopath of the tribe, has often been our leader. In fact probably more often than not.

So, is 'the Donald' a freak political accident? One thing for certain this isn't what Jeb was picturing. Jeb always knew he was going to have an up hill struggle just by being a Bush, but 'the Donald'? Do you think Jeb saw thus coming? I saw a poll today that showed Hillary 15 points in front of Bernie. Really, do Democrates think this will retain the White House? Some how I don't see Donald Trump going the distance, but if he were to, then I think he could beat Hillary. FOX news today showed Trump at 25% Bush at 9%. I want Oprah to run, and with Phil Donhue as VP!

james | Aug 17, 2015 12:37:48 AM | 30

thanks b..

thanks mrw for additional comments..

i seem to recall jackrabbit saying that trump is the spoiler for the republicans so hilary gets in.. or did i say that? i get bored with american politics.. i noticed the other day comments on usa political type threads outnumber comments on yemen being bombed to shit significantly. bottom line, i don't give much of a damn about american political soap opera.. having trump in the mix is mildly entertaining when i do peer into it..

Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2015 12:39:49 AM | 31

follow-up to 27

Should've added that Mark Ames describes a history of candidates are encouraged to run so as to split the vote of the other party. And Roger Stone, who WAS Trumps campaign manager (before the Pando article was printed about a week or so ago) specialized in 'dirty tricks' like that going back to the Nixon White House.

Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 17, 2015 1:52:44 AM | 32

I'm not sure what % of US voters no longer bother voting but if only half of them consider themselves to be underprivileged, and Trump can persuade them that he's their candidate, and they should vote for him, he'll romp into the White House.

Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2015 2:02:50 AM | 33

follow-up to 28

And I should make it clear: Trump didn't mention Bolton as someone that he has consulted but as some who he's heard speak on "the shows". Although he claims to 'like' Bolton, it seems that it would be more accurate to say that he respects him because Trump calls him a 'tough cookie'. One could well wonder if Trump was just serving up a name that he knows resonates with Republicans. I encourage everyone to watch it and judge for yourself (start at 7:46).

Note: The second name he gave, Colonel Jack Jacobs, is not as well known. He is an MSNBC military analyst and investment banker who served in Vietnam.

=

Todd asked, "Who do you talk to for military advice right now?"

Trump answered, "Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great — you know, when you watch your show [NBC: Meet the Press], and all of the other shows, and you have the generals, and you have certain people –."

Todd continued, "But is there somebody, is there a go-to for you? Every presidential candidate has a go-to."

Trump answered, "Probably there are two or three. I like Bolton. I think he's a tough cookie, knows what he's talking about.

Todd: "You mean Ambassador Bolton?"

"Jacobs is a good guy –."

Trump: Nods.

Todd: "You mean Colonel Jack Jacobs?"

Trump: "Colonel Jack Jacobs is a good guy, and I see him on occasion."

Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2015 2:35:36 AM | 34

james @30

It is difficult to say if he is a spoiler. Trump says that Hillary was "the worst" Sec. of State for example, and Trump was saying some of the same things with respect to the same issues years ago.

But then there is also:
1) Trump's bluster which hides a lack of seriousness on issues:
a) not understanding the benefits of the petro-dollar (as pointed out by MRW),
b) not consulting with foreign policy/military 'go-to' guys,
c) complaining about 'puppets' running for office but not putting forth any plan for election reform, etc;

2) Questions about his party loyalty that are raised by Republicans. Trump sidesteps questions about how close he is to the Clintons and democrats by saying that he gives to many politicians and that he 'ordered' Hillary to be at his wedding. That is not an answer.

3) How convenient it is for Hillary that she populists running to her left and right that are unlikely to win.

4) The unlikeliness that other oligarchs would be comfortable with one of their own in the White House. The current system works in a way that benefits all of them. A political family or pliable new-comer works for all of them.

5) Trump's having hired Roger Stone as his campaign manager. With Roger Stone's record, that was a huge blunder for any serious candidate.

6) Trump's ego. Does he really want to enmesh himself in the business of the nation? Is he so delusional that he thinks that there is no other way for him to effect change (with all his money) than to do the job himself? And that the "change" that he proposes is so much different that what the other candidates are proposing? (All the republicans seem very similar to me.)

rufus magister | Aug 17, 2015 8:12:46 AM | 35

jackrabbit at 33

Did you actually parse the quote you posted?

To me, this sounds like he's consulted with them. And he actually says he has met with Jacobs.

This comes after he tout watching the Sunday Morning Bobbleheads. I used to some years ago, religiously (it is Sunday morning), but then the BS got to high for my waders.

TODD: But is there somebody, is there a go-to for you? You know, every presidential candidate has a go-to...

TRUMP: Probably there are two or three. I mean, I like Bolton. I think he's a tough cookie, knows what he's talking about. Jacobs is a good guy... and I see him on occasion.

Russia Insider likes this site, but I stay away from the libertarians if at all possible. LewRockwell.com has a short consideration of Trumpian Foreign Policy, posted last Thursday. After praising The Donald as "enraging the Republican Party establishment" he then qualifies this.

That said, it was a little alarming to hear Trump say to Sean Hannity last night, "I like [John] Bolton" in response to a question about where he gets some of his policy ideas. He then said that if he is elected president, he would invade, conquer, and occupy Iran, confiscate their oil reserves, and use the money to give "millions — millions !!!" to "our veterans."

So it does not seem to me that he blurted out the first name that came to mind when Todd quizzed him. Looking at content, it certainly sounds like he's getting ideas from Bolton; war with Iran on behalf of Likud is a neo-con idee fixe.

I'm hardly the only observer to think so. See The Guardian as well.

john | Aug 17, 2015 8:19:33 AM | 36

in the coming months and years, as the US continues its slide into recession/depression, i think the issue of illegal immigration will alter to negligible. emigration funk has been in decline since the implosion in 2008.

when i was a poor carpenter in New Mexico my Mexican co-workers (i think they were all legal) religiously sent their savings back to the old country every month and they all went home themselves at every opportunity. not one of them was particularly enthusiastic about life in America.

yes, the largely rural, agrarian communities south of the border will be much better suited to deal with the new nearly jobless world on the horizon. hey, maybe they'll flock south instead, to Ciapas, captivated by the Subcomandante Marcos hologram.

...

We are going to keep the families together, but they have to go (Donald Trump)

la sagrada famiglia

35;The Graun is now a reliable Zionist publication,I wouldn't believe anything from Rusbriger?,another serial liar.But if Trump wants to go belly up,Bolton is the way to go.He might be the most clueless guy in politics,Mustache John.

dahoit | Aug 17, 2015 10:36:13 AM | 37

ben | Aug 17, 2015 11:30:03 AM | 39

Here's a first-hand fast freddy fact. One of the greatest lies about Obama is that he is soft on immigration. Obama has been a ruthless prick wherever immigrants are concerned. Dubya was absolutely wonderful by comparison.

fast freddy | Aug 17, 2015 10:55:43 AM | 38

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." That old saying describes "the donald", to a tee.

Watching Trump is fun, but then, I always enjoyed Kabuki. The grass roots favorite, right now, in the game of American politics is Bernie Sanders, followed by the Empire's choice. Hillery Clinton. Those two, are the only serious Democratic contenders. Most of the Republican contenders are there to suck the air out of ANY real issues to be discussed. I think the Koch brothers, and their planned 900 million $ gift, will go for Scott Walker from Wisc.
This is just the first act of a long, long, loooong circus. Another bunch of theater to provide "teachable moments" to the rubes.

Yep!
guest 77 @ 12 said:"

fast freddy | Aug 17, 2015 11:42:54 AM | 41

Whoops, my above post shows my copy and paste skills suck. My last sentence was a quote from guest 77.

ben | Aug 17, 2015 11:33:09 AM | 40

31 - history of candidates encouraged to run so as to split the vote of the other party. And Roger Stone, who WAS Trumps campaign manager (before the Pando article was printed about a week or so ago) specialized in 'dirty tricks' like that going back to the Nixon White House.

Crooked and broke RWNJ Marco Rubio (used RNC credit card for living expenses). Bygones. For public consumption he is now the handsome and dapper Republican JFK.

If you believe the official black box numbers, Three way split race put Rubio in the Senate with 49 percent of the vote. Crist 30 and Meeks 20.

Closeted gay Governor Crist married a beard and switched from R to D to run for Senate.

Florida House Member Kendrick Meek was tainted with a fresh corruption kickback scandal.
(Cadillac and a 90K job for his mom). Bill Clinton and others asked the spoiler Meek to step down. But Obama and Biden stumped for him.

Doesn't take a vivid imagination to consider that Meek may have been paid to be spoiler.

Why would Obama and Biden stump for a known crook and a lousy candidate with no chance of winning? Because he was the bona fide Democrat? No. They hadn't supported Ned Lamont - Connecticut Democratic Primary winner. Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman. But for the general election The Machine supported Lieberman who had to run Independent. No Party Loyalty here.

Could it be that a powerful faction within the D Party coerced the Rubio Senate win just as it had done for the Lieberman win?

Noirette | Aug 17, 2015 12:18:50 PM | 42

Well Trump certainly is occupying the platforms, screen, air waves, blogs, etc.

This is distractive madness. Obama is still president for far more than a year. The Black lives Matter who disrupted the Sanders speech should address the present admin, which is, on the books, where the buck stops. Obama is 'black' last I read. Responsible ..according to many rubrics.

Concentrating on the 'new' candidate(s) is a cop out, organised by the media / gvmt. to distract.

As for Trump, on the immigrant (which is also 'race') issue end of things, saying he will build walls and deport 11 million ppl ( I read..), this is completely irrelevant. (He might be sincere, idk, as he is nuts.) Anybody truly interested in that issue needs to get their heads into US legislation, the management of illegals, their contribution to the economy, etc.

Populism often throws people into a time-warp or *twarp* (invented word.) The audience is thrown into a 'what we wish scenario' without any timeline, concrete steps, real moves, politics, etc. It is one of the characeristics of fascism, btw.

I have to say though that Trump being an economic populist is probably a good thing in the suicidal decrepit war-mongering ambiance. (Trade, win-win deals, whatever.) He believes in all that stuff and that it can override political aims that want to genocide, destroy and kill kill. Doomed to fail, of course. Nobody ever wanted Iraqis earning a decent wage at McDonalds.

Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2015 1:46:29 PM | 43

rufus magister | Aug 17, 2015 8:12:46 AM | 35

The quote is just a shorthand. It is not as good as actually listening to what Trump said and how he said it. I added a link to the interview and included the point in the interview that Trump talks about Bolton.

In answer to Chuck Todd's question, Trump says he "listens to the shows" (Sunday morning talk shows). Then Todd more specifically: "Whose your go-to guy" and Trump responds "there's probably one or two." Then he mentions Bolton - saying he "likes" him and he is a "tough cookie" - a vageness that implies that Trump has merely seen him on Sunday talk shows.

THEN Trump mentions TWO other people. The first is Jacobs, which he sees "occasionally" (implying that he is not advising Trump), and the other is the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - who Trump could not name. Trump happened to see a speech of his and he thinks he's a "good guy."

=

To me this reads as follows:

1) Trump hasn't consulted with anyone recently and no one that (that is acceptable to the Republican base) is advising his campaign on such issues.

2) Trump has been talking about foreign affairs/military issues like attacking ISIS and criticizing Hillary as "the worst "Secretary of State" without having spoken in depth with military analysts / foreign analysts. It's just all seat-of-the-pants for him.

Its still early in the race. We need to learn a lot more about each candidate. But Trump mulled running previously and has the money and connections that would make it easy to talk to people in important policy areas. So I find it strange that he would have such trouble with this question.

Wayoutwest | Aug 17, 2015 1:50:21 PM | 44

J@36

Do you mean that you were a poorly skilled or a poorly paid carpenter in NM or both?

I earned about $10/hr as a carpenter in NM in the mid '70s and it wasn't a union job.

NAFTA destroyed much of what was built in Mexico with the money sent by workers in the US but you are correct that these and other more self sufficient people will weather the coming crash better than most Amerikans who are almost totally dependent on the Beast.

john | Aug 17, 2015 3:59:50 PM | 45

Wayoutwest @ 44 asks:

Do you mean that you were a poorly skilled or a poorly paid carpenter in NM or both

i mean that it was paycheck to paycheck with the occasional bounce the years i spent as a carpenter in NM with a working wife and two young daughters.

ab initio | Aug 17, 2015 6:10:45 PM | 46

MRW @2

The federal government is a small buyer of Saudi crude. US refineries which are private businesses purchase way more crude.

The Saudis also convert a fair amount of USD they receive for their crude into other assets including stocks and bonds denominated in other currencies as well as real estate in Europe and Asia.

Note there is nothing precluding Saudis from selling their crude in other currencies as well as in barter trades. The Russians are selling their crude and natural gas in euros, rubles and also in yuan. Most crude sales are contractual and not sold in spot markets.

ab initio | Aug 17, 2015 6:13:59 PM | 47

Trump is appealing to those Americans who are falling behind and frustrated and tired of the duopoly who only serve the moneyed interests.

rufus magister | Aug 17, 2015 7:49:53 PM | 48

JR at 43 --

Well, I can't find a picture of them together (yet), but I do find a few items that suggest they have at least met.

Perhaps Donald the Fan-Boy had a nice little tete a tete at the NC GOP convention back in June, when he and Bolton were keynote speakers. Here's the local news, and here's the GOP.

The North Carolina Republican Party is thrilled to announce that Donald Trump and Ambassador John Bolton will be featured speakers at our 2015 State Convention.

Or maybe they were chillin' together at CPAC. Their speeches were about two hours apart. A link to Trump's is at the bottom of the page.

Intereting coincidence -- they were both on "On the Record" on 22 Feb. 2013. I don't get cable, and didn't sit through the episode, so I can't tell you if they were on simultaneously.

The reading seems to be fairly common, and not just with The Guardian (Bing it and see). Politics USA seems to share your reading, but the avowedly liberal site seems more interested in dismissing The Donald as political dead meat than in analyzing his appeal or connections..

Trump knows how to use to television to appeal to Republican voters, but there is very little behind the bluster….

What makes the Trump campaign so entertaining to watch is that he is flying by the seat of his pants, but a president can't "wing it," in the White House....

Anytime that Trump is asked a serious political question or is pushed for details, he falls flat on his face... [Doesn't really seem to matter to his peeps, though, does it?]

Trump's answer today provided more evidence that if wins the Republican nomination, he will be crushed by the Democratic nominee.

The WaPo has the same take, see their annotated transcript of Todd's interview.

And what does Bolton think about Trump? This is actually from 2011, he speaks of the 2012 election.

Buttressing his contention that this election cycle is different from previous cycles, Bolton cited Donald Trump as Exhibit A.

"Donald Trump has gone up but he's not going to stay up and he's not going to get the nomination," Bolton explained. "So it's a reflection, I think, of people who have very high determination to defeat Obama but are far from settled on where they want to go. So a name comes up and they say, 'ok, let's try that one.' And to me that's just a further piece of evidence that this cycle is going to go very differently than the past several."

So they move in the same circles and seem to share a mutual respect. Were he not on board with The Donald, I would expect Bolton to say so. See this from Foreign Policy, where he gave Huckabee a hand -- well, just the back of it -- back in 2008.

jfl | Aug 17, 2015 9:23:05 PM | 49

@42 noirette

Concentrating on the 'new' candidate(s) is a cop out, organised by the media / gvmt. to distract. ... The audience is thrown into a 'what we wish scenario' without any timeline, concrete steps, real moves, politics, etc. It is one of the characeristics of fascism, btw.

And it started in 2014. I don't follow the MSM, which may have preceeded, but around October 2014 at counterpunch. More than 2 years before the election.

It's as though the 'folks' are so much in denial at present that they have decided to live in a perpetual future ... b's latest post confirms that that is the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's plan as well ... with Spielberg as the producer.

Everyone is just waiting till after the fact - TPP/WWIII/the privatization of the NSA - to see where they 'really' stand, I suppose.

guest77 | Aug 17, 2015 10:47:46 PM | 50

To paraphrase O'Brien in 1984 --c If you want a view of the future, picture a Gucci loafer smashing a human face, forever.

Hahaha - Excellent. Absolutely True. Very Funny. Thanks. That's in fact the perfect prose sentence to get across the exact feeling I felt when Greece was smacked into submission a couple of months ago. Soft technocrats and careless billionaires taking on the role formerly reserved for conquering generals after long battles, now complete in a couple of weeks time without even ruining one's man manicure.

"He then said that if he is elected president, he would invade, conquer, and occupy Iran, confiscate their oil reserves, and use the money to give "millions — millions !!!" to "our veterans."

Did he actually say this? Noirette seems to indicate no? If he did, it is one of the most nakedly fascistic statements I have ever heard a US politician make in the 21st century. It's like some idea that Mussolini would come up with and just like Mussolini to make a public boast of it. Also, I believe its a war crime to make such threats, isn't it?

fast freddy | Aug 18, 2015 12:26:13 AM | 51

Possible, perhaps likely, that John Bolton and Donald Trump became acquainted at Plato's Retreat, the popular swingers club that operated in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0505/S00240.htm

MRW | Aug 18, 2015 12:44:09 AM | 52

ab initio | Aug 17, 2015 6:10:45 PM | 46

Not that small. They buy oil and gas the world over for their troops, trucks, ships, planes, bases, supply lines, military residencies and embassies. Still pay for it with keystrokes no matter who refined it.

Yeah, Saudis may convert their USD to assets and currencies other than US treasury securities, but no matter what they buy, the original USDs earned by the Saudi government and their banks stay in the US. By law. For example, let's say you're a Saudi prince who wants to buy an elegant property on Lake Como for Saudi government use, denominated in Swiss Francs. You—Mr. Saudi Prince--would instruct the Federal Reserve to convert USD$30 million (from your government's checking account, because individuals can't have accounts) to Swiss Francs and wire it to the seller in Switzerland.

The dollars never leave the US. The Fed wires the converted Swiss Francs to the seller's correpondent bank's Swiss Franc account at the Fed for onward forwarding by that bank to the seller's bank account overseas. The USDs never leave the US banking system.

g77 at 50 --

I hoped I'd get a laugh. I was afraid I'd gotten Orwell wrong.

Aren't all the generals technocrats and soon-to-be millionaires nowadays? At least here in the large, industrial states. I don't mind so much the technocrats, it's the careless billionaires you have to watch for. You need technocrats for complex organizations and social institutions. They will respond to the stated metrics, and regrettably, it's the billionaires that set them.

As to The Donald on his proposed war crime, well, again, I don't watch Hannity, nor did I chase down the clip , so I have to take LewRockwell.com at their word. I think him capable of saying and doing it.

I see the comparison to Mussolini's personality. Very different backgrounds, of course. It's arguable if Italian fascism was any more philosophically and scientifically grounded then The Donaldism.

noirette, jfl, 42 & 49 --

Yeah, why would we want to pay Trump any mind? Trump's money and media savvy make him a player. I mean, he's only the front-runner. Despite Fox trying to undercut him, and the Republican Inner Party trying to maneuver an acceptable candidate out of the process.

And that's actually the important part. For all of the work by the RNC to avoid the spectacle of their last presidential primary, the situation is now demonstrably worse than four years ago. The good doctor Frankenstein once again finds a problem with his tea-stained creation.

Even if he drops out of the race, his reception is an important data point on the ongoing radicalization of the Rethuglicans. Given the various dimensions involved, mapping it could take a little thought.

I think you're late in dating the opening of Campaign 2016. That was in November 2012.

rufus magister | Aug 18, 2015 12:51:26 AM | 53

rufus magister | Aug 18, 2015 1:03:37 AM | 54

fast freddy at 51 --

Sounds plausible, sure would make for some nice clips....

No, seriously. The NY Post quotes Buck Henry as saying "Everybody went there, whether they want to admit it or not...."

Vintage Red | Aug 18, 2015 2:07:34 AM | 56

ps -- We'll know for sure if DSK turns up as an adviser.

rufus magister | Aug 18, 2015 1:05:08 AM | 55

"He then said that if he is elected president, he would invade, conquer, and occupy Iran, confiscate their oil reserves, and use the money to give "millions — millions !!!" to "our veterans."

If these are Trump's words I have to wonder. Quite apart from questions of whether it constitutes a war crime or another of his fugue states, promising "millions" to millions of veterans amounts to a few bucks each. Whatever Trump's fantasy world, I have a hard time believing a billionaire wouldn't know he's at least an order of magnitude too low for this to make any financial sense. Either he's making an error comparable to that of Dr. Evil (Trump just waking from decades of suspended animation might explain a few things), or he is having a bit of a jest as he threatens to appropriate Iran's oil wealth, then distribute from the spoils millions to the masses while keeping trillions for himself.

rufus magister | Aug 18, 2015 8:30:47 AM | 57

Here are highlights from the transcript LewRockwell.com is sloppily conflating several points. Let's be fair, though, a read of the transcipt shows that with Trump bouncing around, this is easily done.

On Iran: "We have to go in — we have to stop, if we can, this deal from being made...."

On ISIS: "We have to go in. So I did not want to go in, but now it's totally messed up. Now you have ISIS -- and others, but you have ISIS cutting off Christians' heads and others. They cut off anybody's head. They're drowning them. They're cutting off their heads. We have to go in with force. We have to take the oil because the oil is their source of wealth."

Note that before that bit, he is talking about Iran, so maybe both ISIS's Areas of Control as well as Iran need invading.

Asked about where he get political counsel from, he says "You know, I listen to your show. I listen to other shows. I see some very smart guys on the shows. I like Bolton. I like a lot of the guys that you have and that, frankly, I see on other networks."

He adds that he depends on "some very smart people in my organization" and his children the most.

Piotr Berman | Aug 18, 2015 9:48:09 AM | 58

One can pull isolated utterances of Trump as less crazy than his competitors. For example, the most educated among them, brain surgeon Dr. Carson advocates flat tax as most close to the Biblical idea of tithing. "The Earth is flat and so should be our taxes." By the way of contrast, Trump is against:"If I make a billion dollars and somebody else is making $100, and he's paying $10 and I'm paying -- to me, I don't know. I like somewhat of a graduation. What you have now is a system that's too complicated. " Note that he resisted a temptation to compute 10% of one billion, you do not want arithmetic mistakes in front of national TV. So you see an actually sensible stand -- progressive tax, nicely called "graduated" not to offend conservatives, and neatly packaged for morons. And he computed 10% if $100 in public, all by himself, and that makes him tower over the mediocre field.

That said, it reminds a youtube video I have seen recently. I young British hipster comments on the scandal of that day, something that Min. Lavrov muttered during a joint press conference with his Saudi guest and colleague, and which his translators left out. What did he say? The Briton dwells on Lavrov's facial expression which were surprisingly varied during the speech of his colleague. Gloom? Disgust? Stomach ache? The young Briton commented that as he does not know Russian he does not what Lavrov said, but it is clear what he wanted to say.

Here Trump replies to the question whom he would put in his cabinet: "We use the guy that gives, you know, $50,000 to a Bush or to a Hillary, and they become secretary of this, or they -- it's ridiculous. I would use the greatest minds. I know the best negotiators. I'm in New York. I know the good ones, the bad ones.

I always say, I know the ones that are no good that people think are good. I know people that you've never heard of that are better than all of them. I would put people in charge of these massive economic machines."

Actually, this sounded great, if we want to get rid of Washington insiders we need some sharp guys from New York. No pandering to peasants! Onwards to Iowa State Fair!

ab initio | Aug 18, 2015 5:25:25 PM | 60

Bolton,a tough indigestible stale cookie,made mush by Zionist milk.
All these warmongers are about as tough as wet paper bags.

dahoit | Aug 18, 2015 11:37:34 AM | 59

MRW @52

What is the point you are trying to make about USD staying in the US? Currency bills don't have to stay inside a border. And the same goes for EUR, GBP, CNY, CHF, etc. Crude producers can and do price contracts in several currencies as well as using varied terms. China does trade in many currencies too.

If a currency is convertible it makes no difference.

And by the way in the example you provide the Fed cannot wire Swiss Francs unless it has bought it by exchanging dollars. And where would they buy CHF? In the forex market. Banks trade trillions in currencies every day.

Skip | Aug 18, 2015 6:49:11 PM | 61

The Republican leadership proved in 2012, that partnered with voting machine manufacturers, they were ready, willing and able to steal any Republican primary election (or caucus) necessary to get Shit Romney nominated.

Here's an article that describes the concept for the statistically challenged like me: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1

Interestingly, the 100% sole recipient of all these shenanigans was Willard Mitt Romney. All other candidates suffered from the charade. So these people care not who's in the driver's seat. They poison the count to their liking.

Piotr Berman | Aug 19, 2015 2:12:25 AM | 62

Wayoutwest: Trump has already shown that the Political Class are nothing more than parasites so lets save time and money and have the real power, the Oligarchs run things directly.

History shows that there are problems with "oligarchs running things directly". By the definition, "oligos = few", there is a number of oligarchs and they do not agree with each other on everything. If they have power DIRECTLY, then they can fund their own battalions, and in the spirit of competition, we get a number of those. Then an oligarch displeased by some banking regulation, without any doubt manipulated by his adversaries, send few companies of soldiers to remove regulators from his bank, and make a show of force in front of Finance Ministry. But his adversaries bring their own troops to the capital. Then some banks get vandalized by wee bombs made with TNT. Welcome to Kiyiv. It is much more orderly in Moscow where oligarchs have to plead their cases before authorities, private battalions are not tolerated (so oligarchs have to do with smallish detachments of armed body guards.

Hey skippy, glad to see you here.

Jackrabbit | Aug 19, 2015 2:27:22 AM | 63

Jackrabbit | Aug 19, 2015 3:25:55 AM | 64

Trump: Part of the problem
Sanders: too timid

With respect to oligarchy, it is difficult to raise awareness/support from the public until economic conditions are disastrous. I think that one reason for this is that activists often frame problems in ways that are not engaging and even self-defeating. Examples:

- Socialists often denounce capitalism despite the public's skepticism of alternatives to capitalism. (over-reaching);

- Reformers often focus on a narrow (e.g. financial regulation) issue or a specific event (e.g. Fukusima);

- Activists often focus on wrongs done to a certain group (e.g. Minorities).

- Politicians pull punches (e.g. attack "inequality" not oligarchy).


In any case, those who have an understanding of how oligarchy (aka "crony capitalism) operates have not made a convincing case to the public. Much of the public still think that oligarchy's benefits outweigh the drawbacks and/or that oligarchy is an intrinsic and even necessary feature of a capitalist system.

Oligarchy is a CHOICE, and one that has terrible consequences for those that are subject to its effects. As far as I can tell (via observation over many years), there is a direct relationship between the strength of oligarchy and problems like:

- pollution/environmental destruction;

- austerity/poverty/despair;

- social conflict/divisiveness;

- undue control of information/propaganda;

- restriction of civil liberties/militarism;

- the general inhumanity/excesses related to a permanent/semi-permanent overclass and underclass;

- and more.


The plight of countries like Ukraine and Greece are extreme examples of the evils that accompany oligarchy. Given the millions that suffer or die (e.g suicide, toxins, war) from this choice, oligarchy fits the definition of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity">Crime Against Humanity (CAH)*.

Furthermore, 'calling out' oligarchy as a CAH would elevate the issue in the public's eyes and spark debate on necessary reforms of tax and campaign finance laws.

Oligarchics like to hide behind a veneer of democracy. Compliant governments claim the legitimacy of a democracy but operate to satisfy the needs of their oligarchy. This system is so entrenched that only a dramatically improved public awareness/understanding has any hope of effecting change.

Instead of supporting an oligarch like Trump, who has nevertheless done a service by raising awareness of the problem (calling his political opponents "puppets"), it would be far more preferable to build an anti-oligarch movement that may (eventually) free humanity from the parasites and pretenders that plague us. And I doubt very much that Sanders is the guy that could lead that movement as his dedication to the Democratic Party/establishment is too strong.

=

* Note:
Defining oligarchy as a CAH:
(1) doesn't criminalize wealth. Governments can choose how best to avoid oligarchy. Nevertheless, there doesn't appear to be any benefit to society when individuals are allowed to amass more than a few hundred million dollars/euro of wealth.

(2) doesn't imply that all oligarchs or officials in an oligarchical political system are criminals. Only policymakers that enact laws to create or protect an oligarchic system would be subject to criminal prosecution.

PS http://www.alternet.org/story/145667/the_economic_elite_have_engineered_an_extraordinary_coup%2C_threatening_the_very_existence_of_the_middle_class">I am not the first to call oligarch-related effects a CAH (and there may be others). And don't miss http://greenspansbodycount.blogspot.com/">Greenspan's Body Count.

BLOCKQOTE | Aug 19, 2015 3:59:40 AM | 65

Trump: Part of the problem
Sanders: too timid

Saunders: Even more a "part of the problem" than Trump

Saunders is already a corrupt elected official and is already financed by Arms Companies.

To see someone write so many words, and not even bother to mention that Bernie Saunders, given his easily-available voting record in the Senate, is PROVABLY a warmongering scumbag, makes ya wonder about either their agenda, their honesty, or their level of intelligence.

MRW | Aug 19, 2015 6:16:57 AM | 66

ab initio @60

What's my point?

You wrote: The Saudis also convert a fair amount of USD they receive for their crude into other assets including stocks and bonds denominated in other currencies as well as real estate in Europe and Asia. and Note there is nothing precluding Saudis from selling their crude in other currencies as well as in barter trades.

Doesn't make any difference what the Saudis buy with their USD. The USD the Saudis receive for their oil from all countries worldwide comes from here, and stays here. The Saudis have three choices with their USD at the Fed: exchange the USD for Riyals (SAR) on the open market and wire them home, buy US goods with the money, or move their USD from their checking account at the Fed to their savings account and buy US treasury securities. That's it.

No one pays for their oil in US hard currency. (1) There's a $10,000 limit on physical dollars leaving this country (each instance), and (2) most countries want to hold onto their foreign currency (USD hard cash) to exchange for their citizens. The total amount of physical dollars in existence is about 11%-12%. Outside the USA, Russian citizens hold the most according to the Federal Reserve a few years ago, although that may have changed with countries like Ecuador using the USD.

The Saudis aren't going to price their oil in Yuan unless they want (or need) Yuan. (Ditto other currencies) Do they? Is there a great bond market for Yuan that would keep their oil sales to China liquid? I'm not aware of one yet, so that would mean Saudi Arabia would have to do the exchanging to get the Yuan into the currency it wants; why would it do that instead of asking for it upfront? The Brits opened the first Chinese bond market only last year. Can't compare that with the US treasury securities market, which is trading around $750 billion/day, and is highly liquid.

And by the way in the example you provide the Fed cannot wire Swiss Francs unless it has bought it by exchanging dollars.
Exactly, which is why the dollars remain here. But it would be the buyer (Saudi Govt in my example) who initiated the USD/CHF exchange first on the open market and the Fed that wires it to the seller's correspondent Swiss bank at the Federal Reserve for onward forwarding to the seller, something that the Fed would do as US banker for the Saudi Govt. (The Fed only has four clients: US govt, US banks, Foreign Govts, Foreign banks.)
Jackrabbit: Much of the public still think that oligarchy's benefits outweigh the drawbacks and/or that oligarchy is an intrinsic and even necessary feature of a capitalist system.

We would need some more precise definition, but I would agree that under a reasonable definition, oligarchy is an intrinsic, and even necessary, feature of capitalism. Capitalism has its ruling class, and within that class it is "one dollar, one vote". And most of those dollars is in the hands of a minority within that class. Moreover, in the near future it is hard to see a reasonable alternative, it is more like "does power give money or money give power". For that reason, I would advocate to "focus on a narrow (e.g. financial regulation) issue or a specific event (e.g. Fukushima)".

More precisely, I would focus on cases of clear divergence of interest between companies and individuals. Clearly, individuals have to work somewhere, and buy something, so they need companies in various ways, so there exists a convergence of interests. But it does not imply deference to corporate requests on each and every issue, and there are systemic ways in which companies work against individuals. For example, we cannot carry all needed cash around, so we need some banking/payment system, and the owners of that system effectively touch almost any movement of cash that we make, say, a withdrawal from ATM. Large associations like Visa/Mastercards to a degree function as a private tax system, and if that system could operate according to their wishes they would take trillions. Luckily, their rapacity puts them in conflict with other oligarchs so it is not that bad, but clearly it could be better.

Piotr Berman | Aug 19, 2015 8:02:17 AM | 67

fast freddy | Aug 19, 2015 8:43:57 AM | 68

Most Americans will, when prompted, within two seconds, jump to the defense of the super rich, and concurrently, bash the government.

They defend the rich because they believe:

the free market (markets fallacy) fairy tale wherein every American has a relatively equal chance to become rich.
the rich earned their money and no one has a right to take away anyone else's money (and give it to someone else).
the rich are job creators.

They bash the government because the government:

makes them pay taxes
imposes excessive regulation and restrictions on the rich (hindering job creation).
gives their tax money to black or brown people who get everything for free.

They like Wars because it's a team sport.

Jackrabbit | Aug 19, 2015 1:20:19 PM | 70

Anonymous @15 said: " Hillary's no one's choice in an ideal world. But she's the only thing standing in the way of a Bush revival. Another Bush in the White House - my God."

You'll forgive me for not seeing the qualitative difference between the Bush and Clinton dynasties. Both represent an antidemocratic aristocracy if nothing else-- and their foreign and domestic policies have been fairly indistinguishable. One fox does not break into a henhouse to save the chickens from being eaten by another fox.

As far as the Trump campaign is concerned, it is amusing although some suspect there might be more sinister motives than a simple lark by the idle riche.

Monolycus | Aug 19, 2015 11:05:30 AM | 69

Piotr Berman | Aug 19, 2015 8:02:17 AM | 67

Our current system of virtually unlimited accumulation of wealth PLUS virtually unlimited political donations means that a few oligarchs can get together and choose the next President. By all accounts, this is what happened with Obama (to the great consternation of the Clintons).

Setting tight limits on the accumulation of wealth and political donations would GREATLY diminish the ability to select election winners and influence candidates once they ARE elected. Still, there is no guaranty. But raising the issue to one of CAH means that if some finds a way around the rules, they would still be subject to legal jeopardy.

@69

Trump could see this election as his last chance to take on the challenge of a run for the presidency and he could actually have some affection for the country that helped him to become wealthy. When if ever have we read of a professional politician or oligarch reporting for jury duty? I don't think anyone can truthfully call Trump 'Idle' and this run may have been a lark but I think he is very surprised by the growing support for his campaign.

The real entertainment is being offered by the political minions who are running around as if their hair were on fire trying to counter this unplanned insurgency. The link above shows just how paranoid and desperate they have become now channeling Birthers or Truthers to make their feeble attacks.

Wayoutwest | Aug 19, 2015 1:39:20 PM | 71

jfl | Aug 19, 2015 4:38:31 PM | 72

@69 monolycus

Just read the headline. I thought the same about Romney's campaign in 2012. There's not a dime's worth of difference in the outcome, although there's a couple of buck's worth in style, for the fashion conscious.

ben | Aug 19, 2015 8:26:07 PM | 74

If I may put it simply and clearly. There are notable differences between Democrat and Republicans. Both will f*** over, but the D's are far more liberal with the lube.

Neither of the status quo parties will produce fundamental change. Which one in office will be more effective in preventing, forestalling, undermining, and reversing change? Mildly delusional is better than bat-shit crazy.

I would add, if you are content to choose from the lesser of two evils, all you get offered is evils.

Properly organized, something like the Sanders campaign might be a good step away from finance capitalism. But in as much as he has forsworn a third party candidacy -- unlike Trump -- "One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards."

BTW, that was a revealing clip -- Trump, stern, self-possessed as the debate audience booed his refusal to pledge not to run as an independent.

And speaking of Trump -- Bolton was speaking of Trump on Fox. I'm not sitting through it myself, but I'm thinking it's not a slap-down.

In a "Meet the Press" interview, Trump said that he would deploy U.S. troops to Iraq to seize ISIS-held oil fields, in order to choke the financial spigot that fuels the terror group.

Bolton agreed that it's going to take strong American leadership - and a much more comprehensive plan than what President Obama has put forth - to stop ISIS.

And why not say nice things about someone who gave your PAC money? The WaPo behaves like real journalists with a list of The Donalds political contributions. The list makes for interesting reading, as it tells an enlightening tale. He's gone from bipartisan to beyond the fringe.

Submitted for your approval -- a grand to Steve Lonegan, the Garden State's most prominent ultra-rightist, a perennial (losing) candidate, in 2014. Same year Bolton got 5G's for his abortive presidential run, via a PAC.

rufus magister | Aug 19, 2015 8:00:58 PM | 73

@ 69& 73: I agree.

Monolycus | Aug 20, 2015 5:21:50 AM | 75

Wayoutwest @ 71 asked: "When if ever have we read of a professional politician or oligarch reporting for jury duty?"

It happens rarely enough that my cynical first impression upon hearing about it was that it must have been deliberately finagled in order to get him off the stumping/fundraising circuit for a bit, or to be spun into a campaign liability if he got out of serving it.

MRW | Aug 20, 2015 7:42:09 AM | 76

@67,
We would need some more precise definition, but I would agree that under a reasonable definition, oligarchy is an intrinsic, and even necessary, feature of capitalism.

Hunh? You're confusing governance and economics.

Under no reasonable definition is oligarchy a necessary feature of capitalism. Oligarchy is a necessary feature of fascism.

MRW | Aug 20, 2015 7:48:00 AM | 77

@ fast freddy | Aug 19, 2015 8:43:57 AM | 68,

No truer words, Freddy. Especially this:

They bash the government because the government:

makes them pay taxes
imposes excessive regulation and restrictions on the rich (hindering job creation).
gives their tax money to black or brown people who get everything for free.

They like Wars because it's a team sport.

Jackrabbit | Aug 20, 2015 11:22:19 AM | 78

MRW | Aug 20, 2015 7:42:09 AM | 76

I'm not confusing governance and economics but I probably should've better explained the assumption that I make about how they are connected.

The economically powerful have the means to influence government. In this way, economics 'seeps' into governance.

How they apply that influence is also clear:
- reducing nominal tax rates;
- making taxes as regressive as possible (flat tax!);
- adding/safeguarding lucrative tax loopholes;
- obtaining bailouts / leniency when they get into trouble;
- obtaining pork-barrel or sweetheart deals;
- business friendly laws;
- maximizing trade opportunities;
- immigration that keeps wages down and people divided;
- austerity;
- strong policing, to protect property and minimize protest;
- etc.

Governance is just another market. I think many understand by now that markets need to be regulated or they are subject to manipulation.

[Aug 23, 2015] Trump says tax code is letting hedge funds 'get away with murder'

Aug 23, 2015 | Reuters

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump blasted hedge fund managers on Sunday as mere "paper pushers" who he said were "getting away with murder" by not paying their fair share of taxes.

In a telephone interview on CBS's "Face the Nation," Trump vowed to reform the tax laws if elected and said the current system was harming middle class Americans who currently faced higher tax rates than traders on Wall Street.

"The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky," Trump said.

"They are energetic. They are very smart. But a lot of them - they are paper-pushers. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It's ridiculous, ok?"

Trump's comments were referring to the so-called "carried interest loophole" - a provision in the tax code which allows private equity and hedge fund managers pay taxes at the capital gains rate instead of the ordinary income rate. Many fund managers are in the top income bracket, but the capital gains tax bracket is only 20 percent. While these individuals are also required to pay an additional 3.8 percent surtax on their net investment income, this total rate is still far lower than the 39.6 percent rate that top wage earners must pay on their ordinary income.

"Some of them are friends of mine. Some of them, I couldn't care less about," Trump said. "It is the wrong thing. These guys are getting away with murder. I want to lower the rates for the middle class."

[Aug 23, 2015] Clinton Takes Soft Swipe at Shortermism

Interview was conducted by SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN
.
"...Short-termism is a term used to describe how corporations run to create short-term profit for shareholders at the expense of long-term investment. Clinton's proposal, which her own campaign describes as progressive, would raise capital gains rates to up to six years on top of income bracket taxpayers, and according to her proposal encourage investment in communities that need it the most."
.
"...CEOs, if they're able to raise the price of their stocks, they're able to raise their bonuses and their incomes. And this is a big factor explaining the huge increase in inequality in the top 1 percent, or 0.01 percent, whose pay is 300, 400 times the average worker's pay. It also helps to explain why there's been relatively little investment, despite the massive increases in profits and CEO pay over the last several decades."
.
"...But what Bill Lazonick has proposed is actually making them illegal, these kinds of manipulative short-term buybacks. That kind of policy would be a lot stronger. Of course, the CEOs that support Hillary Clinton would in no way support that, but perhaps that's something that Bernie Sanders can come out in favor of. "
.
"...what they do is rather than spending money on R and D and invest in skill training for workers, it just gives the money back to the rich shareholders and the CEOs by raising the stock price. So what we find is that some of these companies who have massive profits, they go to the government to say, you know, they want the government to invest in research and development and so forth. But in fact the corporations themselves could do that with their own profits, but instead of doing that they're giving it back to the shareholders and manipulating their stock prices so the CEOs can make a killing. "
Aug 23, 2015 | therealnews.com

Short-termism is a term used to describe how corporations run to create short-term profit for shareholders at the expense of long-term investment. Clinton's proposal, which her own campaign describes as progressive, would raise capital gains rates to up to six years on top of income bracket taxpayers, and according to her proposal encourage investment in communities that need it the most.

PERIES: So Jerry, tell us first about what short-termism is, and why it's so important for the campaign.

EPSTEIN: Right. So this is an issue, a term that's been around for at least several decades. It refers to the orientation of CEOs of corporations, non-financial and financial corporations both, trying to make the quick buck, making their business decisions based on what will generate short-run returns, primarily to raise the value of their stock prices rather than thinking about the long term, and making the long-term investments that really contribute to economic growth, productivity growth, innovation.

Now, why do CEOs do this? Well, a main reason is that their pay is based on stock options and other things linked to the stock market. So CEOs, if they're able to raise the price of their stocks, they're able to raise their bonuses and their incomes. And this is a big factor explaining the huge increase in inequality in the top 1 percent, or 0.01 percent, whose pay is 300, 400 times the average worker's pay. It also helps to explain why there's been relatively little investment, despite the massive increases in profits and CEO pay over the last several decades.

PERIES: So then why is this advantageous for her, given that most of her support and perhaps dollars is going to come from Wall Street? And of course the CEOs themselves have a lot to say in terms of those contributions. Why is it advantageous for her to address this short-termism?

EPSTEIN: Well, I think this issue has, as I said, been around for a while. It's clearly linked up to this huge issue of growing inequality brought to the fore by the Occupy Wall Street movement and others. So this is a way for her to talk about an issue that's out there even in the business world. Even in the world of financial and non-financial managers who have been decrying this for a long time. So this is a way for her to make a mark, to make a stamp on this issue. But unfortunately the policies that she has proposed really aren't very strong and really won't do a lot about it.

It's good that she's actually getting this back on the agenda, but it's kind of a cheap shot in the sense that what she's proposing isn't going to really do all that much about it.

PERIES: The two main candidates, Clinton as well as Bernie Sanders, are all beginning to address this issue. How do they differ and where would you put your dollars behind?

EPSTEIN: Well this issue of short-termism has been addressed by Bernie Sanders with respect to Wall Street. And in particular he has proposed what's called a financial transactions tax, which is a tax that was first proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s, and my colleague Bob Pollin has proposed it and analyzed it, Dean Baker. Many others have analyzed it. And this is a tax on short-term trading in stock markets and securities markets that will raise the cost of those kinds of trades, discourage this kind of churning and short-term trading without at the same time discouraging long-term investments.

Now, Bernie Sanders has not actually addressed this broader issue of short-termism with respect to non-financial corporations and CEOs, and indeed it would be a good idea for, for him to do so. Hillary Clinton, in her speech, in decrying what she calls quarterly capitalism--that is, CEOs [of] non-financial corporations who are concerned about the profitability and the stock price over each quarter, as you said in your intro proposed raising the capital gains tax on investments held for less than a year. Try to get CEOs to have a much more long-term orientation.

The problem is that most of her policies really don't have much teeth, as economist Bill Lazonick who is at the University of Massachusetts Lowell has written about. Lazonick has pointed out that one of the big problems with short-termism is the fact that corporations use stock buybacks. That is, they take their profits and rather than reinvesting them in the corporation, increasing training, increasing wages, they use this money to buy back the stock. That's a way of raising the stock price. That's a way of benefiting financial institutions that own stock, benefiting CEOs. And what Hillary Clinton has done is said there should be more transparency about these stock buybacks.

But what Bill Lazonick has proposed is actually making them illegal, these kinds of manipulative short-term buybacks. That kind of policy would be a lot stronger. Of course, the CEOs that support Hillary Clinton would in no way support that, but perhaps that's something that Bernie Sanders can come out in favor of.

PERIES: Jerry, we know that many corporations such as AT&T and Fiverr spend more on buybacks than R and D. Do stock buybacks generate useful value for our economy or not?

EPSTEIN: Well according to Bill Lazonick, who again I think is the top expert on this topic, the answer is no. what they do is rather than spending money on R and D and invest in skill training for workers, it just gives the money back to the rich shareholders and the CEOs by raising the stock price. So what we find is that some of these companies who have massive profits, they go to the government to say, you know, they want the government to invest in research and development and so forth. But in fact the corporations themselves could do that with their own profits, but instead of doing that they're giving it back to the shareholders and manipulating their stock prices so the CEOs can make a killing.

So no, these kinds of buybacks in most cases have very little social benefit. It would be better for corporations to use this money to raise productivity and raise wages and skills for workers.

Gerald Epstein is codirector of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) and Professor of Economics. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Princeton University. He has published widely on a variety of progressive economic policy issues, especially in the areas of central banking and international finance, and is the editor or co-editor of six volumes.

Rob

If Clinton became president she would be an Obama clone. Loads of liberal rhetoric with Wall st. policies. More of the same.

Powerofmind

I hope people don't get their hopes up about Mrs. Clinton doing anything about stock buybacks, it's just rhetoric, pure and simple

itsthethird > William W Haywood

Exactly thus a need for economic revolution to change division of resources and power to conform with 21st century advances whereby no longer labor or earnings for shareholders the means of distribution but community based systems with shared ownership responsibility to replace capitalist liability protections and cost externalization. Starting with banking reforms ending with personal identification reforms whereby individualism reflects fact that all earth is more an organism than property to be owned or controlled for private gains. There can be no individualism without community success and no advances of social gains without acknowledgement that nothing works in isolation. Today oligarchs control most all gains made possible by technology to expand ownership control over earth for private progeny not for all. What technology is shared is shared for ownership apartheid for oligarchy class which desires to maintain advantage gained over generations or expand same regardless of social costs such as austerity, war, murder, imprisonment etc. Oligarchs won't surrender without great social costs demanded. However the greater the costs imposed greater resistance expands until critical point of collapse then oligarchs may become more reasonable when systems are failing or maybe not.

Bernie Karpf

Ok.....Hillary Clinton is making bogus promises to re-configure the financial accounting tricks of the wealthy. Well, why shouldn't she? She represents them!

itsthethird

Corporatism controls world markets thus the populations governments which requires majority of shares held publicly be owned or controlled by corporate interests representing oligarchy controlled ownership which empowers oligarchs with extra-ordinary powers over government representation whereby pretense of elections simply give illusion of representation. How can public be represented when federal reserve banking cartel controls nations debt costs thus government? Banking cartels rule not citizens, citizens merely pay the bills. So is it any wonder that oligarchs favor short term gains over long term national equity?

[Aug 22, 2015]How Complex Systems Fail

"...This is really a profound observation – things rarely fail in an out-the-blue, unimaginable, catastrophic way. Very often just such as in the MIT article the fault or faults in the system are tolerated. But if they get incrementally worse, then the ad-hoc fixes become the risk (i.e. the real risk isn't the original fault condition, but the application of the fixes)."
.
"...It is that cumulative concentration of wealth and power over time which is ultimately destabilizing, producing accepted social norms and customs that lead to fragility in the face of both expected and unexpected shocks. This fragility comes from all sorts of specific consequences of that inequality, from secrecy to group think to brain drain to two-tiered justice to ignoring incompetence and negligence to protecting incumbents necessary to maintain such an unnatural order."
.
"...The problem arises with any societal order over time in that corrosive elements in the form of corruptive behavior (not principle based) by decision makers are institutionalized. I may not like Trump as a person but the fact that he seems to unravel and shake the present arrangement and serves as an indicator that the people begin to realize what game is being played, makes me like him in that specific function."
.
".... . .but it is also true that the incentives of the capitalist system ensure that there will be more and worse accidents than necessary, as the agents involved in maintaining the system pursue their own personal interests which often conflict with the interests of system stability and safety."
.
"...Globalization factors in maximizing the impact of Murphy's Law..."
.
"...Operators or engineers controlling or modifying the system are providing feedback. Feedback can push the system past "safe" limits. Once past safe limits, the system can fail catastrophically Such failure happen very quickly, and are always "a surprise"."
.
"...Where one can only say: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do""
.
"...The Iron Law of Institutions (agents act in ways that benefit themselves in the context of the institution [system], regardless of the effect those actions have on the larger system) would seem to mitigate against any attempts to correct our many, quickly failing complex social and technological systems."
Aug 21, 2015 | naked capitalism
August 21, 2015 by Yves Smith

Lambert found a short article by Richard Cook that I've embedded at the end of the post. I strongly urge you to read it in full. It discusses how complex systems are prone to catastrophic failure, how that possibility is held at bay through a combination of redundancies and ongoing vigilance, but how, due to the impractical cost of keeping all possible points of failure fully (and even identifying them all) protected, complex systems "always run in degraded mode". Think of the human body. No one is in perfect health. At a minimum, people are growing cancers all the time, virtually all of which recede for reasons not well understood.

The article contends that failures therefore are not the result of single causes. As Clive points out:

This is really a profound observation – things rarely fail in an out-the-blue, unimaginable, catastrophic way. Very often just such as in the MIT article the fault or faults in the system are tolerated. But if they get incrementally worse, then the ad-hoc fixes become the risk (i.e. the real risk isn't the original fault condition, but the application of the fixes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire#Wigner_energy documents how a problem of core instability was a snag, but the disaster was caused by what was done to try to fix it. The plant operators kept applying the fix in ever more extreme does until the bloody thing blew up.

But I wonder about the validity of one of the hidden assumptions of this article. There is a lack of agency in terms of who is responsible for the care and feeding of complex systems (the article eventually identifies "practitioners" but even then, that's comfortably vague). The assumption is that the parties who have influence and responsibility want to preserve the system, and have incentives to do at least an adequate job of that.

There are reasons to doubt that now. Economics has promoted ways of looking at commercial entities that encourage "practitioners" to compromise on safety measures. Mainstream economics has as a core belief that economies have a propensity to equilibrium, and that equilibrium is at full employment. That assumption has served as a wide-spread justification for encouraging businesses and governments to curtail or end pro-stability measures like regulation as unnecessary costs.

To put it more simply, the drift of both economic and business thinking has been to optimize activity for efficiency. But highly efficient systems are fragile. Formula One cars are optimized for speed and can only run one race.

Highly efficient systems also are more likely to suffer from what Richard Bookstaber called "tight coupling." A tightly coupled system in one in which events occur in a sequence that cannot be interrupted. A way to re-characterize a tightly coupled system is a complex system that has been in part reoptimized for efficiency, maybe by accident, maybe at a local level. That strips out some of the redundancies that serve as safeties to prevent positive feedback loops from having things spin out of control.

To use Bookstaber's nomenclature, as opposed to this paper's, in a tightly coupled system, measures to reduce risk directly make things worse. You need to reduce the tight coupling first.

A second way that the economic thinking has arguably increased the propensity of complex systems of all sorts to fail is by encouraging people to see themselves as atomized agents operating in markets. And that's not just an ideology; it's reflected in low attachment to institutions of all sorts, ranging from local communities to employers (yes, employers may insist on all sorts of extreme shows of fealty, but they are ready to throw anyone in the dust bin at a moment's notice). The reality of weak institutional attachments and the societal inculcation of selfish viewpoints means that more and more people regard complex systems as vehicles for personal advancement. And if they see those relationships as short-term or unstable, they don't have much reason to invest in helping to preserving the soundness of that entity. Hence the attitude called "IBY/YBG" ("I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone") appears to be becoming more widespread.

I've left comments open because I'd very much enjoy getting reader reactions to this article. Thanks!

James Levy August 21, 2015 at 6:35 am

So many ideas….
Mike Davis argues that in the case of Los Angeles, the key to understanding the city's dysfunction is in the idea of sunk capital – every major investment leads to further investments (no matter how dumb or large) to protect the value of past investments.

Tainter argues that the energy cost (defined broadly) of maintaining the dysfunction eventually overwhelms the ability of the system to generate surpluses to meet the rising needs of maintenance.

Goldsworthy has argued powerfully and persuasively that the Roman Empire in the West was done in by a combination of shrinking revenue base and the subordination of all systemic needs to the needs of individual emperors to stay in power and therefore stay alive. Their answer was endlessly subdividing power and authority below them and using massive bribes to the bureaucrats and the military to try to keep them loyal.

In each case, some elite individual or grouping sees throwing good money after bad as necessary to keeping their power and their positions. Our current sclerotic system seems to fit this description nicely.

Jim August 21, 2015 at 8:15 am

I immediately thought of Tainter's "The Complex of Complex Cultures" when I starting reading this. One point that Tainter made is that collapse is not all bad. He presents evidence that the average well being of people in Italy was probably higher in the sixth century than in the fifth century as the Western Roman Empire died. Somewhat like death being necessary for biological evolution collapse may be the only solution to the problem of excessive complexity.

xxx August 22, 2015 at 4:39 am

Tainter insists culture has nothing to do with collapse, and therefore refuses to consider it, but he then acknowledges that the elites in some societies were able to pull them out of a collapse trajectory. And from the inside, it sure as hell looks like culture, as in a big decay in what is considered to be acceptable conduct by our leaders, and what interests they should be serving (historically, at least the appearance of the greater good, now unabashedly their own ends) sure looks to be playing a big, and arguably the defining role, in the rapid rise of open corruption and related social and political dysfunction.

Praedor August 21, 2015 at 9:19 am

That also sounds like the EU and even Greece's extreme actions to stay in the EU.

jgordon August 21, 2015 at 7:44 am

Then I'll add my two cents: you've left out that when systems scale linearly, the amount of complexity, and points for failure, and therefore instability, that they contain scale exponentially–that is according to the analysis of James Rickards, and supported by the work of people like Joseph Tainter and Jared Diamond.

Ever complex problem that arises in a complex system is fixed with an even more complex "solution" which requires ever more energy to maintain, and eventually the inevitably growing complexity of the system causes the complex system to collapse in on itself. This process requires no malignant agency by humans, only time.

nowhere August 21, 2015 at 12:10 pm

Sounds a lot like JMG and catabolic collapse.

jgordon August 21, 2015 at 2:04 pm

Well, he got his stuff from somewhere too.

Synoia August 21, 2015 at 1:26 pm

There are no linear systems. They are all non-linear because the include a random, non-linear element – people.

Jim August 21, 2015 at 2:26 pm

Long before there were people the Earth's eco-system was highly complex and highly unstable.

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 4:37 pm

The presumption that fixes increase complexity may be incorrect.

Fixes should include awareness of complexity.

That was the beauty of Freedom Club by Kaczinsky, T.

JTMcPhee August 21, 2015 at 4:44 pm

Maybe call the larger entity "meta-stable?" Astro and geo inputs seem to have been big perturbers. Lots of genera were around a very long time before naked apes set off on their romp. But then folks, even these hot, increasingly dry days, brag on their ability to anticipate, and profit from, and even cause, with enough leverage, de- stability. Good thing the macrocosms of our frail, violent, kindly, destructive bodies are blessed with the mechanisms of homeostasis.

Too bad our "higher" functions are not similarly gifted… But that's what we get to chat about, here and in similar meta-spaces…

MikeW August 21, 2015 at 7:52 am

Agree, positive density of ideas, thoughts and implications.

I wonder if the reason that humans don't appreciate the failure of complex systems is that (a) complex systems are constantly trying to correct, or cure as in your cancer example, themselves all the time until they can't at which point they collapse, (b) that things, like cancer leading to death, are not commonly viewed as a complex system failure when in fact that is what it is. Thus, while on a certain scale we do experience complex system failure on one level on a daily basis because we don't interpret it as such, and given that we are hardwired for pattern recognition, we don't address complex systems in the right ways.

This, to my mind, has to be extended to the environment and the likely disaster we are currently trying to instigate. While the system is collapsing at one level, massive species extinctions, while we have experienced record temperatures, while the experts keep warning us, etc., most people to date have experienced climate change as an inconvenience — not the early stages of systemwide failure.

Civilization collapses have been regular, albeit spaced out, occurrences. We seem to think we are immune to them happening again. Yet, it isn't hard to list the near catastrophic system failures that have occurred or are currently occurring (famines, financial markets, genocides, etc.).

And, in most systems that relate to humans with an emphasis on short term gain how does one address system failures?

Brooklin Bridge August 21, 2015 at 9:21 am

Good-For-Me-Who-Effing-Cares-If-It's-Bad-For-You-And-Everyone-Else

would be a GREAT category heading though it's perhaps a little close to "Imperial Collapse"

Whine Country August 21, 2015 at 9:52 am

To paraphrase President Bill Clinton, who I would argue was one of the major inputs that caused the catastrophic failure of our banking system (through the repeal of Glass-Steagall), it all depends on what the definition of WE is.

jrs August 21, 2015 at 10:12 pm

And all that just a 21st century version of "apres moi le deluge", which sounds very likely to be the case.

Oregoncharles August 21, 2015 at 3:55 pm

JT – just go to the Archdruid site. They link it regularly, I suppose for this purpose.

Jim August 21, 2015 at 8:42 am

Civilizational collapse is extremely common in history when one takes a long term view. I'm not sure though that I would describe it as having that much "regularity" and while internal factors are no doubt often important external factors like the Mongol Onslaught are also important. It's usually very hard to know exactly what happened since historical documentation tends to disappear in periods of collapse. In the case of Mycenae the archaeological evidence indicates a near total population decline of 99% in less than a hundred years together with an enormous cultural decline but we don't know what caused it.

As for long term considerations the further one tries to project into the future the more uncertain such projections become so that long term planning far into the future is not likely to be evolutionarily stable. Because much more information is available about present conditions than future conditions organisms are probably selected much more to optimize for the short term rather than for the largely unpredicatble long term.

Gio Bruno August 21, 2015 at 1:51 pm

…it's not in question. Evolution is about responding to the immediate environment. Producing survivable offspring (which requires finding a niche). If the environment changes (Climate?) faster than the production of survivable offspring then extinction (for that specie) ensues.

Now, Homo sapien is supposedly "different" in some respects, but I don't think so.

Jim August 21, 2015 at 2:14 pm

I agree. There's nothing uniquely special about our species. Of course species can often respond to gradual change by migration. The really dangerous things are global catastrophes such as the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous or whatever happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary (gamma ray burst maybe?).

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 4:46 pm

Interesting that you sit there and type on a world-spanning network batting around ideas from five thousand years ago, or yesterday, and then use your fingers to type that the human species isn't special.

Do you really think humans are unable to think about the future, like a bear hibernating, or perhaps the human mind, and its offspring, human culture and history, can't see ahead?

Why is "Learn the past, or repeat it!" such a popular saying, then?

diptherio August 21, 2015 at 9:24 am

The Iron Law of Institutions (agents act in ways that benefit themselves in the context of the institution [system], regardless of the effect those actions have on the larger system) would seem to mitigate against any attempts to correct our many, quickly failing complex social and technological systems.

jgordon August 21, 2015 at 10:40 am

This would tend to imply that attempts to organize large scale social structures is temporary at best, and largely futile. I agree. The real key is to embrace and ride the wave as it crests and callapses so its possible to manage the fall–not to try to stand against so you get knocked down and drowned. Focus your efforts on something useful instead of wasting them on a hopeless, and worthless, cause.

Jim August 21, 2015 at 2:21 pm

Civilization is obviously highly unstabe. However it should remembered that even Neolithic cultures are almost all less than 10,000 years old. So there has been little time for evolutionary adaptations to living in complex cultures (although there is evidence that the last 10,000 years has seen very rapid genetic changes in human populations). If civilization can continue indefinitely which of course is not very clear then it would be expected that evolutionary selection would produce humans much better adapted to living in complex cultures so they might become more stable in the distant future. At present mean time to collapse is probably a few hundred years.

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm

But perhaps you're not contemplating that too much individual freedom can destabilize society. Is that a part of your vast psychohistorical equation?

washunate August 21, 2015 at 10:34 am

Well said, but something I find intriguing is that the author isn't talking so much about civilizational collapse. The focus is more on various subsystems of civilization (transportation, energy, healthcare, etc.).

These individual components are not inherently particularly dangerous (at a systemic/civilizational level). They have been made that way by purposeful public policy choices, from allowing enormous compensation packages in healthcare to dismantling our passenger rail system to subsidizing fossil fuel energy over wind and solar to creating tax incentives that distort community development. These things are not done for efficiency. They are done to promote inequality, to allow connected insiders and technocratic gatekeepers to expropriate the productive wealth of society. Complexity isn't a byproduct; it is the mechanism of the looting. If MDs in hospital management made similar wages as home health aides, then how would they get rich off the labor of others? And if they couldn't get rich, what would be the point of managing the hospital in the first place? They're not actually trying to provide quality, affordable healthcare to all Americans.

It is that cumulative concentration of wealth and power over time which is ultimately destabilizing, producing accepted social norms and customs that lead to fragility in the face of both expected and unexpected shocks. This fragility comes from all sorts of specific consequences of that inequality, from secrecy to group think to brain drain to two-tiered justice to ignoring incompetence and negligence to protecting incumbents necessary to maintain such an unnatural order.

Linus Huber August 21, 2015 at 7:05 pm

I tend to agree with your point of view.

The problem arises with any societal order over time in that corrosive elements in the form of corruptive behavior (not principle based) by decision makers are institutionalized. I may not like Trump as a person but the fact that he seems to unravel and shake the present arrangement and serves as an indicator that the people begin to realize what game is being played, makes me like him in that specific function. There may be some truth in Thomas Jefferson's quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Those presently benefiting greatly from the present arrangement are fighting with all means to retain their position, whether successfully or not, we will see.

animalogic August 22, 2015 at 2:18 am

Well said, washunate. I think an argument could be run that outside economic areas, the has been a drive to de-complexity.
Non economic institutions, bodies which exist for non market/profit reasons are or have been either hollowed out, or co-opted to market purposes. Charities as vast engines of self enrichment for a chain of insiders. Community groups, defunded, or shriveled to an appendix by "market forces". The list goes on…and on.
Reducing the "not-market" to the status of sliced-white-bread makes us all the more dependant on the machinated complexities of "the market"….god help us….

Jay Jay August 21, 2015 at 8:00 am

Joseph Tainter's thesis, set out in "The Collapse of Complex Societies" is simple: as a civilization ages its use of energy becomes less efficient and more costly, until the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in, generates its own momentum and the system grinds to a halt. Perhaps this article describes a late stage of that process. However, it is worth noting that, for the societies Tainter studied, the process was ineluctable. Not so for our society: we have the ability -- and the opportunity -- to switch energy sources.

Moneta August 21, 2015 at 5:48 pm

In my grandmother's youth, they did not burn wood for nothing. Splitting wood was hard work that required calories.

Today, we heat up our patios at night with gas heaters… The amount of economic activity based on burning energy not related to survival is astounding.

A huge percentage of our GDP is based on economies of scale and economic efficiencies but are completely disconnected from environmental efficiencies.

This total loss is control between nature and our lifestyles will be our waterloo .

TG August 21, 2015 at 8:20 am

An interesting article as usual, but here is another take.

Indeed, sometimes complex systems can collapse under the weight of their own complexity (Think: credit default swaps). But sometimes there is a single simple thing that is crushing the system, and the complexity is a desperate attempt to patch things up that is eventually destroyed by brute force.

Consider a forced population explosion: the people are multiplied exponentially. This reduces per capita physical resources, tends to reduce per-capita capital, and limits the amount of time available to adapt: a rapidly growing population puts an economy on a treadmill that gets faster and faster and steeper and steeper until it takes superhuman effort just to maintain the status quo. There is a reason why, for societies without an open frontier, essentially no nation has ever become prosperous with out first moderating the fertility rate.

However, you can adapt. New technologies can be developed. New regulations written to coordinate an ever more complex system. Instead of just pumping water from a reservoir, you need networks of desalinization plants – with their own vast networks of power plants and maintenance supply chains – and recycling plans, and monitors and laws governing water use, and more efficient appliances, etc.etc.

As an extreme, consider how much effort and complexity it takes to keep a single person alive in the space station.

That's why in California cars need to be emissions tested, but in Alabama they don't – and the air is cleaner in Alabama. More people needs more controls and more exotic technology and more rules.

Eventually the whole thing starts to fall apart. But to blame complexity itself, is possibly missing the point.

Steve H. August 21, 2015 at 8:30 am

No system is ever 'the'.

Jim Haygood August 21, 2015 at 11:28 am

Two words, Steve: Soviet Union.

It's gone now. But we're rebuilding it, bigger and better.

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 4:54 pm

If, of course, bigger is better.

Facts not in evidence.

Ulysses August 21, 2015 at 8:40 am

"But because system operations are never trouble free, human practitioner adaptations to changing conditions actually create safety from moment to moment. These adaptations often amount to just the selection of a well-rehearsed routine from a store of available responses; sometimes, however, the adaptations are novel combinations or de novo creations of new approaches."

This may just be a rationalization, on my part, for having devoted so much time to historical studies– but it seems to me that historians help civilizations prevent collapse, by preserving for them the largest possible "store of available responses."

aronj August 21, 2015 at 8:41 am

Yves,

Thanks for posting this very interesting piece! As you know, I am a fan Bookstaber's concept of tight coupling. Interestingly, Bookstaber (2007) does not reference Cook's significant work on complex systems.

Before reading this article, I considered the most preventable accidents involve a sequence of events uninterrupted by human intelligence. This needs to be modified by Cook's points 8, 9. 10 and 12.

In using the aircraft landing in the New York river as an example of interrupting a sequence of events, the inevitable accident occurred but no lives were lost. Thus the human intervention was made possible by the unknowable probability of coupling the cause with a possible alternative landing site. A number of aircraft accidents involve failed attempts to find a possible landing site, even though Cook's point #12 was in play.

Thanks for the post!!!!!

Brooklin Bridge August 21, 2015 at 8:47 am

A possible issue with or a misunderstanding of #7. Catastrophic failure can be made up of small failures that tend to follow a critical path or multiple critical paths. While a single point of origin for catastrophic failure may rarely if ever occur in a complex system, it is possible and likely in such a system to have collections of small failures that occur or tend to occur in specific sequences of order. Population explosion (as TG points out) would be a good example of a failure in a complex social system that is part of a critical path to catastrophic failure.

Such sequences, characterized by orders of precedence, are more likely in tightly coupled systems (which as Yves points out can be any system pushed to the max). The point is, they can be identified and isolated at least in situations where a complex system is not being misused or pushed to it's limits or created due to human corruption where such sequences of likelihood may be viewed or baked into the system (such as by propaganda->ideology) as features and not bugs.

Spring Texan August 21, 2015 at 8:53 am

I agree completely that maximum efficiency comes with horrible costs. When hospitals are staffed so that people are normally busy every minute, patients routinely suffer more as often no one has time to treat them like a human being, and when things deviate from the routine, people have injuries and deaths. Same is true in other contexts.

washunate August 21, 2015 at 10:40 am

Agreed, but that's not caused by efficiency. That's caused by inequality. Healthcare has huge dispariaties in wages and working conditions. The point of keeping things tightly staffed is to allow big bucks for the top doctors and administrators.

susan the other August 21, 2015 at 2:55 pm

Yes. When one efficiency conflicts with and destroys another efficiency. Eq. Your mother juggled a job and a family and ran around in turbo mode but she dropped everything when her kids were in trouble. That is an example of an efficiency that can juggle contradictions and still not fail.

JTMcPhee August 21, 2015 at 11:38 am

Might this nurse observe that in hospitals, there isn't and can't be a "routine" to deviate from, no matter how fondly "managers" wish to try to make it and how happy they may be to take advantage of the decent, empathic impulses of many nurses and/or the need to work to eat of those that are just doing a job. Hence the kindly (sic) practice of "calling nurses off" or sending them home if "the census is down," which always runs aground against a sudden influx of billable bodies or medical crises that the residual staff is expected to just somehow cope with caring for or at least processing, until the idiot frictions in the staffing machinery add a few more person-hours of labor to the mix. The larger the institution, the greater the magnitude and impact (pain, and dead or sicker patients and staff too) of the "excursions from the norm."

It's all about the ruling decisions on what are deemed (as valued by where the money goes) appropriate outcomes of the micro-political economy… In the absence of an organizing principle that values decency and stability and sustainability rather than upward wealth transfer.

Will August 21, 2015 at 8:54 am

I'll join the choir recommending Tainter as a critical source for anybody interested in this stuff.

IBG/YBG is a new concept for me, with at least one famous antecedent. "Après moi, le déluge."

diptherio August 21, 2015 at 9:17 am

The author presents the best-case scenario for complex systems: one in which the practitioners involved are actually concerned with maintaining system integrity. However, as Yves points out, that is far from being case in many of our most complex systems.

For instance, the Silvertip pipeline spill near Billings, MT a few years ago may indeed have been a case of multiple causes leading to unforeseen/unforeseeable failure of an oil pipeline as it crossed the Yellowstone river. However, the failure was made immeasurably worse due to the fact that Exxon had failed to supply that pump-station with a safety manual, so when the alarms started going off the guy in the station had to call around to a bunch of people to figure out what was going on. So while it's possible that the failure would have occurred no matter what, the failure of the management to implement even the most basic of safety procedures made the failure much worse than it otherwise would have been.

And this is a point that the oil company apologists are all too keen to obscure. The argument gets trotted out with some regularity that because these oil/gas transmission systems are so complex, some accidents and mishaps are bound to occur. This is true–but it is also true that the incentives of the capitalist system ensure that there will be more and worse accidents than necessary, as the agents involved in maintaining the system pursue their own personal interests which often conflict with the interests of system stability and safety.

Complex systems have their own built-in instabilities, as the author points out; but we've added a system of un-accountability and irresponsibility on top of our complex systems which ensures that failures will occur more often and with greater fall-out than the best-case scenario imagined by the author.

Brooklin Bridge August 21, 2015 at 9:42 am

As Yves pointed out, there is a lack of agency in the article. A corrupt society will tend to generate corrupt systems just as it tends to generate corrupt technology and corrupt ideology. For instance, we get lots of little cars driving themselves about, profitably to the ideology of consumption, but also with an invisible thumb of control, rather than a useful system of public transportation. We get "abstenence only" population explosion because "groath" rather than any rational assessment of obvious future catastrophe.

washunate August 21, 2015 at 10:06 am

Right on. The primary issue of our time is a failure of management. Complexity is an excuse more often than an explanatory variable.

abynormal August 21, 2015 at 3:28 pm

abynormal
August 21, 2015 at 2:46 pm

Am I the only hearing 9″Nails, March of the Pigs

Aug. 21, 2015 1:54 a.m. ET

A Carlyle Group LP hedge fund that anticipated a sudden currency-policy shift in China gained roughly $100 million in two days last week, a sign of how some bearish bets on the world's second-largest economy are starting to pay off.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-gains-100-million-in-two-days-on-bearish-china-bet-1440136499?mod=e2tw

oink oink is the sound of system fail

Oregoncharles August 21, 2015 at 3:40 pm

A very important principle:

All systems have a failure rate, including people. We don't get to live in a world where we don't need to lock our doors and banks don't need vaults. (If you find it, be sure to radio back.)

The article is about how we deal with that failure rate. Pointing out that there are failures misses the point.

cnchal August 21, 2015 at 5:05 pm

. . .but it is also true that the incentives of the capitalist system ensure that there will be more and worse accidents than necessary, as the agents involved in maintaining the system pursue their own personal interests which often conflict with the interests of system stability and safety.

How true. A Chinese city exploded. Talk about a black swan. I wonder what the next disaster will be?

hemeantwell August 21, 2015 at 9:32 am

After a skimmy read of the post and reading James' lead-off comment re emperors (Brooklin Bridge comment re misuse is somewhat resonant) it seems to me that a distinguishing feature of systems is not being addressed and therefore being treated as though it's irrelevant.

What about the mandate for a system to have an overarching, empowered regulatory agent, one that could presumably learn from the reflections contained in this post? In much of what is posted here at NC writers give due emphasis to the absence/failure of a range of regulatory functions relevant to this stage of capitalism. These run from SEC corruption to the uncontrolled movement of massive amount of questionably valuable value in off the books transactions between banks, hedge funds etc. This system intentionally has a deliberately weakened control/monitoring function, ideologically rationalized as freedom but practically justified as maximizing accumulation possibilities for the powerful. It is self-lobotomizing, a condition exacerbated by national economic territories (to some degree). I'm not going to now jump up with 3 cheers for socialism as capable of resolving problems posed by capitalism. But, to stay closer to the level of abstraction of the article, doesn't the distinction between distributed opacity + unregulated concentrations of power vs. transparency + some kind of central governing authority matter? Maybe my Enlightenment hubris is riding high after the morning coffee, but this is a kind of self-awareness that assumes its range is limited, even as it posits that limit. Hegel was all over this, which isn't to say he resolved the conundrum, but it's not even identified here.

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 5:06 pm

Think of Trump as the pimple finally coming to a head: he's making the greed so obvious, and pissing off so many people that some useful regulation might occur.

Another thought about world social collapse: if such a thing is likely, (and I'm sure the PTB know if it is, judging from the reports from the Pentagon about how Global Warming being a national security concern) wouldn't it be a good idea to have a huge ability to overpower the rest of the world?

We might be the only nation that survives as a nation, and we might actually have an Empire of the World, previously unattainable. Maybe SkyNet is really USANet. It wouldn't require any real change in the national majority of creepy grabby people.

Jim August 21, 2015 at 9:43 am

Government bureaucrats and politicians pursue their own interests just as businessmen do. Pollution was much worst in the non-capitalist Soviet Union, East Germany and Eastern Europe than it was in the Capitalist West. Chernobyl happened under socialism not capitalism. The present system in China, although not exactly "socialism", certainly involves a massively powerful govenment but a glance at the current news shows that massive governmental power does not necessarily prevent accidents. The agency problem is not unique to or worse in capitalism than in other systems.

Holly August 21, 2015 at 9:51 am

I'd throw in the theory of cognitive dissonance as an integral part of the failure of complex systems. (Example Tarvis and Aronon's recent book: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by me))

We are more apt to justify bad decisions, with bizarre stories, than to accept our own errors (or mistakes of people important to us). It explains (but doesn't make it easier to accept) the complete disconnect between accepted facts and fanciful justifications people use to support their ideas/organization/behavior.

craazymann August 21, 2015 at 10:03 am

I think this one suffers "Metaphysical Foo Foo Syndrome" MFFS. That means use of words to reference realities that are inherently ill-defined and often unobservable leading to untestable theories and deeply personal approaches to epistemological reasoning.

just what is a 'complex system"? A system implies a boundary — there are things part of the system and things outside the system. That's a hard concept to identify — just where the system ends and something else begins. So when 'the system' breaks down, it's hard to tell with any degree of testable objectivity whether the breakdown resulted from "the system" or from something outside the system and the rest was just "an accident that could have happened to anybody'"

maybe the idea is; '"if something breaks down at the worst possible time and in a way that fkks everything up, then it must have been a complex system". But it could also have been a simple system that ran into bad luck. Consider your toilet. Maybe you put too much toilet paper in it, and it clogged. Then it overflowed and ran out into your hallway with your shit everywhere. Then you realized you had an expensive Chinese rug on the floor. oh no! That was bad. you were gonna put tthat rug away as soon as you had a chance to admire it unrolled. Why did you do that? Big fckk up. But it wasn't a complex system. It was just one of those things.

susan the other August 21, 2015 at 12:14 pm

thanks for that, I think…

Gio Bruno August 21, 2015 at 2:27 pm

Actually, it was a system too complex for this individual. S(He) became convinced the plumbing would work as it had previously. But doo to poor maintenance, too much paper, or a stiff BM the "system" didn't work properly. There must have been opportunity to notice something anomalous, but appropriate oversight wasn't applied.

Oregoncharles August 21, 2015 at 3:29 pm

You mean the BM was too tightly coupled?

craazyman August 21, 2015 at 4:22 pm

It coould happen to anybody after enough pizza and red wine

people weren't meant to be efficient. paper towels and duct tape can somettmes help

This ocurred to me: The entire 1960s music revolution would't have happened if anybody had to be efficient about hanging out and jamming. You really have to lay around and do nothing if you want to achieve great things. You need many opportunities to fail and learn before the genius flies. That's why tightly coupled systems are self-defeating. Because they wipe too many people out before they've had a chance to figure out the universe.

JustAnObserver August 21, 2015 at 3:01 pm

Excellent example of tight coupling: Toilet -> Floor -> Hallway -> $$$ Rug

Fix: Apply Break coupling procedure #1: Shut toilet door.
Then: Procedure #2 Jam inexpensive old towels in gap at the bottom.

As with all such measures this buys the most important thing of all – time. In this case to get the $$$Rug out of the way.

IIRC one of Bookstaber's points was that that, in the extreme, tight coupling allows problems to propagate through the system so fast and so widely that we have no chance to mitigate before they escalate to disaster.

washunate August 21, 2015 at 10:03 am

To put it more simply, the drift of both economic and business thinking has been to optimize activity for efficiency.

I think that's an interesting framework. I would say effeciency is achieving the goal in the most effective manner possible. Perhaps that's measured in energy, perhaps labor, perhaps currency units, but whatever the unit of measure, you are minimizing that input cost.

What our economics and business thinking (and most importantly, political thinking) has primarily been doing, I would say, is not optimizing for efficiency. Rather, they are changing the goal being optimized. The will to power has replaced efficiency as the actual outcome.

Unchecked theft, looting, predation, is not efficient. Complexity and its associated secrecy is used to hide the inefficiency, to justify and promote that which would not otherwise stand scrutiny in the light of day.

BigEd August 21, 2015 at 10:11 am

What nonsense. All around us 'complex systems' (airliners, pipelines, coal mines, space stations, etc.) have become steadily LESS prone to failure/disaster over the decades. We are near the stage where the only remaining danger in air travel is human error. We will soon see driverless cars & trucks, and you can be sure accident rates will decline as the human element is taken out of their operation.

tegnost August 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm

see fukushima, lithium batteries spontaneously catching fire, financial engineering leading to collapse unless vast energy is invested in them to re stabilize…Driverless cars and trucks are not that soon, tech buddies say ten years I say malarkey based on several points made in the article, while as brooklyn bridge points out public transit languishes, and washunate points out that trains and other more efficient means of locomotion are starved while more complex methods have more energy thrown at them which could be better applied elsewhere. I think you're missing the point by saying look at all our complex systems, they work fine and then you ramble off a list of things with high failure potential and say look they haven't broken yet, while things that have broken and don't support your view are left out. By this mechanism safety protocols are eroded (that accident you keep avoiding hasn't happened, which means you're being too cautious so your efficiency can be enhanced by not worrying about it until it happens then you can fix it but as pointed out above tightly coupled systems can't react fast enough at which point we all have to hear the whocoodanode justification…)

susan the other August 21, 2015 at 12:34 pm

And the new points of failure will be what?

susan the other August 21, 2015 at 3:00 pm

So here's a question. What is the failure heirarchy. And why don't those crucial nodes of failsafe protect the system. Could it be that we don't know what they are?

Moneta August 22, 2015 at 8:09 am

While 90% of people were producing food a few decades ago, I think a large percentage will be producing energy in a few decades… right now we are still propping up our golf courses and avoiding investing in pipelines and refineries. We are still exploiting the assets of the 50s and 60s to live our hyper material lives. Those investments are what gave us a few decades of consumerism.

Now everyone wants government to spend on infra without even knowing what needs to go and what needs to stay. Maybe half of Californians need to get out of there and forget about building more infra there… just a thought.

America still has a frontier ethos… how in the world can the right investments in infra be made with a collection of such values?

We're going to get city after city imploding. More workers producing energy and less leisure over the next few decades. That's what breakdown is going to look like.

Moneta August 22, 2015 at 8:22 am

Flying might get safer and safer while we get more and more cities imploding.

Just like statues on Easter Island were getting increasingly elaborate as trees were disappearing.

ian August 21, 2015 at 4:02 pm

What you say is true, but only if you have a sufficient number of failures to learn from. A lot of planes had to crash for air travel to be as safe as it is today.

wm.annis August 21, 2015 at 10:19 am

I am surprised to see no reference to John Gall's General Systematics in this discussion, an entire study of systems and how they misbehave. I tend to read it from the standpoint of managing a complex IT infrastructure, but his work starts from human systems (organizations).

The work is organized around aphorisms — Systems tend to oppose their own proper function — The real world is what it is reported to the system — but one or two from this paper should be added to that repertoire. Point 7 seems especially important. From Gall, I have come to especially appreciate the Fail-Safe Theorem: "when a Fail-Safe system fails, it fails by failing to fail safe."

flora August 21, 2015 at 10:32 am

Instead of writing something long and rambling about complex systems being aggregates of smaller, discrete systems, each depending on a functioning and accurate information processing/feedback (not IT) system to maintain its coherence; and upon equally well functioning feedback systems between the parts and the whole — instead of that I'll quote a poem.

" Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; "

-Yates, "The Second Coming"

flora August 21, 2015 at 10:46 am

erm… make that "Yeats", as in W.B.

Steve H. August 21, 2015 at 11:03 am

So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum.

– Swift

LifelongLib August 21, 2015 at 7:38 pm

IIRC in Robert A. Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters" there's a different version:

Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas
And so, ad infinitum.

Since the story is about humans being parasitized and controlled by alien "slugs" that sit on their backs, and the slugs in turn being destroyed by an epidemic disease started by the surviving humans, the verse has a macabre appropriateness.

LifelongLib August 21, 2015 at 10:14 pm

Original reply got eaten, so I hope not double post. Robert A. Heinlein's (and others?) version:

Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em
And little fleas have lesser fleas
And so ad infinitum!

Lambert Strether August 21, 2015 at 10:26 pm

The order Siphonoptera….

Oregoncharles August 21, 2015 at 10:59 pm

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

I can't leave that poem without its ending – especially as it becomes ever more relevant.

Oldeguy August 21, 2015 at 11:02 am

Terrific post- just the sort of thing that has made me a NC fan for years.
I'm a bit surprised that the commentators ( thus far ) have not referred to the Financial Crisis of 2008 and the ensuing Great Recession as being an excellent example of Cook's failure analysis.

Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera's

All The Devils Are Here www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X/

describes beautifully how the erosion of the protective mechanisms in the U.S. financial system, no single one of which would have of itself been deadly in its absence ( Cook's Point 3 ) combined to produce the Perfect Storm.

It brought to mind Garett Hardin's The Tragedy Of The Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons . While the explosive growth of debt ( and therefore risk ) obviously jeopardized the entire system, it was very much within the narrow self interest of individual players to keep the growth ( and therefore the danger ) increasing.

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 5:14 pm

Bingo. Failure of the culture to properly train its members. Not so much a lack of morality as a failure to point out that when the temple falls, it falls on Samson.

The next big fix is to use the US military to wall off our entire country, maybe include Canada (language is important in alliances) during the Interregnum.

Why is no one mentioning the Foundation Trilogy and Hari Seldon here?

Deloss August 21, 2015 at 11:29 am

My only personal experience with the crash of a complex, tightly-coupled system was the crash of the trading floor of a very big stock exchange in the early part of this century. The developers were in the computer room, telling the operators NOT to roll back to the previous release, and the operators ignored them and did so anyway. Crash!

In Claus Jensen's fascinating account of the Challenger disaster, NO DOWNLINK, he describes how the managers overrode the engineers' warnings not to fly under existing weather conditions. We all know the result.

Human error was the final cause in both cases.

Now we are undergoing the terrible phenomenon of global warming, which everybody but Republicans, candidates and elected, seems to understand is real and catastrophic. The Republicans have a majority in Congress, and refuse–for ideological and monetary reasons–to admit that the problem exists. I think this is another unfolding disaster that we can ascribe to human error.

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 5:17 pm

"Human error" needs unpacking here. In this discussion, it's become a Deus ex Humanitas. Humans do what they do because their cultural experiences impel them to do so. Human plus culture is not the same as human. That's why capitalism doesn't work in a selfish society.

Oldeguy August 21, 2015 at 5:52 pm

" capitalism doesn't work in a selfish society "
Very true, not nearly so widely realized as it should be, and the Irony of Ironies .

BayesianGame August 21, 2015 at 11:48 am

But highly efficient systems are fragile. Formula One cars are optimized for speed and can only run one race.

Another problem with obsessing about (productive or technical) efficiency is that it usually means a narrow focus on the most measured or measurable inputs and outputs, to the detriment of less measurable but no less important aspects. Wages are easier to measure than the costs of turnover, including changes in morale, loss of knowledge and skill, and regard for the organization vs. regard for the individual. You want low cost fish? Well, it might be caught by slaves. Squeeze the measurable margins, and the hidden margins will move.

Donw August 21, 2015 at 3:18 pm

You hint at a couple fallacies.

1) Measuring what is easy instead of what is important.
2) Measuring many things and then optimizing all of them optimizes the whole.

Then, have some linear thinker try to optimize those in a complex system (like any organization involving humans) with multiple hidden and delayed feedback loops, and the result will certainly be unexpected. Whether for good or ill is going to be fairly unpredictable unless someone has actually looked for the feedback loops.

IsabelPS August 21, 2015 at 1:02 pm

Very good.

It's nice to see well spelled out a couple of intuitions I've had for a long time. For example, that we are going in the wrong direction when we try to streamline instead of following the path of biology: redundancies, "dirtiness" and, of course, the king of mechanisms, negative feedback (am I wrong in thinking that the main failure of finance, as opposed to economy, is that it has inbuilt positive feedback instead of negative?). And yes, my professional experience has taught me that when things go really wrong it was never just one mistake, it is a cluster of those.

downunderer August 22, 2015 at 3:52 am

Yes, as you hint here, and I would make forcefully explicit: COMPLEX vs NOT-COMPLEX is a false dichotomy that is misleading from the start.

We ourselves, and all the organisms we must interact with in order to stay alive, are individually among the most complex systems that we know of. And the interactions of all of us that add up to Gaia are yet more complex. And still it moves.

Natural selection built the necessary stability features into our bodily complexity. We even have a word for it: homeostasis. Based on negative feedback loops that can keep the balancing act going. And our bodies are vastly more complex than our societies.

Society's problem right now is not complexity per se, but the exploitation of complexity by system components that want to hog the resources and to hell with the whole, quite exactly parallel to the behavior of cancer cells in our bodies when regulatory systems fail.

In our society's case, it is the intelligent teamwork of the stupidly selfish that has destroyed the regulatory systems. Instead of negative feedback keeping deviations from optimum within tolerable limits, we now have positive feedback so obvious it is trite: the rich get richer.

We not only don't need to de-complexify, we don't dare to. We really need to foster the intelligent teamwork that our society is capable of, or we will fail to survive challenges like climate change and the need to sensibly control the population. The alternative is to let natural selection do the job for us, using the old reliable four horsemen.

We are unlikely to change our own evolved selfishness, and probably shouldn't. But we need to control the monsters that we have created within our society. These monsters have all the selfishness of a human at his worst, plus several natural large advantages, including size, longevity, and the ability to metamorphose and regenerate. And as powerful as they already were, they have recently been granted all the legal rights of human citizens, without appropriate negative feedback controls. Everyone here will already know what I'm talking about, so I'll stop.

Peter Pan August 21, 2015 at 1:18 pm

Formula One cars are optimized for speed and can only run one race.

Actually I believe F1 has rules regarding the number of changes that can be made to a car during the season. This is typically four or five changes (replacements or rebuilds), so a F1 car has to be able to run more than one race or otherwise face penalties.

jo6pac August 21, 2015 at 1:41 pm

Yes, F-1 allows four power planets per-season it has been up dated lately to 5. There isn't anything in the air or ground as complex as a F-1 car power planet. The cars are feeding 30 or more engineers at the track and back home normal in England millions of bit of info per second and no micro-soft is not used but very complex programs watching every system in the car. A pit stop in F-1 is 2.7 seconds anything above 3.5 and your not trying hard enough.

Honda who pride themselves in Engineering has struggled in power planet design this year and admit they have but have put more engineers on the case. The beginning of this Tech engine design the big teams hired over 100 more engineers to solve the problems. Ferrari throw out the first design and did a total rebuild and it working.

This is how the world of F-1 has moved into other designs, long but a fun read.
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/mclaren-applied-technologies-f1/

I'm sure those in F-1 system designs would look at stories like this and would come to the conclusion that these nice people are the gate keepers and not the future. Yes, I'm a long time fan of F-1. Then again what do I know.

The sad thing in F-1 the gate keepers are the owners CVC.

Brooklin Bridge August 21, 2015 at 3:25 pm

Interesting comment! One has to wonder why every complex system can't be treated as the be-all. Damn the torpedos. Spare no expense! Maybe if we just admitted we are all doing absolutely nothing but going around in a big circle at an ever increasing speed, we could get a near perfect complex system to help us along.

Ormond Otvos August 21, 2015 at 5:21 pm

If the human race were as important as auto racing, maybe. But we know that's not true ;->

jo6pac August 21, 2015 at 5:51 pm

In the link it's the humans of McLaren that make all the decisions on the car and the race on hand. The link is about humans working together either in real race time or designing out problems created by others.

Marsha August 21, 2015 at 1:19 pm

Globalization factors in maximizing the impact of Murphy's Law:

  1. Meltdown potential of a globalized 'too big to fail' financial system associated with trade imbalances and international capital flows, and boom and bust impact of volatile "hot money".
  2. Environmental damage associated with inefficiency of excessive long long supply chains seeking cheap commodities and dirty polluting manufacturing zones.
  3. Military vulnerability of same long tightly coupled 'just in time" supply chains across vast oceans, war zones, choke points that are very easy to attack and nearly impossible to defend.
  4. Consumer product safety threat of manufacturing somewhere offshore out of sight out of mind outside the jurisdiction of the domestic regulatory system.
  5. Geographic concentration and contagion of risk of all kinds – fragile pattern of horizontal integration – manufacturing in China, finance in New York and London, industrialized mono culture agriculture lacking biodiversity (Iowa feeds the world). If all the bulbs on the Christmas tree are wired in series, it takes only one to fail and they all go out.

Globalization is not a weather event, not a thermodynamic process of atoms and molecules, not a principle of Newtonian physics, not water running downhill, but a hyper aggressive top down policy agenda by power hungry politicians and reckless bean counter economists. An agenda hell bent on creating a tightly coupled globally integrated unstable house of cards with a proven capacity for catastrophic (trade) imbalance, global financial meltdown, contagion of bad debt, susceptibility to physical threats of all kinds.

Synoia August 21, 2015 at 1:23 pm

Any complex system contains non-linear feedback. Management presumes it is their skill that keeps the system working over some limited range, where the behavior approximates linear. Outside those limits, the system can fail catastrophically. What is perceived as operating or management skill is either because the system is kept in "safe" limits, or just happenstance. See chaos theory.

Operators or engineers controlling or modifying the system are providing feedback. Feedback can push the system past "safe" limits. Once past safe limits, the system can fail catastrophically Such failure happen very quickly, and are always "a surprise".

Synoia August 21, 2015 at 1:43 pm

All complex system contain non-linear feedback, and all appear manageable over a small rage of operation, under specific conditions.

These are the systems' safe working limits, and sometimes the limits are known, but in many case the safe working limits are unknown (See Stock Markets).

All systems with non-linear feedback can and will fail, catastrophically.

All predicted by Chaos Theory. Best mathematical filed applicable to the real world of systems.

So I'll repeat. All complex system will fail when operating outside safe limits, change in the system, management induced and stimulus induced, can and will redefine those limits, with spectacular results.

We hope and pray system will remain within safe limits, but greed and complacency lead us humans to test those limits (loosen the controls), or enable greater levels of feedback (increase volumes of transactions). See Crash of 2007, following repeal of Glass-Stegal, etc.

Brooklin Bridge August 21, 2015 at 4:05 pm

It's Ronnie Ray Gun. He redefined it as, "Safe for me but not for thee." Who says you can't isolate the root?

Synoia August 21, 2015 at 5:25 pm

Ronnie Ray Gun was the classic example of a Manager.

Where one can only say: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"

Oregoncharles August 21, 2015 at 2:54 pm

Three quite different thoughts:

First, I don't think the use of "practitioner" is an evasion of agency. Instead, it reflects the very high level of generality inherent in systems theory. The pitfall is that generality is very close to vagueness. However, the piece does contain an argument against the importance of agency; it argues that the system is more important than the individual practitioners, that since catastrophic failures have multiple causes, individual agency is unimportant. That might not apply to practitioners with overall responsibility or who intentionally wrecked the system; there's a naive assumption that everyone's doing their best. I think the author would argue that control fraud is also a system failure, that there are supposed to be safeguards against malicious operators. Bill Black would probably agree. (Note that I dropped off the high level of generality to a particular example.)

Second, this appears to defy the truism from ecology that more complex systems are more stable. I think that's because ecologies generally are not tightly coupled. There are not only many parts but many pathways (and no "practitioners"). So "coupling" is a key concept not much dealt with in the article. It's about HUMAN systems, even though the concept should apply more widely than that.

Third, Yves mentioned the economists' use of "equilibrium." This keeps coming up; the way the word is used seems to me to badly need definition. It comes from chemistry, where it's used to calculate the production from a reaction. The ideal case is a closed system: for instance, the production of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen in a closed pressure chamber. You can calculate the proportion of ammonia produced from the temperature and pressure of the vessel. It's a fairly fast reaction, so time isn't a big factor.

The Earth is not a closed system, nor are economies. Life is driven by the flow of energy from the Sun (and various other factors, like the steady rain of material from space). In open systems, "equilibrium" is a constantly moving target. In principle, you could calculate the results at any given condition , given long enough for the many reactions to finish. It's as if the potential equilibrium drives the process (actually, the inputs do).

Not only is the target moving, but the whole system is chaotic in the sense that it's highly dependent on variables we can't really measure, like people, so the outcomes aren't actually predictable. That doesn't really mean you can't use the concept of equilibrium, but it has to be used very carefully. Unfortunately, most economists are pretty ignorant of physical science, so ignorant they insistently defy the laws of thermodynamics ("groaf"), so there's a lot of magical thinking going on. It's really ideology, so the misuse of "equilibrium" is just one aspect of the system failure.

Synoia August 21, 2015 at 5:34 pm

Really?

"equilibrium…from chemistry, where it's used to calculate the production from a reaction"

That is certainly a definition in one scientific field.

There is another definition from physics.

When all the forces that act upon an object are balanced, then the object is said to be in a state of equilibrium.

However objects on a table are considered in equilibrium, until one considers an earthquake.

The condition for an equilibrium need to be carefully defined, and there are few cases, if any, of equilibrium "under all conditions."

nat scientist August 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm

Equilibrium ceases when Chemistry breaks out, dear Physicist.

Synoia August 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm

Equilibrium ceases when Chemistry breaks out

This is only a subset.

Oregoncharles August 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm

I avoided physics, being not so very mathematical, so learned the chemistry version – but I do think it's the one the economists are thinking of.

What I neglected to say: it's an analogy, hence potentially useful but never literally true – especially since there's no actual stopping point, like your table.

John Merryman August 21, 2015 at 3:09 pm

There is much simpler way to look at it, in terms of natural cycles, because the alternative is that at the other extreme, a happy medium is also a flatline on the big heart monitor. So the bigger it builds, the more tension and pressure accumulates. The issue then becomes as to how to leverage the consequences. As they say, a crisis should never be wasted. At its heart, there are two issues, economic overuse of resources and a financial medium in which the rent extraction has overwhelmed its benefits. These actually serve as some sort of balance, in that we are in the process of an economic heart attack, due to the clogging of this monetary circulation system, that will seriously slow economic momentum.

The need then is to reformulate how these relationships function, in order to direct and locate our economic activities within the planetary resources. One idea to take into consideration being that money functions as a social contract, though we treat it as a commodity. So recognizing it is not property to be collected, rather contracts exchanged, then there wouldn't be the logic of basing the entire economy around the creation and accumulation of notational value, to the detriment of actual value. Treating money as a public utility seems like socialism, but it is just an understanding of how it functions. Like a voucher system, simply creating excess notes to keep everyone happy is really, really stupid, big picture wise.

Obviously some parts of the system need more than others, but not simply for ego gratification. Like a truck needs more road than a car, but an expensive car only needs as much road as an economy car. The brain needs more blood than the feet, but it doesn't want the feet rotting off due to poor circulation either.
So basically, yes, complex systems are finite, but we need to recognize and address the particular issues of the system in question.

Bob Stapp August 21, 2015 at 5:30 pm

Perhaps in a too-quick scan of the comments, I overlooked any mention of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book, Antifragile. If so, my apologies. If not, it's a serious omission from this discussion.

Local to Oakland August 21, 2015 at 6:34 pm

Thank you for this.

I first wondered about something related to this theme when I first heard about just in time sourcing of inventory. (Now also staff.) I wondered then whether this was possible because we (middle and upper class US citizens) had been shielded from war and other catastrophic events. We can plan based on everything going right because most of us don't know in our gut that things can always go wrong.

I'm genX, but 3 out of 4 of my grandparents were born during or just after WWI. Their generation built for redundancy, safety, stability. Our generation, well. We take risks and I'm not sure the decision makers have a clue that any of it can bite them.

Jeremy Grimm August 22, 2015 at 4:23 pm

The just-in-time supply of components for manufacturing was described in Barry Lynn's book "Cornered" and identified as creating extreme fragility in the American production system. There have already been natural disasters that shutdown American automobile production in our recent past.

Everything going right wasn't part of the thinking that went into just-in-time parts. Everything going right — long enough — to steal away market share on price-point was the thinking. Decision makers don't worry about any of this biting them. Passing the blame down and golden parachutes assure that.

flora August 21, 2015 at 7:44 pm

This is really a very good paper. My direct comments are:

point 2: yes. provided the safety shields are not discarded for bad reasons like expedience or ignorance or avarice. See Glass-Steagall Act, for example.

point 4: yes. true of all dynamic systems.

point 7: 'root cause' is not the same as 'key factors'. ( And here the doctor's sensitivity to malpractice suits may be guiding his language.) It is important to determine key factors in order to devise better safety shields for the system. Think airplane black boxes and the 1932 Pecora Commission after the 1929 stock market crash.

Jay M August 21, 2015 at 9:01 pm

It's easy, complexity became too complex. And I can't read the small print. We are devolving into a world of happy people with gardens full of flowers that they live in on their cell phones.

Ancaeus August 22, 2015 at 5:22 am

There are a number of counter-examples; engineered and natural systems with a high degree of complexity that are inherently stable and fault-tolerant, nonetheless.

1. Subsumption architecture is a method of controlling robots, invented by Rodney Brooks in the 1980s. This scheme is modeled on the way the nervous systems of animals work. In particular, the parts of the robot exist in a hierarchy of subsystems, e.g., foot, leg, torso, etc. Each of these subsystems is autonomously controlled. Each of the subsystems can override the autonomous control of its constituent subsystems. So, the leg controller can directly control the leg muscle, and can override the foot subsystem. This method of control was remarkably successful at producing walking robots which were not sensitive to unevenness of the surface. In other words, the were not brittle in the sense of Dr. Cook. Of course, subsumption architecture is not a panacea. But it is a demonstrated way to produce very complex engineered systems consisting of many interacting parts that are very stable.

2. The inverted pendulum Suppose you wanted to build a device to balance a pencil on its point. You could imagine a sensor to detect the angle of the pencil, an actuator to move the balance point, and a controller to link the two in a feedback loop. Indeed, this is, very roughly, how a Segway remains upright. However, there is a simpler way to do it, without a sensor or a feedback controller. It turns out that if your device just moves the balance point sinusoidaly (e.g., in a small circle) and if the size of the circle and the rate are within certain ranges, then the pencil will be stable. This is a well-known consequence of the Mathieu equation. The lesson here is that stability (i.e., safety) can be inherent in systems for subtle reasons that defy a straightforward fault/response feedback.

3. Emergent behavior of swarms Large numbers of very simple agents interacting with one another can sometimes exhibit complex, even "intelligent" behavior. Ants are a good example. Each ant has only simple behavior. However, the entire ant colony can act in complex and effective ways that would be hard to predict from the individual ant behaviors. A typical ant colony is highly resistant to disturbances in spite of the primitiveness of its constituent ants.

4. Another example is the mammalian immune system that uses negative selection as one mechanism to avoid attacking the organism itself. Immature B cells are generated in large numbers at random, each one with receptors for specifically configured antigens. During maturation, if they encounter a matching antigen (likely a protein of the organism) then the B cell either dies, or is inactivated. At maturity, what is left is a highly redundant cohort of B cells that only recognize (and neutralize) foreign antigens.

Well, these are just a few examples of systems that exhibit stability (or fault-tolerance) that defies the kind of Cartesian analysis in Dr. Cook's article.

Marsha August 22, 2015 at 11:42 am

Glass-Steagall Act: interactions between unrelated functionality is something to be avoided. Auto recall: honking the horn could stall the engine by shorting out the ignition system. Simple fix is is a bit of insulation.

ADA software language: Former DOD standard for large scale safety critical software development: encapsulation, data hiding, strong typing of data, minimization of dependencies between parts to minimize impact of fixes and changes. Has safety critical software gone the way of the Glass-Steagall Act? Now it is buffer overflows, security holes, and internet protocol in hardware control "critical infrastructure" that can blow things up.

[Aug 22, 2015] The Democratic Party's Hillary Trap

"...there is nothing Hillary can do to halt the investigations, or plug the leaks"
"...Joe would certainly be up for Chauvinist of the Year 2015. And other problems would arise for a Biden candidacy."
Aug 22, 2015 | The American Conservative
While perhaps too early for Democratic elites to panic and begin bailing out on Hillary Clinton's campaign as a doomed vessel, they would be well advised not to miss any of the lifeboat drills. For Hillary's campaign is taking on water at a rate that will sink her, if the leakage does not stop, and soon.

Initially, the issue of Hillary and the emails she sent and received as secretary of state seemed too wonkish, too complex, too trivial a matter to sink a candidacy as strong as hers. Her nomination was considered as assured as any since Vice President Richard Nixon ran unopposed in 1960.

But since it was revealed that as secretary of state she used a private server for her emails, located in her home in Chappaqua, the bleeding of public trust has been unabated. Her tortured explanation as to why she installed her own server only raised suspicions. Her erasure of 30,000 "personal emails," her initial refusal to turn her server over to State, her denials she ever received confidential information, her wiping of the server clean, her stonewalling, have all ravaged her reputation for truthfulness. And truthfulness was never Bill or Hillary's long suit.

And the issue of Clintonian entitlement and privilege has arisen again.

For Hillary showed a casualness in handling the nation's secrets that would have cost a civil servant at State, Defense or CIA his or her security clearance and job. And they would be facing charges and potentially jail time. Indeed, now that Justice and the FBI have been called in to look at Hillary's handling of state secrets, it is not impossible that at the end of this road lies a federal indictment.

Should that happen, her campaign and career would be over. And should that indictment come later rather than sooner, the Democratic Party could be headed into the election of 2016 led by a Brooklyn-born septuagenarian Socialist.

Every day that new revelations come about Hillary and her emails, and every week that passes between now and when the filing deadlines for the primaries begin to fall, this becomes a real possibility. Again, the problem here for Hillary and the Democratic Party is that the investigators at Justice, the FBI, and in a hostile Congress and the media, are far from wrapping this up.

They all have their teeth in it, and they are not going away. And there is nothing Hillary can do to halt the investigations, or plug the leaks, or, it seems, to change the subject. What, really, is the relevance of her $350 billion plan to get the super-rich to pay off student loans, if Hillary is being lawyered up?

The Democratic Party is approaching the fail-safe point. If it appears that Hillary is headed for the knacker's yard, then to whom do the Democratic elites turn, and, equally important, when do they move?

For they cannot wait too long.

Hence, a "Draft Biden" movement has begun, and veterans of President Obama's campaigns are signing on. Yet the vice president should think long and hard about whether and when he plunges into the Democratic race. For his announcement of availability would be a signal that Joe Biden thinks Hillary is politically dead, or close to it, and he is coming in to drop the hammer.

This would be seen as act of crass political opportunism, seizing upon Hillary's travails, shouldering her aside, and seizing a nomination millions of Democrats have long believed was hers by right.

How would the millions of Democratic women who have looked forward to the first woman president respond to Biden's barreling in and finishing her off? How enthusiastic would those women and feminists be for a Candidate Biden who had delivered the deathblow to Hillary and blocked for another decade any chance of a woman as president?

Joe would certainly be up for Chauvinist of the Year 2015. And other problems would arise for a Biden candidacy.

Would Bill and Hillary Clinton be out there stumping to help Joe win the presidency, when both had dreamed of her having it?

Joe would have to beat Bernie Sanders and rout the Elizabeth Warren liberals. He would have to woo back the big contributors in the Jewish community who believe Barack Obama and John Kerry threw Israel and Bibi under the bus to cut a deal that empowers the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism."

If Joe is having second thoughts about getting in, who can blame him? As the old saw goes, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

But for Democrats, such counsel comes too late. Hillary is carrying their basket of eggs, and slipping all over the sidewalk. If they procrastinate in designating someone else to catch the basket if it falls, they get Bernie. But if they move too soon, they will be charged with sabotaging the last best chance for America to elect a woman president.

A nice problem for those ubiquitous cable TV talking heads who identify themselves as "Democratic strategists."

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Copyright 2015 Creators.com

[Aug 19, 2015] Musing on Right-Wing Affinity Fraud in Politics and Economics...

Aug 19, 2015 | Economist's View

Brad DeLong:

Musing on Right-Wing Affinity Fraud in Politics and Economics...: One reaction to the rise of Donald Trump in Republican presidential primary polls has been the extraordinary hurry with which many other candidates have fallen all over themselves to endorse self-deportation.

Note, however, that by "self-deportation" I do not mean what Mitt Romney meant by the phrase: make life so unpleasant for undocumented immigrants in the United States that they decide to leave. What I mean by "self-deportation" is candidates adopting policies that would deport themselves.

Piyush Jindal's parents were Indian citizens in the United States on student visas. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father. Both of Marco Rubio's parents were Cuban citizens when he was born. Columba Bush--wife of JEB! Bush--was born a Mexican citizen in Mexico, and Wikipedia at least claims that as of her wedding she did not speak English.

Yet all are now denouncing as unforgivably lax the birthright citizenship constitutional guarantee and the naturalization laws by which they or their spouse claim American citizenship.

This is affinity fraud: saying, "I'm just like you! I think as you do! I hate immigrants! Why, I'd have applauded if the U.S. were to have deported me as a baby!" And the very non-sensicality of the claim is what makes it more credible.

But the most interesting thing to me this morning is that this sort of affinity fraud--pretending to believe, or convincing even oneself that one does believe, patently unbelievable things in order to demonstrate group allegiance--is the way America's right-wing is carrying on its internal and external discussion of economics. Paul Krugman provides three examples:

(1) Claiming to believe or actually convincing oneself that inflation is just around the corner...

(2) Claiming to believe or even believing that recessions are outbreaks of collective laziness on the part of workers and collective forgetting on the part of entrepreneurs...

(3) Claiming to believe or actually believing that doubling down on failed intellectual bets is the right strategy--that if statistical tests reject your models, so much the worse for statistical tests because the models are good...

More from Paul Krugman:

Pension-cutters and Privatizers, Oh My: I wrote Monday about the strange phenomenon of Republicans lining up to propose cuts to Social Security, a deeply unpopular policy that is, however, also a really bad idea. How unpopular? Lee Drutman has the data: only 6 percent of American voters support Social Security cuts, while a majority want it increased. I argued that this apparent act of political self-destructiveness probably reflected an attempt to curry favor with wealthy donors, who are very much at odds with the general public on this issue:...

Now we have another example: Marco Rubio has announced his health care plan, and it involves (a) greatly shrinking the tax deductibility of employer health benefits and (b) turning Medicare into a voucher system. Part (a) is favored by many economists, although I would argue wrongly, but would be deeply unpopular; part (b) is really terrible policy — proposed precisely at the moment when Medicare is showing that it can control costs better than private insurers! — and also deeply unpopular.

The strategy here, surely, is to propose things that voters would hate if they understood what was on the table, but hope that Fox News plus "views on shape of planet differ" reporting elsewhere will keep them confused, while at the same time pleasing mega-donors. It might even work, especially if Trump can be pushed out of the picture and the Hillary-hatred of reporters overcomes professional scruples. But it's still amazing to watch.

'Tax cuts for the wealthy will help you too!' worked pretty well as a deception, so why not try it elsewhere?

mulp said in reply to pgl...

If only we had had a Reagan era (Jan 6, 1983) transportation bill in 2009 that hiked taxes 125% to a 40 cent per gallon Federal gas tax with no other changes other that authorizing it all be spent...

The States would be forced to follow with State gas tax hikes of similar size to raise the matching funds for transportation projects. 50% on maintenance projects, and 100% on feeders to the 10% match on new highways, similar initial builds like commuter rail or even HSR.

It starts with tax hikes which will absolutely be spent building capital no matter what.

Higher profits from price hikes will not be spent building capital assets if that would force down prices.

pgl said in reply to mulp...

Found it - inflation adjusted Federal gasoline tax:

http://mobikefed.org/2012/03/federal-gas-tax-it-historic-high-or-low

In today's terms, it was once $0.30 but had dropped to $0.10 by 1981. Reagan's increase brought it back to $0.20. The 1993 increase almost restored the $0.30 level but has not been adjusted since. We need to raise the Federal tax to at least $0.30 and then index it.


Julio said in reply to JohnH...

You say:
"...forced to keep working because the yields on their retirement plans are so low due to Fed policy"

So,
1) Their retirement plans are invested in bonds (rather than stocks which according to you are raking it in because of the Fed); presumably this is safer than stocks,
2) Their bonds are getting low interest rates, which are not enough for them to live on if they retire,
3) Therefore the Fed should be providing them with high interest rates (assuming it has that power which is another discussion),
4) But inflation is terrible for them as it would reduce their purchasing power.

So, according to you the Fed needs to generate high real interest rates, i.e. high rates but low inflation, so the savings in peoples' retirement accounts will be enough for them to live on.

Do I understand you correctly?

anne said in reply to Julio...

Nicely explained.

JohnH said in reply to Julio...

Stiglitz on the cost of Fed policy:

"There was a cost, however: all those retired individuals who had invested prudently in government bonds suddenly saw their incomes disappear. In this way, there was a large transfer of wealth from the elderly to the government, and from the government to the bankers. But little mention of the harm to the elderly was made, and little was done to offset it.

The lower interest rates might have dampened spending in other ways. Persons nearing retirement, seeing that they would have to put away that much more in safe government bonds to get the retirement income they desired, would have to save more. As would parents saving to put their kids through school. Even cursory attention to the distributional consequences of such policies would have raised doubt about the effectiveness of the low interest rate policy." [Price of Inequality]

It seems that a lot of 'liberal' economists just can't wrap their heads around the fact that low interest rates are no free lunch--there are costs.


ilsm said...

War is peace.

Chamberlain should have chosen to fight at Munich.

Every diplomacy is appeasement.

War with Iran is peace.......

Keep the masses befuddled arguing among themselves about: who runs women uteruses, the scary minorities who deserve to be gunned down almost daily, the lucky ducky poor and sneaking immigrant.

If the masses were settled enough to think critically the guillotine would be brought out.

Belief is reality, Galileo should have got more than house arrest.

ilsm said in reply to ilsm...

Epistemological closure is the only safe course.

anne said in reply to ilsm...

Every diplomacy is appeasement....

[ Clever. ]

ilsm said in reply to anne...

Blowing things up, war is only option in the GOP's scheme for foreign affairs.

"Diplomacy is appeasement" is a little less catchy than "war is peace".

mulp said in reply to anne...

Trump is simply the ultimate conservative Republican promising to deliver free lunches to everyone who is a real American.

And he argues his billions prove he can deliver his promised free lunches because he chose to be rich, the size of his riches proves he is more capable of delivering on his promises than anyone else.

Conservatives have long argued that wealth is the reward for choosing to be better at everything than anyone else who is poorer.

How can a Walker, who argues that teachers are paid more than they are worth because of evil unions, but CEOs of corporations deserve to be paid hundreds of millions because they deliver a thousand times more than teachers do, fail to concede to Trump who is worth ten billion, or is it twenty billion now, based on Trump being better than Walker because Trump is much richer.

pgl said...

Trump as a populist? Check out the survey of where people stand on Social Security (keep as is or even increase it captures 94%) and immigration (mixed):

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/18/9172653/trump-populism-immigration

Trump trumps the Republican elite. But Bernie trumps them all!

[Aug 16, 2015] The #1 Reason Why Donald Trump Is What America Needs (And Deserves) by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

"...Even IF he is just another tool of control placed in front of us for the illusion of choice I would rather he be the one over any of those others choices. At least then I could feel like I was being beaten by a competent and worth adversary. "
Aug 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Just a few weeks ago, US talk show host Stephen Colbert was asked if he thought that Donald Trump had a chance of becoming President of the United States.

Colbert responded sincerely. "Honestly, he could. And that's not an opinion of Trump. That's my opinion of our nation."

He's right. The Land of the Free may very well be ready for something completely different. And Trump certainly seems able to deliver.

He is, after all, unique in his field. Donald Trump has never served in politics, and his blunt style is almost the exact opposite of every other major candidate.

But there's one thing that really sets him apart, that, in my opinion, makes him the most qualified person for the job:

Donald Trump is an expert at declaring bankruptcy.

When the going gets tough, Trump stiffs his creditors. He's done it four times!

Candidly, this is precisely what the Land of the Free needs right now: someone who can stop beating around the bush and just get on with it already.

As history shows, a default is inevitable. The calculus is quite simple: when governments take on too much debt, they start having to divert a huge amount of their tax revenue just to pay interest. This means that, at a minimum, the government has to sacrifice many of the promises they made to their citizens. They cut other programs in order to have enough money to pay interest. But that's not too popular. So instead they typically just borrow more money… until they're borrowing money just to pay interest on money they've already borrowed. This makes the problem exponentially worse. Debt skyrockets. And soon the government is spending more on interest payments than national defense. (The US is almost at this point).

Eventually a bankrupt government has no choice: either default on their bondholders, or default on the obligations they made to their citizens. Or both.

This could take the form of a 'selective default'. For example, the US government could default on the $2.4 trillion that it owes the Federal Reserve. Or the $1.2 trillion that it owes China. These are both possibilities. But the prospect of default on "risk free" US government bonds would throw the global financial system into a tailspin; not to mention it would be the final nail in the coffin for the US dollar's dominant reserve status.

Fortunately there are easier options for Uncle Sam. The biggest debts that are owed by the US government are the obligations they owe to you.

Specifically, all the benefits like Social Security and Medicare they promised to American taxpayers. The US government's own numbers estimate these obligations at nearly $42 TRILLION, completely dwarfing what they owe China, or anyone else. Then there's the obligation they have to preserve the purchasing power of the $12 trillion held by the American people. That's the current value of the money supply in the United States right now.

History shows that debasing a nation's currency is one of the easiest and most effective ways for bankrupt governments to plunder their citizens' wealth, little by little over time.

As I explain in today's podcast, the hard reality that most people don't seem to get is that the US government is bankrupt. This isn't some wild assertion or conspiracy theory; their own financial statements show that the government's 'net worth' is NEGATIVE $17.7 trillion. And yes, the US is already borrowing money just to pay interest. In fact the combined expenses of interest on the debt plus mandatory entitlements like Social Security nearly exceed their entire tax revenue.

In other words, you could eliminate nearly everything we think of as government– the EPA, the IRS, Homeland Security, etc. and it wouldn't make a dent in the national debt.

When things get this dire, it doesn't matter who sits in the chair.

You might as well elect a chimpanzee in the hopes that Mister Bubbles might accelerate the decline. Donald Trump may very well be that chimpanzee. Especially given his unparalleled experience in declaring bankruptcy.

Nations that pass the economic point of no return can't rebuild until they hit rock bottom. And the US is way past that point. So let's get on with it already and hit the reset button.

TheRideNeverEnds

Even IF he is just another tool of control placed in front of us for the illusion of choice I would rather he be the one over any of those others choices. At least then I could feel like I was being beaten by a competent and worth adversary.

I remain skeptical of him and his true intentions though I feel he is the most genuine of any of them. Unfortunately the real truth of anything like this is only known in retrospect if ever so will any of them even try to do any of what they say were they to be elected? Nobody really knows and only time will tell.

[Aug 15, 2015]Hillary Clinton still Democrats' prize fighter despite setbacks and Sanders

Lauren Gambino from guardian's manilla envelope brigade.
.
"...It's interesting to observe the various "theories" which the punditocracy have advanced to explain Sander's rapid advancement. "
.
"...Rich people are forcing this woman down everyone's throats. We can only hope the gag reflex is strong enough to overcome this crime against democracy."
.
"..."Strategists agree Hillary is the strongest candidate" -standard corporate media talk, meaning Hillary has the most corporate money, so she is the favored candidate. Even though she has no grassroots support."
.
"...Hillary is a sly, calculating and power-obsessed individual, who does not deserve the Democrat nomination. Apart from finishing a law-degree, what has she ever accomplished?"
.
"...Hillary is the anointed candidate of the Democratic power brokers because she is the darling of Wall St. and large corporations. She has mountains of money, but little support amongst the grassroots. Bernie Sanders draws crowds of 25,000 while Hillary can't draw flies."

The Guardian


camerashy 15 Aug 2015 12:27

Just more biased crap from Guardian! What they're saying is that they prefer a Clinton win as opposed to Sanders! A totally neo-liberal paper ... Fecking Guardian!


martinleroy
15 Aug 2015 12:25

Really, maybe, after you unplug from mainstream propaganda channels like MSNBC or the N.Y.Times. The American people are sick of slick wily and his gangsta moll. After the heart break of the bankers Boy who was not just a tool and a fool the American voter is not going to let mainstream media or foreign toads with no skin in the game call the shot this election. Why are you writing this piece anyways. Your just misleading people about something (premise) so vague, her seemingly unfazed lead for hearts and minds so far ahead of the game that I can't wonder what kind of proof this piece and the writer are. Stick to stabbing whistle blowers in the back.

bcarey 15 Aug 2015 12:20

If Miss Hillary gets the dem nomination, I hope she has to face Trump in the national.
She will be destroyed.
I'm still a Sanders fan, but if it is the choice between Miss Hillary and Trump.....


Have you all been watching Trump's speeches lately.... in their entirety?
Impressive.

It's very hard to ague with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w0MD0-vbu8

It might be time to start re-thinking this....

gunnison 15 Aug 2015 12:15

It's interesting to observe the various "theories" which the punditocracy have advanced to explain Sander's rapid advancement.

Almost all commentary in the media consists of narratives about Hillary's vulnerabilities arising from her rather high "negatives", and while this is certainly a factor, it may well not be the controlling dynamic.

Bernie burst on the national scene not with any particular charismatic qualities—he's not photogenic especially, nor is he a breathtaking orator—but with a solid message about democracy and economic justice arising out of 20-something years of political experience and, rare in a politician, a solid ideological consistency.

So how about starting to analyze this situation in terms of Bernie's strengths more than in terms of Clinton's weaknesses?

He's serving up something that people like. They like it enough that they're lining up to volunteer for his campaign from coast to coast. This has nothing to do with Clinton. Nothing.

CriticAtLarge 15 Aug 2015 12:14

Hillary Clinton is stale, tired, a retread, but she is the only one standing between a Republican and the White House . But how big will this email problem get? Will Al Gore have to step in? Will it be Gore vs Bush again and will they have to recount the votes in Florida? Will it be deja vu all over again?

Anthony Irwin 15 Aug 2015 12:12

Rich people are forcing this woman down everyone's throats. We can only hope the gag reflex is strong enough to overcome this crime against democracy.

BarberGuy 15 Aug 2015 11:54

I despise her. And I can not believe the Democrats refuse to abandon her sinking ship when Sanders is rising up and actually expouses the ideals their party claims to fight for.

tommanleysays 15 Aug 2015 11:44

In June when Hillary Clinton announced her platform, we find it is a steal from Bernie's platform: Dos, so we need H Clinton when she has no original ideas and what she decides to stand for is already covered by Sanders
Hillary Clinton's platform were entirely items Bernie Sanders had already put forward in HIS platform ~
Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
Reversing Climate Change/
Raising the Minimum Wage
Pay Equity for Women Workers/
Making College Affordable for All
Taking on Wall Street

KriticalThinkingUK 15 Aug 2015 11:42

"many strategists...... do not see Sanders as a viable threat"

fuck them...thats just what they said about Corbyn over here in UK...but we've got the elitist neo-con bastards on the run...good luck with Sanders to ALL our GOOD US friends!

RickrInSF 15 Aug 2015 11:37

"Now, by all metrics, the former secretary of state retains a historically strong lead in the race to secure her party's nomination. She is well ahead of the other declared candidates in terms of poll numbers, money and endorsements."

All metrics? Poll numbers change as the election gets closer, and poll numbers are dependent on the questions asked (try polling the policies that Clinton stands for against the policies that Sanders stands for, or better yet try informing the population what the policies are instead of simply reporting who is ahead in the horse race). Money and endorsements are controlled by corporations and the dem establishment.

So the only thing that "all (the) metrics" proves is that our democracy has very little to do with an informed popular vote and has everything to do the powers that be wanting to keep power.

Samsamuel 15 Aug 2015 11:32

clinton has name recognition only. when it comes to true enthusiasm, bernie is the man who hits the ball out of the park. but, the media is obsessed with clinton. why? because she has millions in superPAC money that she will be funneling into the media pockets. when you see all these pro-clinton pieces, to me it only says: follow the $.

LetThemSnortCoke -> lellel 15 Aug 2015 11:31

The manilla envelope brigade.

furiouspurpose 15 Aug 2015 11:00

Analysis: Hillary Clinton still Democrats' prize fighter despite setbacks and Sanders

Analysis eh?

...many strategists, including Wilson, do not see Sanders as a viable threat.

Erm, that the Graun's 'analysis' is it?


phillharmonic 15 Aug 2015 10:52

"Strategists agree Hillary is the strongest candidate" -standard corporate media talk, meaning Hillary has the most corporate money, so she is the favored candidate. Even though she has no grassroots support.


LaVieEstBelle88 15 Aug 2015 10:41

Hillary is a sly, calculating and power-obsessed individual, who does not deserve the Democrat nomination.

Apart from finishing a law-degree, what has she ever accomplished? Her tenure as Secretary of State was a shambles, in particular her poor handling of the Benghazi incident, and her setting up a personal server and email to circumvent legislation aimed at ensuring transparency in government was deplorable.

I hope she looses and looses big time.


Danish5666 15 Aug 2015 10:33

America has a long and time honored tradition of scraping the bottom of the barrel, when it comes to electing presidents, such "giants" like R. Reagan, B. Clinton, G. Bush Sr. and Jr., B. Obama comes to mind. So electing H. Clinton would make sense.

Pete Shoults 15 Aug 2015 10:12

It appears the establishment has decided it's time for an establishment Republican president for awhile to maintain the faltering illusion that the US remains a constitutional republic. Because Clinton is surely unelectable in the general election for myriad reasons. So, keep playing along, brain dead partisans. The trick is on all of us and you are the useful idiots enabling your oppressors.

HiramsMaxim 15 Aug 2015 10:09

Dear Friends in the UK,

Thank you for your interest in the US Presidential elections. Please remember, they are over a year off. Almost nothing happening today will have any real relevance by November of next year.

There is one exception. I understand that The Guardian is very supportive of the Democratic Party Establishment, but it is not really that in touch with the country. Mrs. Clinton's campaign is done. When 60+% of the country thinks you are untruthful and dishonest, it is almost impossible to recover. When an Independent Socialist from Vermont (who only got elected because a GOP buffoon thought he did not heed the NRA's endorsement) is leading in State polls, it's over.

Mrs. Clinton's chances of winning the nomination (much less Presidency) are about zero. She will step aside by the end of the year.

Yours truly,

The US.

haroldclurman 15 Aug 2015 10:04

""If there is no Joe Biden, it is likely Hillary Clinton," said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York Democratic strategist and former aide to President Bill Clinton."

They are scared of Sanders. Let's face it Hillary just doesn't have what it takes. Much too compromised over the years and now still bought off. One can see it in what she says and how she says it. Even her body language is phony. Sanders is going to win the Presidency.


phillharmonic 15 Aug 2015 09:40

Hillary is the anointed candidate of the Democratic power brokers because she is the darling of Wall St. and large corporations. She has mountains of money, but little support amongst the grassroots. Bernie Sanders draws crowds of 25,000 while Hillary can't draw flies. But the possibility of a real progressive like Bernie getting the Demo nomination is unthinkable to the corporate whores who run the Democratic Party and the corporate media. So the media props up Hillary as the "strongest"(most moneyed) candidate. Wait till the primaries start- then the weakness of Queen Hillary will be obvious.

Meanwhile the corporate media will either ignore Bernie or attack him. The corporations who run America want Hillary.

[Aug 12, 2015]The Macroeconomic Divide

"...Too much of macro is ideologically driven conjecture, or worse. None of it rises to the level of demonstrated reliability necessary to ethically inform decision-making. Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no harm.'"
Economist's View
Paul Krugman:
Trash Talk and the Macroeconomic Divide: ... In Lucas and Sargent, much is made of stagflation; the coexistence of inflation and high unemployment is their main, indeed pretty much only, piece of evidence that all of Keynesian economics is useless. That was wrong, but never mind; how did they respond in the face of strong evidence that their own approach didn't work?
Such evidence wasn't long in coming. In the early 1980s the Federal Reserve sharply tightened monetary policy; it did so openly, with much public discussion, and anyone who opened a newspaper should have been aware of what was happening. The clear implication of Lucas-type models was that such an announced, well-understood monetary change should have had no real effect, being reflected only in the price level.
In fact, however, there was a very severe recession — and a dramatic recovery once the Fed, again quite openly, shifted toward monetary expansion.
These events definitely showed that Lucas-type models were wrong, and also that anticipated monetary shocks have real effects. But there was no reconsideration on the part of the freshwater economists; my guess is that they were in part trapped by their earlier trash-talking. Instead, they plunged into real business cycle theory (which had no explanation for the obvious real effects of Fed policy) and shut themselves off from outside ideas. ...

RogerFox said...

Both sides in this macro cat-fight have succeeded in demolishing the credibility of their opponents, at the expense of being demolished themselves - meaning none of them are left standing in the eyes of anyone except their own partisan groupies, who are well-represented on this site. That's nothing but good.

Too much of macro is ideologically driven conjecture, or worse. None of it rises to the level of demonstrated reliability necessary to ethically inform decision-making. Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no harm.'

RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RogerFox...

Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no harm.'

[That is some pretty ironic BS that you are totin' around. The profession does a very good job of NOT intervening in things that any one with half a brain should understand. How on earth do you think the 2008 financial crisis ever even happened? Economists could not intervene because they had black swans squatting on their hands, particularly those economist like Greenspan and Bernanke that were actually in a position to do something to prevent the crisis. Krugman wrote some articles warning about the risk, but undersold his case even to himself. Only Mike Stathis (an investments adviser and trader - not an economist) formally warned (in America's Financial Apocalypse: How to Profit from the Next Great Depression. 2006. ISBN 978-0-9755776-5-3) of the full scope of the coming disaster and that formal warning came a bit late and was almost entirely ignored. Nouriel Roubini (a.k.a. Doctor Doom), who is an economist, ran Stathis a close second on getting it correct. Dean Baker, also an economist, was in there too. It was entirely ignored by Greenspan and Bernanke, although I believe they knew what was going to happen but would rather clean up the mess than stop the party and get blamed for the fallout.

After the crisis several economists recognized the scale of the necessary stimulus to get the economy back on track, but a world of idiots, some of whom you may know, precluded an adequate response to prevent prolonged high unemployment.

Are you a market trader or just a rich man's tool? Anything else would make you just a plain ol' fool.]

DrDick said in reply to RogerFox...

"Both sides in this macro cat-fight have succeeded in demolishing the credibility of their opponents"

You, on the other hand. never had any credibility to begin with.

"Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level"

You might take your own advice, as it is evident that you know nothing about economics or policy.

Peter K. said in reply to RogerFox...

Partisan groupies? Nope. We're the objective ones in this discussion.

Mr. Fox has no criteria upon which to judge and measure things, so of course he has no basis to criticize.

"First do no harm." How can you tell that harm has been done when you don't believe in anything?

You automatically believe that taking no action and the sin of omission is the better choice? But you have no basis on which to make that assumption.

"First do no harm" when it comes to government policy is conservative propaganda.

Paine said in reply to RogerFox...

If rog refuses to entertain any notion of macro nautic efficacy

He. Has taken his position
And perhaps he ought to be left to
sit on it
as long as he likes

However

If he has a test of say Lerner's
fiscal injections model he'd like to propose
A test that if past would change is mind

> Paine said in reply to Paine ...

Cockney takes over
when I sez his
it comes out is

RogerFox said in reply to Paine ...

I don't have a dog in this fight - but I do know that it's dangerously irresponsible and unprofessional to offer advice, or act on it, unless there is adequate evidence to justify the opinion that the advice will not plausibly make the situation worse than it is otherwise destined to be. The compiled track record of all theories of macro demonstrate that none of them yet meet that test - and this ongoing internecine cat-fight has done much to reinforce that view IMO.

Academics need to understand what real economy people who give advice professionally know very well - that an idea or theory could well be right and beneficial isn't enough to justify acting on it without proper consideration to the consequences should the approach prove to be wrong. Candidly assessing down-side risks seems to be anathema to all academics - almost as if they regard the entire matter as some sort of affront to their dignity.

The Crash of '08 and the Crash of '29 both happened, with academic macro-mavens leading us straight into both of them - eyes wide shut. Better for everyone if they'd just kept their mouths shut too.

pgl:

"In the early 1980s the Federal Reserve sharply tightened monetary policy; it did so openly, with much public discussion, and anyone who opened a newspaper should have been aware of what was happening. The clear implication of Lucas-type models was that such an announced, well-understood monetary change should have had no real effect, being reflected only in the price level.In fact, however, there was a very severe recession — and a dramatic recovery once the Fed, again quite openly, shifted toward monetary expansion. These events definitely showed that Lucas-type models were wrong, and also that anticipated monetary shocks have real effects."

Note Krugman is referring to the 2nd Volcker monetary restraint which happened under Reagan's watch. Rusty needs to get his calendar out as he thinks this was all Carter. Actually Volcker was following the advise of JohnH. How did the early 1980's work out for workers?

Back in 1982/3 I heard some economist seriously saying that this recession was due to some notion that people still had high expected inflation. When I asked them WTF - they response was the Reagan deficits.

Yes macroeconomics confuses some people terribly. Look at a lot of the comments here for how confused some people get.

Paine said in reply to pgl...

Confused or partisan ?

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke said...

No divide
Comment on 'The Macroeconomic Divide'

Keynes's employment function was indeed incomplete (2012). So far, Lucas/Sargent had a point. But the NAIRU expectation-wish-wash was even worse. So far, Krugman has a point. The deeper reason is that economics not only has no valid employment theory but that it is a failed science.

Neither the loudspeakers of the profession nor the representative economists of the various schools have a clue about how the actual economy works. What unites the camps is scientific incompetence.*

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). Keynes's Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Desaster. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130421

*For details see the cross-references
http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/07/incompetence-cross-references.html

Trumping the Party and the Pollsters

"..."If they are not clinging to Jesus, then what are they clinging to?" The promise of a free lunch. That is the thing Reagan and his economists sold America, the promise of a free lunch."
"...Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are."
"..."And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character."..."
"...I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats. Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense. No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer. "
"...I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina")."

Bruce Bartlett:

Will Donald Trump Crack-up the Republican/Tea Party Alliance?: ... It appeared that Trump was the favored candidate of Fox News before the debate... Trump was clearly shocked by the sharpness of the questions at the debate...

With Trump and Fox now on opposite sides and the Republican establishment eager to quash his threat to run next year as a third party candidate, which would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory, conservatives began to choose sides. Erick Erickson, a paid Fox contributor who runs the politically powerful RedState website, publicly disinvited Trump to an Atlanta gathering at which most other Republican candidates appeared.

Of particular interest, I think, is that two of talk radio's most powerful voices, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, quickly came to Trump's defense. I suspect this was as much a market-driven decision as an honest personal one – talk radio has long catered to the more downscale, less educated wing of conservatism, where most Trump supporters dwell. Whatever else one thinks of Limbaugh and Levin, they are enormously useful allies in the sort of fight Trump is waging.

It is too soon to know whether Trump is in this for the long haul, but I would not underestimate his ego or willingness to spend freely from his vast fortune to secure the Republican nomination. Early signs are that his support remains firm in post-debate polls and he is still leading the pack. If the Republican field stays divided, preventing consolidation around the strongest non-Trump candidate, one cannot dismiss his chances of success.

Of more importance to me is that if the forces for and against Trump play out as they have so far, with Fox and Tea Party leaders siding with the GOP establishment while talk radio and large numbers of the Tea Party grassroots are committed to Trump, we may see the crackup of the Republican coalition that controls Congress, many state legislatures and governorships. The Tea Party will go down in history as just another populist movement that lacked staying power and Donald Trump will be its William Jennings Bryan.

Paul Krugman:

Tea and Trumpism: Memo to pollsters: while I'm having as much fun as everyone else watching the unsinkable Donald defy predictions of his assured collapse, what I really want to see at this point is a profile of his supporters. What characteristics predispose someone to like this guy, as opposed to accepting the establishment candidates? ...

OK, here's my guess: they look a lot like Tea Party supporters. And we do know a fair bit about that group.

First of all, Tea Party supporters are for the most part not working-class, at least in the senses that group is often defined. They're relatively affluent, and not especially lacking in college degrees.

So what is distinctive about them? Alan Abramowitz:

While conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for the Tea Party movement, racial hostility also has a significant impact on support.

So maybe Trump's base is angry, fairly affluent white racists — sort of like The Donald himself, only not as rich? And maybe they're not being hoodwinked? ...

Again, this is just guesswork until we have a real profile of typical Trump supporter. But for what it's worth, I think the Trump phenomenon is much more grounded in fundamentals than the commentariat yet grasps.

Posted by Mark Thoma on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:33 AM in Politics | Permalink Comments (75)

Mitch said...

I like Bruce Bartlett since he has the capacity to change his mind when confronted by facts, but what is so appealing about conservatism...that people gravitate to?

What are they clinging to?

I mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdcGoBOsaQM

If they are not clinging to Jesus, then what are they clinging to?

RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Mitch...

George Wallace

mulp said in reply to Mitch...

"If they are not clinging to Jesus, then what are they clinging to?"

The promise of a free lunch.

That is the thing Reagan and his economists sold America, the promise of a free lunch.

If we get rid of unions, they you will be paid more and get richer because the union bosses will not be taking a big chunk of your paycheck to make themselves rich.

If we cut taxes, you will have more money in your pocket and you will also get more free services once the private sector does what government does cheaper.

If we deregulate the banks then your mortgage interest rates will fall below the interest rate cap imposed by the Fed and the banks will pay higher interest on your savings than the Fed allows with the interest rate cap.

If we deregulate the banks and make loan sharking legal, you will be able to borrow money without a job or assets to get rich.

If we eliminate capital gains taxes then the price on your house will increase to infinity even if the roof caves in because capital always gain value if the government does not tax it.

If we get rid of the EPA, then everything will be cheaper and your getting richer from paying less will mean less pollution because pollution falls with wealth.

If lazy incompetent government workers are fired, they will start new businesses and create wealth by creating millions of jobs - just look at K Street.

The way to get rich is to go into debt.

The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of liberals.

The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of minorities.

The solution to every problem is more guns.

The solution to every problem is more prisons.

The solution to every problem is lower taxes.

The solution to every problem is less government and more prisons.

The solution to every problem is no accountability.

Trump is the ultimate conservative Republican.

Gridlock said in reply to mulp...

The solution to every problem is to drop more bombs or start another war.

Fixed it.

bakho said...

Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected.
The TeaParty has remained active. They are organized in opposition to Obama. The will remain in protest against the RINOs. The religious right has social organizations in the megachurches. In the Midwest, there has been infighting between mainstream GOP who run local govt and Tea Party and Religious Right.

Mitch said in reply to bakho...

"Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected."

He did? Plus what more do you want from him, besides single payer?

Peter K. said in reply to bakho...

"Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected."

I don't buy that. He regularly says if you want a President or Congress to do something, you have to push him to do it.

He absolves himself for not doing more by blaming his supporters for not pushing him more.

Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

FDR and LBJ had large Democratic majorities and progressive movements pushing them.

mulp said in reply to EMichael...

Progressives pushed Republicans more than they did Democrats in the 60s of both centuries.

In fact, today's Republicans and Tea Party are opposed to everything Republicans were for and did from 1860 to 1990, relabeling Republicans before 1970 as RINOs. Even Reagan is a RINO, requiring a history rewrite by conservatives which Bartlett has persisted in refuting.

I grew up when the big evil agency was the Republican created ICC. Then once it was gone, it was the Republican created EPA tasked with overseeing the Republican created EIS. We have the Republican created gun control. The Republican created 14th amendment is the latest thing to come under attack. And the Voting Rights Act that would never have passed without Republicans.

bakho said in reply to Peter K....

This is why 2010 was such a disaster. The OFA was nowhere to be found when it came to backing local candidates in local elections. Obama has not done party building. This is why he gets GOP Congress to thwart his policy. It is a profound lack of effort in the off years of 2010 and 14.

DFA stuck around after 2004 and did a lot of candidate training and party building. Which is why we saw gains in 06 and a Dem Congress.

EMichael said in reply to bakho...

Or it could have been an off election year that favored a GOP incensed by a black man in the White House.

Peter K. said in reply to EMichael...

And/or it was the lamest recovery on record as Obama appointed Bernanke and Geither in a "unity" government strategy.

The Fed hasn't hit their inflation ceiling target for 38 consecutive months.

As soon as growth returned, Geithner and company turned to deficit reduction and austerity. The deficit went from 10 percent to around 2.3 percent or less now. That's austerity.

Shouldn't do that until we have full employment and rising wages.

There's no evidence we'd get behind the curve on inflation or that deficit reduction helps much with growth.

Reduce the deficit and pay down the debt once the output gap is closed and inflation is above target.

Obama screwed the pooch on macro policy and lost Congress because of it.

Yeah the deficit and inflation are way down.

Yeah Trump is leading the Republican primary as the voters are raging.

mulp said in reply to Peter K....

So, why haven't progressives rallied like the Tea Party and Red State to defeat the Republicans in Congress and the State legislatures who are killing jobs left and right in attempts to create a depression so Republicans can argue they need to be given the White House and supermajorities in Congress to create wealth for all?

Where are the progressives in Kansas? On buses out of the State abandoning Kansas to the old people soon to be on Social Security and Medicare?

What about Texas? Where are the progressives in Texas? Hoping for an Obama military coup to send all the Republicans in Texas to gitmo?

Mike Sparrow said in reply to The Rage...

Basically this. Lets note, Trump only looks good because of the insane amount of candidates so far. It doesn't start to get real until NH. Once the number consolidates down and corporate money finds homes, you will get a new lineup.

  • I can't see the zionist wing that Huckabee/Carson represent going with Trump despite his best attempts to look like it.
  • Then we have Rubio/Christie who are Bush's cousins. Once their support flows into Bush, but will be the nominee.

The Democrats themselves, don't have any real progressives much left. Sanders is the only real one I see and he really isn't a Democrat. Everybody is waiting for Joe Biden to crash the Clinton party. If she can't rally support, that crashing may come sooner than thought.

Eric377 said in reply to EMichael...

Plenty of voters might have been incensed by a black man in the White House, yet that doesn't mean the 2010 election favored them particularly. The district lines had not been redrawn for that election and demographic trends that augmented the supposedly non-conservative population continued operating. I don't know what happened exactly, but Obama was no blacker in 2010 or 2014 than in 2008 or 2012.

ilsm said in reply to bakho...

OFA was a downer in '14. 19% of US voters who are tea baggers won the US house!

Dem hesitation to support Obomber on Iran means I DO NOT DO ANYTHING FOR DEMS in '16!

likbez said in reply to ilsm...

O'bomber is a neocon. That's why such people as Hillary or Victoria Nuland got to their positions in state Department.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/1400-the-bush-obama-neocon-doctrine

==== quote ====
It's official: When it comes to foreign policy, Barack Obama's first term is really George W. Bush's third. Bill Kristol, son of the late neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol and editor of the Weekly Standard, declared that Obama is "a born-again neocon" during a March 30 appearance on the Fox News Channel's Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld. Kristol's remark came in the context of a discussion of Obama's consultation with Kristol and other influential columnists prior to his March 28 address to the nation about his military intervention in Libya. Gutfeld quizzed Kristol about the President's asking him for "help" with his speech. Kristol denied that Obama had sought his help. Instead, Kristol said,
In case anyone missed the significance of Kristol's comment, Gutfeld made it clear: "We've got the drones. We've got military tribunals. We've got Gitmo. We're bombing Libya. People who voted for Obama got four more years of Bush."

Kristol agreed, adding: "What's the joke — they told me if I voted for McCain, we'd be going to war in a third Muslim country…. I voted for McCain and we're doing it."

=== end of quote ===

In his economic policies he is a neoliberal.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/23/obamas-neoliberal-endgame/
=== quote ===
Of course, the acknowledged master of racialized triangulation is the misleader in chief, Barack Obama whose service to elites was crucially enabled by liberals besotted by the prospect of an African American presidency, enthusiastically projecting all manner of left identitarian fantasies on to him-despite all evidence that he was committed to the corporate center right governance which has been the hallmark of his administration.

Those who had warned of this materializing hoped that the TPA, provoking Obama's shameless attacks on the Democratic labor base and sullenly dishonest smears of Elizabeth Warren, would finally open the eyes of liberals to who they were dealing with.

No such luck. It's a safe bet that the President will have some of his waning moral authority restored by Charleston. Demands from the black lives matter movement to "respect black leadership" will be cynically exploited by a ruling elite which recognized from the very beginning the unique value of cultivating multiculturally diverse spokespersons fronting for their neoliberal product line.

The strategy was first deployed by New York City mayor David Dinkins who was able to sell his candidacy to the establishment on the grounds that his left-liberal base, rather than rebel against his treasonous embrace of neoliberalism, would "take it from me."

Let's hope Barack Obama's presidency will be seen as marking the zenith of this strategy.
=== end of quote ===

Second Best said...

'They [Tea Partiers} do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.'

---

The rise of TrumpW! over Jeb! would flame out as a third party.

mulp said in reply to Second Best...

Oh, I bet a lot of Tea Party people want a third party, but only if the third party wipes away every sign of Obama, Clinton, LBJ, JFK, and FDR so they will be able to retire tax free on their private Social Security and Medicare entitlements, free to enjoy their US private sector manufactured computers, flat panel TVs, GPS, and cell phones.

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to e abrams...

(You won't be hearing from them, exactly.)

Donald Trump Defiantly Rallies a New
'Silent Majority' http://nyti.ms/1fySKYo
NYT - NICHOLAS FANDOS - JULY 11

PHOENIX — Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality television star who has taken center stage in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this week, delivered a rambling monologue on Saturday, dismissing a long list of critics — including Jeb Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Macy's — while rallying what he termed a new silent majority of voters.

Mr. Trump had less to say about immigration, the topic on which his comments have garnered so much attention, than about those who have criticized him. For more than an hour, he ticked through a list of businesses and candidates who have tried to censure him since his long-shot campaign began three weeks ago, and made light of their practices and intelligence.

"How can I be tied with this guy?" Trump said of Mr. Bush, whom many consider the Republican front-runner. "He's terrible. He's weak on immigration."

The speech had a distinctly celebratory air as Mr. Trump lauded the "massive" crowds he has drawn and the attention he has brought to immigration and other issues that he said "weak" politicians were afraid to address. ...

Benedict@Large said...

Best commentary yet.

"Donald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why deny it?" ... "In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental to his politics of truth. Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever they want. Losers get done to. ... This is his politics of enjoyment."

http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2015/08/trump-candidate-of-truth.html

bakho said...

Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are.

Trump gives them the, "I will fix the things that you are not happy with." He trashes the opposition. He learned it all with the WWF smack down. No other GOP pol wants to go No Holds Barred with the Donald. But the Donald's fans would love a good trash talk session.

EMichael said...

Steve Schmidt said exactly the same thing on Maher. Our government is incompetent and people are mad. Course, no policies have as yet followed, although Trump actually said he would replace Obamacare with "something terrific"(actual quote).

It is the same campaign(though up a notch) as the GOP has been running for decades, and it was depicted accurately in "The American President" two decades ago:

" I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.

And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/quotes

Jim Harrison said...

I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats. Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense. No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer.

mulp said in reply to Jim Harrison...

No, their doom was sealed when they caved to and hugged Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist has been promising free lunches for decades.

Demand tax cuts to destroy government and then you will instantly become a billionaire.

Adam Eran said...

I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina").

The Rage said in reply to Adam Eran...

The electorate's beliefs are not that different than the establishments on several fronts. That is the dirty secret of modern day America. Huffing and puffing with little content.

Jim Harrison said...

A couple of questions:' Is Trump worse than Berlusconi? Are Italians stupider than Americans? Why can't Trump win? After all, we sort of elected Bush.

Fred C. Dobbs said...

(Ooooh! Ooooh!)

Donald Trump Lays Out His Plans,
Part 1: The Economy, Immigration, Health Care Reform
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/08/12/donald-trump-lays-out-his-plans-part-1-economy-immigration-health-care-reform

Fox News - August 12, 2015

Don't miss Part 2 of Sean Hannity's interview with Donald Trump tonight on 'Hannity' at 10 ET!

lower middle class said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

Not only will Trump get Mexico to pay for the wall with cash (or tarrifs if necessary), but he will also take our manufacturing jobs back from them because they need us.

I wonder what the tariff will be on oil imports from Mexico?

The Rage said in reply to lower middle class...

Mexico has little of our "manufacturing".

The Rage said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

Trump uses Mexico as a cover for that most of the illegal immigration is coming from Asia right now(besides his clothing business........ah, people don't listen). Mexican illegal immigration is down more than the total decline since 2007 and will probably fall further. The "wall" is just a scam. I bet there are some people in Mexico who would love that wall.

Lets note Bernie Sanders has rejected visa programs for legal immigrants several times on the cost reduction game they impose. Trump doesn't have that virtue.

The Rage said...

People forget FDR was influenced by Jacksonian democracy merged in with 100 more years of industrial capitalism's failings. So FDR took nativism and socialism=the new deal. In Germany they called it National Socialism. White's get a huge lift while blacks get left behind. The historical trend of unemployment was fairly similar up until then. Then after the New Deal, it separated.

The progressive is more a linage from Mills with some socialism mixed in. National Socialism is more a linage from Carlyle, Ruskin and Morris.

Mr. Bill said...

I proclaim that Bernie Sanders has established intellectual authority. The message he brings is music to this FDR Democrat, progressive.

Mike Sparrow said in reply to Mr. Bill...

Does Bernie support Jim Crow like FDR? Wilson was a "progressive" as well. The modern Democratic party didn't start until Harry Truman.....who FDR didn't want as VP.

ilsm said in reply to Mike Sparrow...

True, Truman integrated the national security establishment (army) right before he turned it into a huge trough (possibly by accident).

David said...

I hate stupid, anachronistic comments about FDR. He was faced with an enormous crisis and to use his political capital the best he could. If he had gone all in abolishing Jim Crow he would have been a one term president and the depression would worsened. Communism would have been on the table.

[Aug 12, 2015] Unwavering Fealty to a Failed Theory

"...Looking beyond the rhetoric and individual policies, however, lies the Republican Party's major problem: unwavering fealty to trickle-down economics. Virtually all Republicans since Ronald Reagan was elected president have run on a platform of supply-side policies, and the 2016 election will be no different. But it should be, because there is now a growing recognition that trickle-down economics has failed...."
.
"...Republican economic "thinking" is akin to a religion. No deviation from the gospel is allowed or you become an apostate.
Like Huckabee, who is running for president, believes that the world (universe?) is only 6500 years old. "

.
"...Just as FDR laid out the solution in 1935: you start by paying workers to build productive assets that will earn the money needed to pay the workers."
Aug 12, 2015 | Economist's View
Bad economic theory (but good if you are rich) has trickled down to this cycle's Republican presidential candidates:
Unwavering Fealty to a Failed Theory, by David Madland, US News and World Report: With their first debate set for tonight, Republican candidates have been trying mightily to claim they can help address the economic problems most Americans face. ...

While Jeb Bush declared in February that "the opportunity gap is the defining issue of our time," more recently he's been forced to backtrack from his statement that Americans "need to work longer hours" in order to boost their incomes. Sen. Marco Rubio's argument that if the United States is to "remain an exceptional nation, we must close this gap in opportunity," rings a bit hollow next to his tax plan that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Gov. Scott Walker says he wants to help families achieve the "American Dream," but thinks the minimum wage is "lame," has stripped the words "living wage" from state laws, and has attacked workers' right to join together to collectively bargain for better wages.

Looking beyond the rhetoric and individual policies, however, lies the Republican Party's major problem: unwavering fealty to trickle-down economics. Virtually all Republicans since Ronald Reagan was elected president have run on a platform of supply-side policies, and the 2016 election will be no different. But it should be, because there is now a growing recognition that trickle-down economics has failed....

Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 10:16 AM in Economics, Politics, Taxes | Permalink Comments (21)

pgl :

The following is exactly right. We should note that a few pretend progressives around here are praising Jeb! for this 4% proposal even if what Jeb! is really proposing is the same old Art Laffer lies:

"Looking beyond the rhetoric and individual policies, however, lies the Republican Party's major problem: unwavering fealty to trickle-down economics. Virtually all Republicans since Ronald Reagan was elected president have run on a platform of supply-side policies, and the 2016 election will be no different. But it should be, because there is now a growing recognition that trickle-down economics has failed due to the fact that it rests on a fundamentally flawed premise. Trickle-down economics, the misguided theory that has controlled economic policymaking for more than three decades, is built on the idea that high levels of economic inequality are good. Tax cuts for the rich and less regulation of business supposedly provide incentives for the wealthy to invest and work more. Enabling "job creators" to get richer helps us all, the theory goes. So the fact that the top 1 percent now take home a greater share of the nation's income than they ever have, while incomes for the typical household are lower than they were in 1989, is not a problem in this way of thinking. In the trickle-down mindset, these facts are seen as good for the economy."

mulp said in reply to JohnH...

I see you, JohnH are equally brainwashed or brain damaged by the dominant free lunch economics principles that avoids the TANSTAAFL nature of the dismal science.

You stated absolutely nothing as an alternative that works because you do not want to pay anything, but just want a free lunch.

Just as FDR laid out the solution in 1935: you start by paying workers to build productive assets that will earn the money needed to pay the workers.

Given government is putting people to work who the private sector will not pay, the way they get paid is with taxes and fees associated with the things they build.

Conservatives call it tax and spend, but its really invest and tax.

Republicans totally oppose the bill that Reagan spoke of glowingly in 1983 which hiked taxes 125% to pay to create probably a million jobs building transportation capital assets.

Obama picked up the conservative free lunch alternative to invest and tax: public private partnerships. But conservatives expecting free lunch political solutions realized it was just dismal science: corporations would be collecting tolls that are higher than taxes would be to pay for monopoly profits.

Taxes and fees need to be higher on everyone.

Sorry Bernie, TANSTAAFL - taxing the rich is not the solution.

djb :

so much of this seems to come from the impact of Milton Friedman

his academic papers may have be somewhat restrained, but when you see him on tape talking, he sounds just like any supply sider or right wing politician talking today

especially negative on any possibility of fiscal interventions, and ridicules the concept that interventions can improve aggregate demand and thus the economy

according to Keynes, Ricardo did not believe that inadequate aggregate demand was even possible

David :

I don't think the appeal of trickle down is based on econ or empirical evidence, and as such whether it fails or not is completely irrelevant to the right.

It is a perversion of identity politics as a moral prejudice. Rich people by dint of their wealth are superior and poor people are inferior and deserve their lot. Race is key here. Poor Southern whites on Medicaid and food stamps vote against their interest bc they're not those people.

It's always divide and conquer with the right.

Fred C. Dobbs

(This ought to be a prominent Dem issue,
but it isn't. Why is that? The GOPsters
will pervert it, make it about turning
1%ers into .01%ers)

Why the New Research on Mobility Matters:
An Economist's View http://nyti.ms/1F0ZQQb
via @UpshotNYT - Justin Wolfers - May 4

Hundreds of studies have demonstrated that the odds of economic success vary across neighborhoods. The far more difficult question is whether that's because neighborhoods nurture success (or failure), or whether they just attract those who would succeed (or fail) anyway.

A new study by the Harvard economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, when read in combination with an important study they wrote with Lawrence Katz, makes the most compelling case to date that good neighborhoods nurture success. ...

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/nbhds_exec_summary.pdf

reason :

How about an alternative, bubble up economics. Money doesn't flow down - it flows UP. Spread money around and it will spent on things that companies owned by the wealthy produce, instead of concentrating on cutting costs, those companies can concentrate instead on increasing productivity and expanding production. The trick is that the market will pick the best producers, but the best producers of WHAT. Goods for everyman or trinkets for the wealthy.

gunste :

Republican economic "thinking" is akin to a religion. No deviation from the gospel is allowed or you become an apostate.
Like Huckabee, who is running for president, believes that the world (universe?) is only 6500 years old.

[Aug 10, 2015] Bernie Sanders secures first endorsement from national trade union

"...I keep wondering if these self-appointed Black Lives Matter agitators are being secretly paid by the Clinton campaign. Particularly since they don't seem to be disrupting any Clinton appearances."
Aug 10, 2015 | The Guardian

National Nurses United, which has 185,000 members nationally and is the profession's largest representative, announced its backing for Sanders at a rally with him in Oakland, California.


Sarcastocles 10 Aug 2015 20:49

I live in Portland and volunteered at the Sanders event yesterday. I can say for a fact that the number given by this article is low. My role as a volunteer gave me opportunity to see both the inside of the venue, and what was happening outside during much of the event.
The listed capacity for the Moda Center is 19,980, and the Moda Center filled to the point that the Fire Marshall ordered no more be admitted.
More, the overflow venue was also overwhelmed. There were thousands of people who stayed outside the venue, and watched the speech be broadcast, while thousands more showed up and then left when they learned that there was just no more room.
The official estimate I've seen is 28,000, and from what I saw, I honestly think that was about right.

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/269002-143736-sanders-rally-you-have-done-it-better-than-anyone-else

Other than that nitpick, great article.


LilMissFunkySoul -> bcarey 10 Aug 2015 20:14

bcarey, this is monumental, truly!

The key, I believe, is integrity, honesty, and genuine respect (which Bernie has in spades) even in the face of differences, which in turn generates the same back and makes it possible to work together for the common good. I don't think it is possible to reach the far right at this point in time but I don't think it is necessary to. It is the center Republicans who are reachable who we should all be reaching out to. I think we all need to be mindful of this (and I am talking to myself here too), and think about the ways in which we can, in our own conversations, lessen the polarization and divisiveness, so we can hear each other better and relate better.

I think we need to start changing the conversation, start transforming away it from the Left-Right paradigm where we've been stuck for a long time now.


aethelraed 10 Aug 2015 20:07

"More 'radical' policies??? The Guardian seems hell-bent on becoming a propaganda machine for Clinton, and never misses a chance to suggest that Sanders is a wide-eyed radical. He's not. More progressive, perhaps, in a tradition with a long American past, but hardly radical. Guardian writers are just accepting conventional spin and calling it reporting. It's shameful. Clinton has done nothing but run after positions that Bernie has always held -- trying to catch up to those radical ideas, I guess.


DesertPear 10 Aug 2015 19:03

Corporate-owned media says the Democrats must accept that Trump is a "serious candidate," in a line-up of complete losers. Why is Bernie Sanders being labeled unelectable when the race has hardly started? The media will continue to marginalize him--if we get money out of politics, the corporate media will stand to lose a lot of $$. He's perfectly suited to be a viable candidate--compare to ANY of the GOP clowns.


MountainMan23 10 Aug 2015 19:02

How in the hell can the media (and I'm looking at YOU, Guardian) call Sanders' policy proposals "more radical" than Hillary's?

Why not "more sensible" or "more democratic" or "more in line with the International Decalaration of Human Rights" or just plain "more humane"?

And why, when comparing the Nurses' union endorsement of Sanders with the Teachers' union endorsement of Clinton, does The Guardian NOT point out that the Nurses' union's endorsement reflects the opinion of their rank and file, while the Teachers' union's endorsement was a backroom deal orchestrated by their soldout leadership with NO consultation with the rank and file, who revolted en masse via social media to voice their disapproval after their "leadership" sold them out?

spartacus41 -> Djinn666 10 Aug 2015 18:50

I read somewhere that Senator Sanders does not accept donations from corporations. Maybe someone in the States can say whether that is true.

LostintheUS -> Gene Dexterd 10 Aug 2015 18:27

I think the people disrupting Bernie's speeches are political sabotage, because otherwise they make no sense.

BeesBreeze0 10 Aug 2015 18:25

Bernie Sanders policies are mainstream. What is radical is the pace and degree to which greedy individuals have sold the idea that caring for every citizen, in a responsible way, is radical. What is radical and corrosive is lack of funds for taking responsible care of infrastructure, including the educational infrastructure which, in the past, was top tier. Bernie Sanders supports free public education for every student who has worked hard in school to earn the grades that demonstrate they have comprehended, internalized and can use the subject matter they have studied.
There is no other candidate who stands for my values, the kind of family values Bernie Sanders supports; paid maternity leave, paid vacation, any 40 hour work week enough to support a family. These are policies that allow an infant to bond with their mother; children to grow with the presence and guidance of their parents, and parents with the time and rejuvenation time to live a long and healthy life to support their family. There is nothing we do that is more important than forming loving relationships with each other starting at birth.

Dushyant Parkhi -> elaine layabout 10 Aug 2015 18:03

The average donation to bernie is less than 50 dollars, what power broker ?

elaine layabout -> Djinn666 10 Aug 2015 17:52

Sanders had power brokers? You mean the man who refuses to take a dime of Super PAC money and is challenging the appointed Democratic Party candidate?

Get a clue.

bcarey -> Whitt 10 Aug 2015 17:14

I keep wondering if these self-appointed Black Lives Matter agitators are being secretly paid by the Clinton campaign. Particularly since they don't seem to be disrupting any Clinton appearances.

Been thinking the same thing.
They're probably not paid since that would be too risky. There's something else she may have promised their leaders.
They remind me of the Tea Baggers during a previous election.

bcarey -> LilMissFunkySoul 10 Aug 2015 17:10

people are starting to get wise to the fact that many many American women on the left end of the political spectrum (wherever they fall on it) care, above all, about having a quality candidate to get behind. One who will advocate for the 99% of humans in this country, whatever their political persuasion, who have gotten the shaft over the last 30 years, and we don't give a crap about the gender of the candidate.

There is something else happening, too: Some center Republicans also want to vote for Bernie.

bcarey -> Laffincrow 10 Aug 2015 17:08

Independents and Republicans who want to vote for Bernie must change their party before the Democratic primary so they can vote for him then. It takes 5 minutes, if that, to do.

(And, yes, there are some center Republicans who also support Bernie.)

Sam Sammitysam 10 Aug 2015 17:05

That's good news. But if Trumka endorses clinton he deserves to get his union members asses kicked into the dirt again. And he will. To endorse clinton is just stupid. The unions will have another obama to deal with.

Djinn666 10 Aug 2015 17:00

Bernie has ambitions, but so does Hillary and if past results are any indication of future actions, nothing either candidate promises will pass until heavily edited to reward their power brokers.

Guy Freewood -> hellofrom 10 Aug 2015 16:14

Without socialism, capitalism evolves into a feudal aristocracy that eventually collapses. The truth is we require a balance. Without social programs disease would spread, crime would escalate and our infrastructure would crumble. To exclaim socialism is dead is to ignore that it is a fundamental part of government in all advanced democracies in the world.

[Aug 10, 2015] The Assault On Donald Trump Shows That The 2 Party System Is Really A 1 Party System

"...I'm not so sure that Trump is not controlled by the elite. They are getting better and better with the fake anti-establishment candidates. If he wins the election, we'll know that he is another puppet."
Aug 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

Were you sickened by the Republican debate the other night? The hype leading up to the debate was unbelievable. Never before had there been so much interest in a debate this early in an election season, and it turned out to be the most watched program on Fox News ever. A record-shattering 24 million Americans tuned in, and what they witnessed was an expertly orchestrated assault on Donald Trump. From the very first moments, every question that was launched at Trump was an "attack question". And then the laughable "focus group" that followed was specifically designed to show that "ordinary people" were "changing their minds" about Trump. By the end of the evening, it was abundantly clear that Fox News had purposely intended to try to destroy Trump's candidacy.

And of course Fox News is far from alone. Every mainstream news outlet in the entire country is running anti-Trump news stories every single day. Virtually every other presidential candidate in both parties is attacking him, and virtually every "political expert" from across the political spectrum is trashing his chances of success.

So why is this happening?

Normally, candidates that are not part of the "establishment" do not pose much of a threat. In order to win elections in this country, especially on a national level, you need name recognition and you need lots and lots of money.

Donald Trump has both, and no matter what you may think of him you have to admit that he has star power.

And he was never supposed to run for president. You see, the truth is that only members of "the club" are allowed to play. The elite very carefully groom their candidates, and they are usually able to maintain a very tight grip on both major political parties.

This two-headed abomination that we call a "two party system" is in reality just a one party system. Yes, many Democrats and many Republicans really do hate one another, but at the end of the day there is very little difference between the two parties. That is why nothing ever really seems to change no matter who gets elected. George W. Bush continued almost all of Bill Clinton's policies, and Barack Obama has continued almost all of George W. Bush's policies. When they are running for office, they tell us what they think we want to hear, but once they get to D.C. they do exactly what the establishment wants them to do.

Donald Trump, whether you love him or you hate him, is a threat to this system. He is not controlled by the elite, and he does and says all sorts of things that drive the elite absolutely nuts.

If he was polling below 5 percent that wouldn't be a problem. At first, the mainstream media attempted to portray him as a joke that would never get any real support. But since then, Trump has proven that he is a serious candidate with some very serious ideas about how to fix this country. Now that he is receiving far, far more support than the establishment choice (Jeb Bush), he must be destroyed.

I can promise you right now that the Republican establishment will pull out every dirty trick in the book to keep Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination.

And if Donald Trump runs as an independent, the elite will move heaven and earth to keep him out of the White House.

This isn't even just about Trump. If Ben Carson starts getting too much support, he will be destroyed too. This is how presidential elections in America work.

What we witnessed during the Fox News debate the other night was not an accident. The goal was to make Jeb Bush look good and to make Donald Trump look bad. The following comes from Mike Adams

But the one thing that really stood out was the total fraud of what Fox News pulled off. It was clear from the first five minutes that Fox News had pre-arranged softball questions for Jeb Bush to highlight his "heroic actions" and accomplishments. Meanwhile, the kinds of questions directed to Donald Trump were all thinly veiled accusations and insults, designed to attack Trump on issues that had nothing to do with running the country.

The typical questions went something like this: (paraphrased)

  • Fox News: "Jeb Bush, how did you get to be such an amazing leader?"
  • Fox News: "Donald Trump, why do you hate women?"

As if a debate with totally contrived questions wasn't enough, Fox News also had a pre-arranged assembly of apparently "ordinary citizens" who were asked, after the debate, how many of them now hated Donald Trump.

And even when "the debate" was over, the assault continued. If you have not seen the disgraceful "focus group interview" which Frank Luntz orchestrated, you can check it out below…

I just about fell out of my chair when I saw that.

Virtually everyone in the "focus group" that Frank Luntz put together supposedly had a positive view of Donald Trump before the debate, and then almost every single one of them supposedly become Trump haters during the course of the two hour debate.

I am sure that they were hoping that everybody in the viewing public would "come to their senses" and become Jeb Bush supporters.

But of course post-debate polling shows that is not happening at all.

The Drudge Report conducted a flash poll immediately following the debate, and a whopping 44.67 percent of those that responded said that Trump won the debate.

Ted Cruz was in second place with 14.31 percent.

Jeb Bush got a measly 2.07 percent.

A Newsmax survey came up with similar results…

  • Donald Trump: 38 percent
  • Ted Cruz: 15.5 percent
  • Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson: 10.2 percent
  • Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: 9.7 percent
  • Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: 9.3 percent
  • Ohio Gov. John Kasich: 4.9 percent
  • Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: 4.5 percent
  • Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 3.5 percent
  • Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: 2.5 percent
  • New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 1.4 percent

And a survey conducted by Time Magazine also produced similar findings. Donald Trump got 47 percent, Ben Carson was in second place with 11 percent, and Jeb Bush got 4 percent.

But Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee.

Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong for the Republican establishment, Jeb Bush is going to be the nominee.

We have a system that is deeply, deeply broken and that does not reflect the will of the people.

This was illustrated by one of the questions that Trump was asked during the debate

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it's not just your past support for single-payer health care. You've also supported a host of other liberal policies….You've also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, "When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do."

TRUMP: You'd better believe it.

BAIER: — they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I've given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that's a broken system.

The really amazing thing is that nobody up on that stage disputed that what Trump was saying was true.

It is very well understood by our politicians that when they get big checks from the elite for their campaigns that certain things are expected from them in return.

Our government does not reflect the will of the people and it hasn't for a very long time.

Instead, it reflects the will of the elite, and the American people are getting sick and tired of it.

Right now, surveys show that Donald Trump has far more support than any other Republican candidate.

But he is not going to be the Republican nominee. The Republican establishment will make sure of that.

There is still the possibility that Trump could run as an independent. That would be an extremely tough road, but on Sunday he sounded very open to the possibility

The political hurricane that is Donald Trump didn't recede over the weekend, even in the face of a rising tide of criticism from Republican rivals about his attack on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.

Instead, the celebrity billionaire insisted in a string of interviews on Sunday TV shows that he had done nothing wrong, that "only a deviant" would interpret his words in an offensive way, and that he is leaving open the possibility of running an independent campaign for the White House if the GOP doesn't treat him "fairly."

"I do have leverage and I like having leverage," Trump declared on CBS' Face the Nation on a morning that also included interviews with ABC's This Week, CNN's State of the Union and NBC's Meet the Press.

This is a scenario that I discussed in my previous article entitled "Republican Operatives Plot To Sabotage Trump – But That Could Turn Him Into Their Worst Nightmare". Personally, I believe that Donald Trump will decide to run as an independent when it becomes clear to him that the Republican establishment is going to prevent him from winning the nomination at all costs.

But I could be wrong.

remain calm

This article is spot on. The elites have their hooks in all the other candidates, except Trump and he beats to the tune of his own drum. The elites are deathly afraid that he will not do what JPM and GS and the fed want, or at the very least be very disruptive to the establishment. They know he is not a one day or one week or not even a one month wonder. He is a thorn in their ass that will be very hard to get out.

The problem for Trump supporters (me included) is he is very easy to egg on and will say some explosive things that are not well thought out

The good thing about Trump is he is the right man for the right time. I think between now and Nov 2016 the worldss finanacial markets are going to take a shit, no ordinary shit, but the mother of all shits and he will be the best man without a doudt to negotiate our way through the turmoil. So he wins by a landslide. It is not going to be even close and beyond what any one can conceive of today.

froze25

Rand Paul 2016, not the same as Ron but there is no way in hell that being raised by a man like Ron Paul doesn't rub off on you.


J S Bach

"But he is not going to be the Republican nominee. The Republican establishment will make sure of that."

The article has that spot on. Even if Trump got 99% favorable opinion, the Establishment would nix him. Proof is in the recent drubbing of Ron Paul. Anyone who dares to buck the corrupt system is given the chopping block. This is precisely why change will only come from without - not within the system. Had the original intent of the Founding Fathers been adhered to (a tiny Federal Government and more powerful sovereign states), this monstrosity never would have arisen. The creation of the Federal Reserve was the beginning of the end for this Republic when a bottomless well of counterfeit money could be doled out in the form of coersion and extortion to the states. It always comes back to the money... who issues it and thus - controls it. Whatever entity emerges from the coming chaos, this overarching situation must be addressed and rectified.

Trump can still run as an independent candidate... then they'll bring on the reliable Dibold machines to count the votes.

Hot Shakedown

Spot on. You are absolutely correct. Either he is fortunate and gets "Ron Pauled"...or he is less fortunate and he gets "Breitbarted".

realmoney2015

Come on Tylers. We here expect you to be different than the msm. Everyday there are multiple trump articles. If the establishment really didn't like Trump and his poll numbers, they would ignore him like they did Ron Paul.

I keep thinking that today will be the day that at least here at ZH, Trump won't dominate the coverage. How about a Rand Paul article thrown in once in awhile. You know most of use here like guns and don't want them restricted. We also don't trust bankers and want the fed closed down.

I'm left to wonder how much money Tylers are getting from the establishment to appear like an alternative site.

bunnyswanson -> realmoney2015

Boohoo. Donald does not need anyone's money. Rose Perot met that criteria. We see what happened to him. He warned us. That sucking sound was the sound of our jobs. It's hardly time to ignore him when so many people are just waking up to the same.

Just be glad the wild-eyed lesbians and fags aren't featured in fullblown lip locks like creatures who have just escaped Hollywood - ISIS's US location. Now that, I could understand.

Fukushima Fricassee

It was an Obvious attack on Trump from the start and ongoing . Megan Kelly is a real feminist bitch. Fire that stupid twit Trump was not the one who jilted her so her anger was missguided . That women is an idiot and far stupid to realize she was fucking with the american people, tax payers, not just Trump. Boycott Fox and piss on both parties.

LetThemEatRand

"witnessed was an expertly orchestrated assault on Donald Trump"

I enjoy watching Trump cause aggravation to the status quo so I admit I lean in his favor on this (though I will never, ever vote for him due to his support for the Fed and MIC), but it's overstating Fox's case to say the attack was "expertly ochestrated."

Fox has always been amateur hour, as are all of the cable news networks. But they all speak to an audience that isn't exactly cerebral. So they get away with it. Trump for good or bad has struck a nerve with the average Joe who is sick of the current system that would tell us that Bush and Clinton are foregone conclusions. Fox playing favorites to Jeb Bush while trying to marginalize Trump was so obvious that even a child could see it.

ToSoft4Truth -> LetThemEatRand

"Most of the people on this stage I've given to, a lot of money," Trump

richiebaby

Trump not committing to support whoever wins the Republican nomination was an obvious message to the GOP & Kock brothers to support him or he will run as an independent and take the GOP down along with the Kock brothers $Billion dollars

JustObserving

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."

Gore Vidal

Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.

H. L. Mencken

silverer

Screw you Fox news. You are not an "alternative" news station. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

LetThemEatRand

Fox is by far the highest rated cable news network on television, and has been for a long time. What amazes me is that they can still get away with calling themselves alternative media. Kind of like how Limbaugh still plays the "little old me" card and people buy it. It's nice to see people finally waking up to this. To the exent the Donald in all of his narcissistic glory brought the truth to light that Fox is an arm of the oligarchs, he's done us all a service.

gregga777

The rich, their POSEDs* and POSERs*, the Corporations and the elites are the enemy of the American People. Rupert Murdoch is a member of the rich oligarchy. He and FOX News are mortal enemies of the American People. They and their entire families must be destroyed to save America and the American People.

*POSEDs—Pile Of Stinkin' Excrement Democrats
**POSERs—Pile Of Stinkin' Excrement Republicans

Fuck every last one of the, with a rusty bayonet! Then spike their heads on pikes around the DC beltway! Sic semper tyrannis!

starman

Hm ? I love it let's do a third party! Sick of the old shit anyway! TRUMP!

gregga777'

You may not believe in Class Warfare. But, you had better believe that the rich are sure as Hell waging Class Warfare against the American People! They are doing through the Bush's, the Clinton's, the buffoon Affirmative Action Barry Soetoro, and all the rest of the POSEDs* and POSERs** in the One-Party Dictatorship.

*POSEDs—Pile Of Stinkin' Excrement Democrats
**POSERs—Pile Of Stinkin' Excrement Republicans

Ms No

Ten bucks says if Trump got into office (which would never happen) and Bush was his vice that he would end up in a wheelchair with a pen taped to his hand and kept out of sight.... like they probably did to Reagan. I am not huge fan of Reagan but when your vice pres used to run the CIA things are probably not going to go very well for you. In this case it would be the son of the guy who used to run the CIA.

The CIA is the first organization that needs to be abolished, it is the deep state.

The Count

"The CIA is the first organization that needs to be abolished, it is the deep state"....

That's exactly what JFK tried and look what happened to him.

Pumpkin

The people hate politicians. No honest man has a chance against them. They lie, steal, take bribes, have no morals, and certainly some of them have even murdered. Trump is no angel, be he is not a life time POS politician. He only is on top because he is one ruthless SOB. He is the king of self promotion, and his competition SUCKS! The rupublicans and democrats have ran the country in the fucking ground for the last 100 years. They gave away the power to coin money and regulate it to a bunch of Satanist bankers. Trump, if he is not a plant, will end up in the white house or dead or both.

gregga777

Trump will NEVER be allowed to become President.

(1) All elections in the United States are rigged with predetermined winners;
(2) Hillary has already been elected;
(3) I do not believe that Trump is suicidal, but if he is;
(4) Trump will be suicided were the impossible to occur with him elected to the Presidency;

Don't labor under the illusion that Trump will somehow save America. It ain't never going to happen! Only concerted ACTION by the American People can save America! Don't participate in fraudulent elections! Take action NOW People of America!

Pazuzu

Nobody in their right mind would want to be President in 2016. The debate looked like a mixture of the Miss America pageant and Jerry Springer and the 'contestants' all pretty much deserve to be in charge when it all turns to shit and gets on everybody. But if Trump can make America believe that he's worth $10 billion then maybe he can convince America it's not bankrupt. I need those plates kept spinning to give me more prep time. I was late to get my wakeup call.

Berspankme

Jeb Bush is such a cunt they can't sell him to the people.

Jack Burton

"A record-shattering 24 million Americans tuned in"

Yes, of course they did. These 24 million can be counted on to think as one hive mind. Trained for years by the FOX news system. Nobody does mind control or propaganda like FOX. They have perfected a system that can call on it's faithful. That number is just about 25 Million American true believers, who actually think FOX is news and is fair and balanced. To make a mental leap like that requires a fully engaged Orwellian Double Think mind, to be able to deny any reality that is not politically correct for the FOX brand of conservatism. A mixture of mainline Dixie www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaeu3f_j9Vc , and:


A total slavish belief in corporate supermacy and the military industrial empire. Along with deep hate for non whites and non conservative Christians.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind this bunch. But I do believe it is fair to point out their beliefs, and FOX's power over their minds.

LetThemEatRand

And who would have ever guessed that a casino owning real estate magnate who calls himself the most "militaristic" guy in history would be the one to successfully peel off the Fox veneer. It's a crazy world.

Phillyguy

We have the Trumpster and the group of LOSERS. The problem for corporate media, including Fox, the GOP and Dems is that voters are tired of the same old story and "pay to play" politics. At least Trump says it like it is and this is reason he is leading in polls. The more corporate media goes after Trump, the more popular he www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/10/swan-song-for-the-donald-gop-party-bosse...

The Count

The Matrix will never allow an outsider to become president. Look at 95 percent of the press photos used - they all make Trump look like a loon. EXACTLY the same thing they did with Ron Paul a couple years ago. The military industrial complex together with jewish controlled high finance + main stream media want to make absolutelty sure nobody will spoil their nice little racket (enslavement of the US population).

TheAntiProgressive

One has only to reflect on the TEA party movement in which I was involved back a few years. The establishment ganged up to attack the TEA party. The majroity of the meetings I was involved in dealt with educating people on the Constitution, trying to explain the economics of the national debt and organizing candidate debates in order to understand the politicos up for election and to hold them accountable for their promise (lies). God forbid. The Kochs weren't around with bags of cashola.

The TEA party was attacked by the Democrats of course, the MSM, the President who would have thought, the Republican establishment which was a double take, then the systemic bureaucracy like the IRS and other alphabet agencies depending on the percieved "offender". When the whole system comes down on your head, you go hide. Which I chose to do, but I still support as best I can those that will undermine this corrupt, criminal system that is "governing us". I like Donald for his bombast and Cruz for his substance even with his wifey resigning from the squid. Cruz doesn't like the Progressive establishment and I hate them. They are killing the brand called America.

boodles

I was doing the same thing and saw what you're describing. Makes me hate the establishment.

John Law Lives

The article is on the money (imo). The same exact thing happened to Pat Buchanan in 1996 after he won the New Hampshire GOP Primary. The GOP establishment pulled out one dirty trick after another to crush him while they supported Bob Dole.

ozzzzo

I'm not so sure that Trump is not controlled by the elite. They are getting better and better with the fake anti-establishment candidates. If he wins the election, we'll know that he is another puppet.

stocks up every...

Once again the sheeple have had the wool pulled over their eyes. The Donald is the elite, supported by the elite with his reality show, beauty pageant and New York real estate. The establishment opposition to him is to convince you that a member of the elite is not elite and a man of the people. During the debate, Trump told everybody how he buys politicians thus proving he is part of the establishment. The elite know that the people want a maverick, and that is exactly what they are giving us. Trump is a fraud.

[Aug 09, 2015] Donald Trump jab at Megyn Kelly may be beginning of end for GOP frontrunner

"...As much as I dislike Trump, I dislike even more, the endless demonisation behaviour that this newspaper is always doing. If it is not Russell Brand, Nigel Farage, Alex Hammond, SNP, it is Donald Trump. I now struggle to see much difference in any of the neo-liberalist media's output. Just report the news. Immigration is a very serious issue in the US, as well as Europe. Let's have a meaningful debate about it, without this demonising of the messenger on a daily basis."
Aug 09, 2015 | The Guardian

Wordblind parcela 9 Aug 2015 16:25

Reagan had as much influence on the US ecomony as he did with the universe. He was paid to do what he was told and the US people clapped the incredulous show.

Elizabeth Thorne parcela 9 Aug 2015 16:23

Yeah, I'm astounded by his achievements. Took anti-intellecutalism and made it the basis for "American Exceptionalism" which has eroded everyone's quality of life and people still talk about his accomplishments. Nearly got us into WWIII (Thatcher's assessment), actually believed we could win it and just roll right on, and consulted astrologers for policy decisions.


lids luke towner 9 Aug 2015 16:21

Err yes, he is proposing tariffs...Cruz is polling 7% best will in the world and all that. Bankers must be getting a bit angtsy judging by the vitriol.

The Don is the anti-establishment candidate. Even better that he is running on his own money...


artbriar john2047 9 Aug 2015 16:17

Naaaawwww... Palin is a gun toting teabagger and Donald Trump is a "Ronald Reagan" evolutionary candidate, former democrat, dealmaker, with a desire to Make America Strong again.


eldudeabides 9 Aug 2015 16:12

As much as I dislike Trump, I dislike even more, the endless demonisation behaviour that this newspaper is always doing. If it is not Russell Brand, Nigel Farage, Alex Hammond, SNP, it is Donald Trump. I now struggle to see much difference in any of the neo-liberalist media's output.

Just report the news.

Immigration is a very serious issue in the US, as well as Europe. Let's have a meaningful debate about it, without this demonising of the messenger on a daily basis.


parcela 9 Aug 2015 16:12

I think Trump would make a great president; I remember those who derided Reagan only to be astounded by his achievements..


carlsven 9 Aug 2015 15:44

Is there any actual evidence or is this just more babble from "experts"?

Trump is polling at almost twice the nearest, Jeb Bush, and far ahead of any of the others. Lots of people identifying as women on comment boards supporting or at least no-big-deal-ing his comments to Ms. Kelly. The man who claimed this was a bridge too far is known for his use of the term feminazi, maybe "women" are not expecting to find angels in this group and are smart enough to let the dust settle before deciding who will be best.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

[Aug 09, 2015] Republican Presidential candidates debate

"...Trump went after the slimy whoring GOP media establishment on national TV. That takes ovaries. "
"...It turns out Trump was right. His toughest opponents Thursday night weren't the candidates up on stage, but the Fox News moderators, who went right after him—none with more gusto than Kelly…"
yuan, Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:22 pm

Current results for Time "Who won the debate poll":

Donald Trump(47222 Votes)47%
Jeb Bush(4434 Votes)4%
Ben Carson(11048 Votes)11%
Chris Christie(2563 Votes)3%
Ted Cruz(5307 Votes)5%
Mike Huckabee(2811 Votes)3%
John Kasich(9320 Votes)9%
Rand Paul(5157 Votes)5%
Marco Rubio(10942 Votes)11%
Scott Walker(1250 Votes)1%

poicv2.0, Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:33 pm

Fox News Poll: New high for Trump, new low for Clinton | Fox News

Clearly they called Democrats when they polled the numbers for Trump
And they called Republicans when they polled the numbers for Clinton.

Mike_PNW wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:38 pm

interesting from the Breitbart link:

A few hours before Thursday's Fox News debate, a friend of Donald Trump's confided to me that Trump was nervous. Not about the competition—he could handle them. No, Trump worried about Fox News, and in particular, debate moderator Megyn Kelly. She'd been hammering him all week on her show, and he was certain she was out to get him. He'd canceled a Fox News appearance on Monday night, the friend said, in order to avoid her. (Trump's spokeswoman wouldn't confirm or deny this.)

It turns out Trump was right. His toughest opponents Thursday night weren't the candidates up on stage, but the Fox News moderators, who went right after him—none with more gusto than Kelly…

But Trump saw her coming a mile away and cut her off.

Blackhalo wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:39 pm (in reply to...)

Mike_PNW wrote:

impressed by Trump

Q: You've also supported a host of other liberal policies, you've also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business related favors. And you said recently, quote, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.

TRUMP: You better believe it... I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system.

That is an impressive answer.

yuan wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:42 pm (in reply to...)

Liz said she came away impressed by Trump... So who knows...maybe he did win.

Trump went after the slimy whoring GOP media establishment on national TV. That takes ovaries.


JP wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:43 pm (in reply to...)

Blackhalo wrote:

That is an impressive answer.

I think the word is chutzpah: "I bribed public officials, and then took advantage of it. That's so broken that you should vote for me."

yuan wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:50 pm (in reply to...)

They are as stupid as the people who watch their station.

Ignorance and close-mindedness can turn people of relatively normal intelligence into simpletons.

yuan wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 3:54 pm (in reply to...)

LOL, let's see how the slimy whoring Democrat media establishment handles the Democratic debates.

Bernie is going to thrown this nation for a loop when millions of people learn, for the first time, that socialism is not maoist-communist-stalinist totalitarianism.

yuan wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:00 pm

Roots of Reaganolatry - The New York Times

We might also note that Reagan's attempt to change the nature of the US welfare state was, in the light of history, a failure. Remember, he once crusaded against Medicare as a program that would destroy freedom; he came into office with the intention of dismantling Social Security. But he left with both programs intact (thanks, in part, to a big increase in payroll taxes during his time in office) — and now we have a more or less universal health insurance system.

Ruh-roh Krugman is attacking Saint Ronnie again.

Counterpointer wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:01 pm

Big smile

I saw a political cartoon yesterday this side of the dateline featuring Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton on the phone colluding, Trump wondering whether he was overplaying it, and her saying "no, all good, keep it up...".

C

Rickkk wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:05 pm

The GOP Primary Debate, In Five Clips

08/07/2015

"Thursday's debate was, well, a spectacle. What else can you call two hours of Donald Trump being The Donald, Rand Paul eye rolls, teased appearances of God and a Chris Christie shouting match?

Check out the five clips that sum up the absurdity of the GOP primary debate, and prepare yourselves for the next 458 days of presidential election shenanigans."

Rickkk wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:07 pm

Jeb Bush Is 'Not Sure' We Need Women's Health Funding; I'm Not Sure We Need Jeb Bush | Kathleen Turner

08/06/2015 10:59 am EDT

"Jeb Bush said earlier this week that not only does he want to obliterate Planned Parenthood but he is "not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's health issues" at all.

Ah, yes. "Women's issues." What a trivial distraction from the real issues facing America.

When women started pointing out to Bush that they actually think women's health is pretty important, the presidential candidate claimed that he "misspoke." But a look at his record as governor of Florida shows that he probably meant exactly what he said.

What Bush seems to be proposing is a large-scale version of what he did in Florida, which was to divert money from Planned Parenthood to abstinence-only education programs. He also poured millions of taxpayer dollars into "crisis pregnancy centers" that exist solely to mislead women about abortion, all while implementing disastrous policies for real health care providers."

Rickkk wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:09 pm

Morning Joe To Elizabeth Warren: 'Stop Insulting Our Intelligence'

08/04/2015 03:32 PM EDT

tg wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:14 pm
Barbara Tuchman's writings describe in great details how the intricate interlocking of opposing military alliances paved the road to Europe's annihilation and its subsequent fading from History.
We are now at the beginning of August 2015. The NATO Alliance now stands on deck as it readies itself to increase its operations in the Middle East. This time however, and for the first time since the end of the Cold War, it is confronted by an equally formidable array of potential adversaries who are determined to protect their own respective interests in the Levant.
The recent declarations bearing on the establishing of a " Islamic State-free zone" some 25 miles into Syrian territory are constitutive of a direct violation of the UN Charter's article 2(4) provisions: Not only the UN Security Council did not authorize this measure, such policy could hardly be deemed to fall within the ambit of the doctrine of self-defense.
Failing to fit within these two exceptions to the UN Charter's general prohibition on the use of force, the establishing of a de facto No Fly Zone over Syria could very well stand as a prelude to a major escalation of violence which could lead to a global conflagration.

The Road to Empire Overreach Is Fraught With Calamities - The Unz Review

Blackhalo wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:28 pm (in reply to...)

yuan wrote:

a bonafide member of the ruling class.

FDR was a traitor to his class. Could we hope for the same from Trump? i.e. Single-payer, min wage high enough to make median wage = average wage, etc?

tg wrote on Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:38 pm
Why Let ex-Presidents Cash in? | Steven Strauss

"Not a bad gig," thinks Trump.

poicv2.0, Fri, 8/7/2015 - 4:50 pm

LOL

Dilbert

bearly Fri, 8/7/2015 - 5:24 pm, (in reply to...)

Blackhalo wrote:

FDR was a traitor to his class. Could we hope for the same from Trump? i.e. Single-payer, min wage high enough to make median wage = average wage, etc?

Did FDR have global wage arbitrage undermining wages and economic prosperity for the 99% ?

[Aug 08, 2015] David Sirota Hillary Clinton Is Running Away from Her Free Trade Record

"...She's in a tight spot. Obama has been a major force behind TPP and as part of her job as Sec State she pushed for it, now she had to try to get elected and TPP is not a voter winner"
"...In a nutshell this explains H.Clinton's dilemma: acknowledge her role in destroying the middle class voter or deny her role in these trade deals and be labeled untrustworthy."
"...The comments about Hillary Clinton bring to mind a statement Dick Nixon made to the press when he lost the California race for governor in 1962 "Just think of what you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around any more…" What will you do when you don't have HC to kick around any more? The level and mentality of some of the comments is positively jaw dropping."
"...I think the comments are much more about an appropriate context on which to view Hillary. They can get nasty, but she's earned it, along with many others. If you ain't pissed of about what is being done and has been done, you are either corrupt, beaten down/given up or just plain delusional about the realities we face."

Aug 08, 2015 | naked capitalism
davidly August 8, 2015 at 7:31 am

I seriously doubt that Clinton will sink or swim because of any of her stated opinions twixt now and the nomination. If the DLC (the PTB or whoever) decides the disgust-factor among the electorate is too high, then somebody else will get the nod. People vote how they are told; a look at the list of US presidents alone should prove that, otherwise it might be instructive to more closely examine the history of the primary process. Horse race indeed. The narrative for the current president was being written for the people to react to, not the other way around.

Anyway, this trade deal comes down to the acquiescence of some ostensible leaders of other countries, I suppose, but in the US, whether it's Jeb or Joe, or Rand-y or Rubio… be it the Don or the Hills that has the ayes, it's a done deal. It might even be one of the current president's last signatures — other than to pardon a few financial war criminals.

Praedor August 8, 2015 at 7:46 am

She's in a tight spot. Obama has been a major force behind TPP and as part of her job as Sec State she pushed for it, now she had to try to get elected and TPP is not a voter winner. She could try to tweak the truth by saying she changed her mind on the trade deals and opposes them (and pisses off Obama who she will be seeking to get strong backing from), she could do what she's doing and do what politicians do: lie her ass off. She's doing the late in a way to try to not piss off Obama.

She should have tweaked the truth and at least said she's opposed to aspects of the deals: ISDS and the overly cozy Big Pharma language AT LEAST. Maybe it would be enough, though not for me.

NotTimothyGeithner August 8, 2015 at 8:55 am

I think changing her mind on 90's Era trade deals might have flown in 2008 if she didn't vote for a few as Senator, but she's 67 not a naive kid and "free trade" isn't new.

The sentencing standards were so egregious and not couched in promises of international feel goods that she can't get away from that either.

I think there is room to change one's mind, but there needs to be the appearance of a genuine change or results have to be produced. Short of shedding "Obama Plus" and denouncing Bill and her whole campaign staff and donors, she has no chance except for ignorance on the part of voters.

Larry August 8, 2015 at 8:09 am

This is why Clinton could not beat Obama the first time around. Obama was a cipher with no record of long term malfeasance. Clinton has been in the national spotlight for long with such a long trail of dishonest behavior that she has no credibility with anyone outside of Democratic true believers. Nearly everything that comes out of Hillary's mouth is a lie and shiftless, even that's when she's even capable of taking a position. Look at her stance on the Keystone pipeline. Hey, wait until I'm president, then I'll tell you what I think.

optimader August 8, 2015 at 2:56 pm

she has no credibility with anyone outside of Democratic true believers

And so her position on TPP is irrelevant when it time to vote.

Sam adams August 8, 2015 at 8:10 am

In a nutshell this explains H.Clinton's dilemma: acknowledge her role in destroying the middle class voter or deny her role in these trade deals and be labeled untrustworthy.

NotTimothyGeithner August 8, 2015 at 9:07 am

My belief is Hillary was given a chance to control the narrative, but she announced her "tea with the commoners" strategy instead of a coronation when voters are expecting a candidate of Hillary's stature and resources (she's been out of work for three years now, so she has the time) who has been running for President since 1998 to have a vision for the country beyond she's doin' it for her grandmother, a woman, who would be very proud of her.

Hillary didn't speak and didn't seem to grasp her record would speak for herself.

Pelham August 8, 2015 at 10:07 am

The Clinton scorecard: Pro-free trade, pro-immigration, pro-ACA. Credibility near zero.

The Trump scorecard: Anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-ACA but pro-single payer. Credibility unknown.

Advantage Trump.

Sluggeaux August 8, 2015 at 10:29 am

she has no chance except for ignorance on the part of voters

And hoping that most of them walk away, discouraged by all the "After Citizens United it's just an oligarchy, so your vote doesn't count!" talk by Party tambourine-bashers.

This is more of that classic "I didn't inhale" prevarication so typical of Hill and Bill's generational cohort (not just the Dems; that dry drunk occupying the White House from 2001-2008 was the worst of the lot).

tegnost August 8, 2015 at 10:38 am

Funny how no one wants to own the TPP, I even saw an article recently claiming something along the lines of big business didn't really want tpp they were just going along to get along but I can't find it now…figured it was just a smoke screen to get people to focus on something…anything…, else but all told it's a sign of weakness.

Pelham August 8, 2015 at 1:28 pm

I saw the same article. Might've been on Bloomberg.

hunkerdown August 8, 2015 at 5:07 pm

Sounds like they want to hide the other two.

Vatch August 8, 2015 at 5:15 pm

Good point. The flailing TPP campaign got them Trade Promotion Authority, which will help them get TTIP and TiSA passed.

unique 201 August 8, 2015 at 2:50 pm

Obama has too much on Hillary Clinton. She must do as Obama tells her to do. Hillary is not in a good spot with her personal assistant Huma Abedin and her
mother, both of whom are members of the Muslim Sisterhood and whose father is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nothing that Hillary has ever done has
been done for the Middle Class. Hillary only does for herself, her family and now her Foundation.

As Secretary of State why would she think it would be alright to take donations from countries and people all over the world for her Clinton Foundation.
Even Donald Trump as a Businessman donated to the Foundation so Hillary would do what he wanted her to do when he wanted her to it.

MBm August 8, 2015 at 4:30 pm

The comments about Hillary Clinton bring to mind a statement Dick Nixon made to the press when he lost the California race for governor in 1962 "Just think of what you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around any more…"
What will you do when you don't have HC to kick around any more?
The level and mentality of some of the comments is positively jaw dropping.

hidflect August 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm

We'll find the next worst mendacious, lying, ethics-free scumbag to kick in the head. There's no limit to the supply.

Ian August 8, 2015 at 6:02 pm

I think the comments are much more about an appropriate context on which to view Hillary. They can get nasty, but she's earned it, along with many others. If you ain't pissed of about what is being done and has been done, you are either corrupt, beaten down/given up or just plain delusional about the realities we face.

[Aug 08, 2015] The Republican Candidates Agree that the System is Rigged for the Rich By William K. Black

August 7, 2015 | neweconomicperspectives.org

The Republican debate last night revealed one area of broad agreement among Americans – we now live in a system of crony capitalism that is systematically rigged to favor the ultra-wealthy. That is all the more remarkable as an admission because the Republican candidates are overwhelmingly (and increasingly) funded by the ultra-wealthy. It is also remarkable because the Republican policy prescription for crony capitalism is to make the ultra-wealthy wealthier at the expense of the American people. This last point is logical, but obscene.

This article focuses on the broad agreement among Republican candidates for the presidency that the system is rigged on behalf of the wealthy, particularly those in finance, and that this harms our economy, people, and democracy. Exhibit one, of course, is Donald Trump.

WALLACE: Mr. Trump, you talk a lot about how you are the person on this stage to grow the economy. I want to ask you about your business record. Trump corporations — Trump corporations, casinos and hotels, have declared bankruptcy four times over the last quarter-century.

In 2011, you told Forbes Magazine this: "I've used the laws of the country to my advantage." But at the same time, financial experts involved in those bankruptcies say that lenders to your companies lost billions of dollars.

Question sir, with that record, why should we trust you to run the nation's business?

Trump's defense of his actions serves as an indictment of the tactics of wealthy investors. Indeed, Trump indicts "everybody," particularly "the greatest" (wealthiest) investors.

TRUMP: Because I have used the laws of this country just like the greatest people that you read about every day in business have used the laws of this country, the chapter laws, to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family, et cetera.

His reference to "chapter laws" means "bankruptcy" filings to avoid repaying debts owed to lenders by Trump companies. By having his companies repeatedly file for bankruptcy, Trump was able to force their creditors to write down those debts by huge amounts. It is notable that Trump celebrates this as a tactic that "everybody," particularly "the greatest" use to become exceptionally wealthy.

TRUMP: Excuse me, what am I saying? Out of hundreds of deals that I've done, hundreds, on four occasions I've taken advantage of the laws of this country, like other people. I'm not going to name their names because I'm not going to embarrass, but virtually every person that you read about on the front page of the business sections, they've used the law.

The difference is, when somebody else uses those laws, nobody writes about it. When I use it, they say, "Trump, Trump, Trump." The fact is, I built a net worth of more than $10 billion. I have a great, great company. I employ thousands of people. And I'm very proud of the job I did.

Again Chris, hundreds and hundreds of deals. Four times, I've taken advantage of the laws. And frankly, so has everybody else in my position.

Trump claims that he has a net worth of "more than $10 billion," and brags that he built up this net worth in part by stiffing his creditors repeatedly by defaulting and declaring bankruptcy even though he purportedly had ample wealth to repay his companies' loans.

Why is it morally OK for someone as wealthy as Trump to avoid repaying corporate debts? Because "everyone" "in my position" (investors of enormous wealth) has "taken advantage of the laws." That is the reasoning of an eight-year old – "everybody" does it. But Trump then added an even more revealing "moral" basis for repeatedly refusing to pay his companies' debts. The entities he was stiffing were evil – they were giant banks. Trump's moral outrage is directed at those that criticize his moral choices. Notice the enthusiastic response of the Republican crowd to Trump's "moral reasoning."

TRUMP: Let me just tell you about the lenders. First of all, these lenders aren't babies. These are total killers. These are not the nice, sweet little people that you think, OK?

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

You know, I mean you're living in a world of the make-believe, Chris, you want to know the truth.

(APPLAUSE)

Trump was not called out by Fox for the obvious logical flaw in his "moral reasoning." If it is a great thing to be wealthy because it creates jobs, when a serial corporate dead beat like Trump repeatedly declares bankruptcy and refuses to pay corporate debts he is making other people (creditors – and those the creditors lend to) less wealthy and destroying jobs. That should harm the economy. The Republican audience also missed the logical flaw – it loved Trump's response. Indeed, even when Trump blundered and unintentionally showed how destructive crony capitalism is the audience reaction was to praise him for profiting while the people suffered.

And I had the good sense to leave Atlantic City, which by the way, Caesars just went bankrupt. Every company, Chris can tell you, every company virtually in Atlantic City went bankrupt.

(LAUGHTER)

Every company.

And let me just tell you. I had the good sense, and I've gotten a lot of credit in the financial pages, seven years ago I left Atlantic City before it totally cratered, and I made a lot of money in Atlantic City, and I'm very proud of it. I want to tell you that. Very, very proud of it

The wealthy get even wealthier even when local economies "totally cratered." The wealthy simply had the companies they control declare bankruptcy and stiffed the lenders. The wealthy whose depredations cause the local economy to "crater" even expect praise for being the first to desert the collapsing city.

The use of bankruptcy has several major domestic policy applications – and the Republicans and conservative "blue dog" Democrats have been on the side of the wealthy and against the people in each case. First, for decades, bankruptcy has been used "strategically" by major corporations to escape contracts with unions and minimize tort liability for killing hundreds of thousands of workers and consumers. Second, the bankruptcy laws were "reformed" in 2005 to make it extraordinarily difficult for students to ever escape the burden of student loans and get the normal "fresh start" that is the premise of the bankruptcy laws. Third, the "reformed" bankruptcy law allows the owners of second (vacation) homes to take advantage of the "cram down" option to greatly reduce their mortgage debt – but bans the owners of a single home used a the principal residence from doing so. President Obama tried to change this provision of the bankruptcy laws in 2009, but was blocked by the Republicans and "blue dogs" in the Senate.

In the international sphere, the Republican candidates routinely denounce Greece for seeking debt write downs. Even the IMF admits that the debt is unsustainable and that the effort to collect the full debt will prevent any strong Greek economic recovery and continue enormous human suffering. No Republican candidate at the debate criticized Trump's serial refusals to pay his corporations' debts.

Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, unintentionally stressed the massive and growing income and wealth inequalities in America

HUCKABEE: Well, you ask about how we fund it. One of the reasons that Social Security is in so much trouble is that the only funding stream comes from people who get a wage. The people who get wages is declining dramatically. Most of the income in this country is made by people at the top who get dividends and — and capital gains.

The obvious problem is that Huckabee's proposed solution – the oxymoronic "Fair Tax"– makes those inequalities worse. Huckabee proposes a federal sales tax with a "prebate" for those in poverty. The problem is that the tiny percentage of "people at the top," who receive "most of the income" while wage income for the vast majority of Americans is (according to Huckabee) "declining dramatically," spend vastly less of their income on consumption than do working and middle class Americans. As a result, they would pay, proportionally, a far smaller percentage of their income (and a vastly smaller percentage of their wealth) under the proposed sales tax. Federal taxes on the working and middle classes would go up substantially under a "revenue neutral" "Fair Tax." Huckabee, and the debate audience that thundered its applause, ignored these facts. Arkansas is rated as having the eleventh most regressive tax system in America – and its legislature and Governor are working together to make it far more regressive.

HUCKABEE: The fair [tax] transforms the process by which we fund Social Security and Medicare because the money paid in consumption is paid by everybody, including illegals, prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, all the people that are freeloading off the system now.

(APPLAUSE)

That's why it ought to be a transformed system.

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: All right. Enough.

(APPLAUSE)

Huckabee is wrong about taxes on consumption. First, while they are more difficult to evade, they are often evaded through fraud – and the wealthy are the experts at such evasion. Second, only consumption in the United States would be subject to the tax, so "drug dealers" and other wealthy white-collar criminals who take their money abroad would avoid the tax. Indeed, Huckabee's proposal would create an incentive to wealthy criminals to defraud in America and spend the proceeds abroad. The banksters have vastly greater criminal proceeds than the "prostitutes" and "pimps."

Senator Marco Rubio continued the theme of decrying crony capitalism – and making proposals to make it worse.

Now, the big companies that have connections with Washington, they can affect policies to help them, but the small companies like the one Tania is talking about, they're the ones that are struggling.

The first thing we need to do is we need to even out the tax code for small businesses so that we lower their tax rate to 25 percent, just as we need to lower it for all businesses.

We need to have a regulatory budget in America that limits the amount of regulations on our economy. We need to repeal and replace Obamacare and we need to improve higher education so that people can have access to the skills they need for 21st century jobs.

And last but not least, we need to repeal Dodd-Frank. It is eviscerating small businesses and small banks.

(APPLAUSE)

20 — over 40 percent of small and mid-size banks that loan money to small businesses have been wiped out over the — since Dodd-Frank has passed. We need to repeal and replace Dodd-Frank. We need to make America fair again for all businesses, but especially those being run by small business owners.

Track Rubio's "logic." (His numbers are wrong.) The "big companies" control "Washington." (That includes the House and the Senate, which are both controlled by Republicans.) Rubio, however, makes no proposal to break that dominance. Indeed, he does the opposite. He promises to "repeal Dodd-Frank" – and offers no alternative beyond the ultra-vague term "replace." I too am deeply critical of Dodd-Frank, but it does at least seek to restrict the power and risks posed by the "big companies" – the systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) made up of our largest and most criminal banks. But Rubio suggests nothing to limit the control of "big companies" and the SDIs over "Washington." Instead, he tries to blame Dodd-Frank for the fact that the SDIs increasingly dominate banking. That is bizarre, unless he is arguing that it is so weak because it fails to eliminate SDIs that it needs to be replaced by far tougher regulation that would eliminate the SDIs.

Rubio's statement implies that there was a startling drop in the number of banks after the passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010. The reality is more complex and refutes Rubio's claims. The number of independent banks has been falling since the late 1960s – a half century. The rate at which independent banks have disappeared for any has been greater in several periods in the past (see Figure 1 of the Fed article). The single most important direct cause is deregulation, specifically, the removal of restrictions on interstate banking and branches. The most important indirect cause of the sharp fall in the number of banks since the late 1960s is deregulation. Deregulation indirectly led to the rise of the SDIs. Indeed, by Clinton's administration deregulation was designed to aid the dominance of the SDIs. The five largest U.S. banks conduct over 90% of all derivatives trades in the U.S. Only a subset of the largest U.S. banks engaged in any huge investment banking after the effective repeal of Glass-Steagall. The result is that even conservative finance scholars now admit that there is no "free market" in finance and can never be as long as the SDIs exist. The independent banks cannot compete with the SDIs except in very local, niche markets. Before and after the passage of Dodd-Frank they are gobbled up by mergers.

The Fed article shows that regulatory costs are not driving the continuing consolidation of banking.

According to data from the Reports on Condition and Income (or "Call Reports"), the ratio of non-interest expenses to assets for banks with less than $1 billion in assets did not change significantly from 2007 through 2013.

Note that the Fed study, improperly and implicitly, assumed that if compliance costs increased that fact proved that bank efficiency was reduced by regulation. That cannot be assumed. Improved compliance with regulatory requirements for sound underwriting, for example, would have added immensely to bank profitability.

The SDIs have not only the explicit government subsidy of deposit insurance, but also the even larger implicit federal subsidy of "too big to fail." But those subsidies only begin to capture the SDIs' true power. As Rubio stressed, the "big companies" dominate "Washington" and no one serious doubts that the SDIs are the most dominant of the "big companies" in "Washington." More recently, we have also seen the rise of "too big to prosecute." That doctrine has destroyed all accountability.

The Dog that Didn't Bark – No Demand for Accountability for Banksters

It is remarkable that a Republican debate run by Fox had the perfect issue with which to bash the Democrats, including Presidents Obama and Clinton, and refused to even mention it. There was not a word criticizing Clinton's deregulation or Obama's refusal to prosecute the elite banksters that led the fraud epidemics that caused the Great Recession. Instead, the candidates are committed to creating more criminogenic environments through the three "de's" – deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization.

Tim Ward , August 7, 2015 at 4:54 pm |
According to Minsky, government operates from an allocation of the surplus (in a capitalist system, with no state productive industry). But who has the surplus. Labor? No. The oligarchs have the surplus. But the tax laws help the rich evade taxation. Qualified dividends. Tax free munis. Accelerated depreciation schedules on property. Unearned income classed as 'return of capital'. &c. And what do the rich do? Capital flight. Offshore tax havens.

Economist James S. Henry has studied some of this, and the numbers are huge. But he hasn't studied this for the US, I believe. http://taxjustice.blogspot.ch/2012/07/the-price-of-offshore-revisited-and.html

Taxing labor is economically destructive. By the Iron Law of Wages, labor can't really be claimed to hold surplus. Thus consumption taxes on labor consumption are also senseless.

[Aug 01, 2015] Looks like the .1% don't want Trump or HRC but want a Bush III tool.

pgl said...

In political news, HRC raises $15 million while Jeb! raises $103 million:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/democrats-far-behind-gop-in-raising-money-for-16-125516484431.html

Yep - the 1% are trying to buy the White House.

ilsm said in reply to pgl...

If the .1% don't want Trump.....

but want a Bush III tool.

[Jul 31, 2015] Jeremy Corbyns Labour leadership bid has a momentum even he didnt expect

"...As for the "guardian hymn sheet" - nearly of their commentators have in meltdown at the prospect of a corbyn led labour party ditching (failed) neo-liberalism."
.
"...Rather excited by a labour leader for once, the amount of spin and rhetoric thrown at Corbyn recently, suggests what the ruling elite think of him (he's a threat). "
.
"...The propaganda weapon that faces any Labour administration is formidable as the Tory driven media constantly undermines any concerted efforts to ensure that a fair and just society is created for the many rather than the few."
.
"...The media play a massive part in how they portray/present (particularly Labour) Politicians to the electorate - whether it's to continually show an embarrasing snap-shot of Miliband munching on a bacon butty, or as you say they chose to make Corbyn look like a "beardy sandal wearer" (a la the original JC, eh?). Generally, the electorate have to base their decision making on how politicians are represented in the media."
.
"..."Jeremy Corbyn is sort of the Bernie Sanders of UK but might actually become labor leader. I have to say I really like his economic ideas" ..."
.
"...Well, I think that's a mis-characterisation - in the much part created & amplified by an establishment, sychophantic right wing London based media. If you actually look at what Corbyn has to say it's pretty moderate; society & people focused & doesn't at all necessarily mean, as a policy outcome, fiscal or economic recklessness. Corbyn's position is pretty well considered & he doesn't do cheap populism."
.
"...The neo - liberal "democracies" in Europe ( or shall we just call them the German Federal State) are scared witless of the left and will do anything to crush it because they know that austerity is not the way forward to prosperity but is instead an economic mechanism to preserve the status quo...."
.
"...Politics is about unifying OTHERWISE diverse interest groups, and APPARENT diverse opinions."
.
"...The fact that capitalism cannot provide half-decent jobs for millions does not mean the working class has disappeared. A third of the electorate do not vote at all - largely because of the sentiment that they are all bastards and there is no point."
.
"...On a superficial level, you can tell Corbyn is the only candidate that doesn't advocate free-market capitalism by his refusal to adopt the uniform of the business classes. The fact that politicians now need to dress like financial advisors in order to have perceived credibility is another example of the corruption of neoliberalism."
.
"...... And then the Milliband - let alone Corbyns - face a five-year hatchet job by the Daily Mail et al, the swinging middle Englanders will sniff and wonder what that weirdo is all about, before driving out of their banal semi-detached homes in their banal semi-detatched communities to put a cross in the Conservative box for that forthright blonde chap, or that tough economic decisions fellow we've heard so many good things about."
.
"...Voters are largely lead by propaganda; and the Tories are much better at that (and have 90% of the media in their pocket; or vice versa)."
.
"...The strong right wing press and media have at all times suffocated any socialist aspirations, and never gave it a chance to really get going and in the process kept very intelligent men like Foot and Benn always struggling to get their sound policies over . The Bankers and big business and those who controlled them always made it their goal to discredit anyone who had the temerity to espouse policies the would be beneficial to the working man/woman in the UK."
Jul 31, 2015 | theguardian.com
Jeremy Corbyn regards it as a badge of honour: Tony Blair's barb that anyone voting for the insurgent candidate needs a heart transplant. It is only a matter of time before T-shirts start appearing with the slogan "I need a transplant". They might need a lot of them.

Corbyn's campaign for the Labour leadership is gathering a momentum even he did not anticipate at the outset. "The events we organise ourselves are getting bigger and bigger," Corbyn says. When he held his first rally in Birkenhead on 9 July, he attracted a more than respectable audience of 350. The numbers have been steadily growing since. He is due to speak in Liverpool this weekend, with an audience of more than 800 anticipated and an overspill room booked.

On Tuesday evening, the contender attracted more than 400 for a Q&A session in Luton, and an hour later, beginning at 9pm, he addressed a capacity crowd of 800 at London's Bloomsbury Baptist church, with others listening via a loudspeaker outside.

Corbyn said that last Saturday he did a formal meeting in Warrington and followed it up with an informal gathering of supporters in a pub garden in central Manchester. Even though the latter had been largely unpublicised, he said between 350 and 400 turned up.

On Wednesday he won the backing of Unison, one of the biggest unions in the country. He already has the backing of Unite, the biggest.

Win or lose the leadership ballot, Corbyn has brought excitement to what was otherwise shaping up as a dull campaign.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership bid has a momentum even he didn't expect

Related: Why smart Tories should not be smug about Labour's Corbyn-mania | Matthew d'Ancona

JamesSilkDavey -> fatdaddyyork 31 Jul 2015 04:59

"No future for labour in being a watered down version of the Tories though."

There's a mile of difference between Social Democracy, Blair/Brown style, and this lot.

People here can't see that. Voters can, thankfully.

JamesSilkDavey -> Sue Dockett 31 Jul 2015 04:57

"Would you care to remind me how that turned out for the people of Britain? "

3 million unemployed, sink schools and sink estates, privatisation of public assets that British people had paid for and allowing the nation's wealth to be transferred to foreign ownership, failure to support manufacturing industry, all-out attack on the unions, allowing an American citizen to control large parts of the British media, abolishing the GLC, cosying up to Pinochet and rescuing Mark Thatcher from the desert"

And the electorate liked it. Or at least preferred it to what Labour offered in '92. You people really don't get it, do you? Neoliberalism delivered a significant increase in GDP, and the /majority/ of the country enjoyed those benefits. The Tories understand this. They understand that if you make people in the middle, and the old, feel they are on their side, then they win enough votes to get elected.

It's democracy. People vote for parties that make them richer. They don't care very much about the people at the bottom (who, lets be absolutely clear, lost a lot in the 80s)

Given that New Labour was a bloody miracle. They managed to keep getting elected, not crash the economy AND tackle the very things that you are complaining about (particularly sink schools and sink estates, and to some extent, though not enough, the income of the bottom 20%)

We are never going to live in a socialist utopia because voters are largely selfish. That doesn't mean you can't build a realistic social democratic alternative which seeks to redress the balance. I think it can certainly be done better than New Labour did it (the absence of a meaningful industrial strategy was the major weakness, as they were beguiled by 'services') but New Labour are a hell of a lot better than OsBo.

Dan Jarvis, to pick a name at random, could run on a broadly 'Blair-like' platform, win, and invest in schools, social care and housing.

Or BoJo could win and take us back, as someone said, to the 1880s.

JamesSilkDavey -> bolshevik96 31 Jul 2015 04:34

The neoliberal democracies of Europe keep voting for neoliberal parties. The threatening parties are nationalists. Socialists are nowhere.

There are three plausible political models for the UK. Social democracy (some form of 'Blair+Brownism, if you will), Conservatism and Nationalism, as presented by UKIP.

Socialism is not on the map.


JohnIgbino -> elay55 31 Jul 2015 03:09

It is still divisive, but not as much as it was in the 1950s and the 1960s. In the 1960s when I benefited from the expansion of education and subsequently went to university only 12% of the population went to university. Today there are wide ranging routes leading to university and many individuals and groups who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to gain the experience of a university education can now do so. In this sense the spirit of the 1960s persists.

But I should point out to you that the liberalisation of access to education had nothing to do with Rightwingers. Indeed, they vehemently opposed the policy. The people who fought for the liberalisation would be vilified today as Leftwingers. So when you come on this platform and begin to argue as you have been doing you demonstrate that you do not know how the post-World War 11 social policies and subsequent liberalisation of access to education helped this country to compete internationally, particularly against the country's War Allies.

Nathon -> packc47 31 Jul 2015 03:09

Attlee won over a million more votes than Churchill in 1951. He still lost the election, because of FPTP.

Even if Labour pulls back the 2 million votes it currently lags behind the Tories, it won't be matter a single shit if those votes aren't in the right places. Seats win elections, not absolute vote numbers or share. This is FPTP. And the seats that matter, the ones that will decide the next election, are the English marginals currently held by the Tories.

I have still to hear any of Corbyn's supporters even recognize this as an issue, let alone come up with a coherent plan for addressing it. It's all "win back voters from the SNP", "win back voters from the Greens", "gain back the real Labour votes Blair lost" etc. Such things will plump up our numbers nicely in already safe seats. But they will not make the blindest bit of difference in the marginal seats we have to win.


ariseandresist -> Finite187 30 Jul 2015 21:57

Well, I think that's a mis-characterisation - in the much part created & amplified by an establishment, sychophantic right wing London based media. If you actually look at what Corbyn has to say it's pretty moderate; society & people focused & doesn't at all necessarily mean, as a policy outcome, fiscal or economic recklessness. Corbyn's position is pretty well considered & he doesn't do cheap populism.


IrishIain -> Finite187 30 Jul 2015 19:50

people who didn't vote don't count

They didn't count, they can still count in 2020 and they represent a much bigger pool of potential support than a handful of swing voters in key marginals. Convincing a significant number of them to vote next time could make all the difference if you can pull it off.

It was a perfectly legitimate result

I'm not denying that in any way, I was merely pointing out that if you can convince non-voters to vote that far out weighs the potential number of swing voters amongst those who always do.

The main reason Labour voters switched to UKIP was immigration, and Corbyn's brand of socialism has nothing to say on this.

I still don't buy that. Immigration increases pressure on housing and (downward) pressure on wages. I'm sure there are racists who just don't like immigrants, but for most it is, or so I like to think, a proximate issue and ultimately wages and housing are what they really care about. A more equitable distribution of profits and more social housing provision are precisely what Corbyn's brand of socialism is offering and are directed at the ultimate problems, not dog whistles around the proximate ones.

Do I think Corbyn has all the answers? Not even close. Do I think Cooper would make a better PM? Yes, most likely. Have Cooper, Burnham or Kendall got what it takes to win a general election? Don't make me laugh.

I can't honestly see any of the four of them winning in 2020. Corbyn's vanishing to none chance is better than the other three's snowflake in hell chance. We need another Labour leader who can actually inspire people, the apathetic non-voter more than the swing voter, to vote for the party. Corbyn, for all his faults, might just pull that off. The rest of them couldn't inspire me to kick for the surface if I was drowning.


bolshevik96 30 Jul 2015 19:48

J.C is doing well because he offers what the other candidates cannot - clear blue water between the Labour Party and the Tories. Why are so many senior Labour figures frightened of the word "socialism"?...

They`re supposed to believe in it.... or has the right`s demonization of it seeped so far into the national consciousness that even the Labour Party won`t countenance it.

The neo - liberal "democracies" in Europe ( or shall we just call them the German Federal State) are scared witless of the left and will do anything to crush it because they know that austerity is not the way forward to prosperity but is instead an economic mechanism to preserve the status quo....

opinyunated2 30 Jul 2015 19:08

There is difference between firing up 300,000 left Leaning students, and others to the cause and persuading the 60 odd million to vote for a left leaning government. Does anyone remember th effect that Michael Foot had on labour when he elated leader. Canada is about to move left to the NDP this Fall but the NDP is moving to the centre ground vacated by the Tories. activist may feel good into UK. However this JC (The London one) will simply lead them into the wilderness not the promise land.


THKMTL margsmeanders 30 Jul 2015 18:14

As Sue says , The labour party was destroyed by the gang of four . It isn't necessary to listen to idiots , anyone who has thought things out for themselves, knows precisely what parrots will say before they have begun.

And everything you have said is totally predictable cliche ! Politics is about unifying OTHERWISE diverse interest groups, and APPARENT diverse opinions.

Should you decide to stop listening and actually think instead , you might realize that there is only one' right' . There is absolutely no honour in tolerating wrongs in the name 'everyone has a right to the' wrong ' opinion. They absolutely do not.


sillylittleman Sowester 30 Jul 2015 17:59

There is a lot that can happen between now and 2020. Also there really is not a "working class" any more - at least not in the way there was in the 1970's and 80's
.
The fact that capitalism cannot provide half-decent jobs for millions does not mean the working class has disappeared. A third of the electorate do not vote at all - largely because of the sentiment that they are all bastards and there is no point.

Sue Dockett -> JamesSilkDavey 30 Jul 2015 17:33

Blair destroyed Labour credibility through the lies over WMD and taking us into an illegal war ignoring all opposition. That is why he is toxic. Even a 3 legged brain dead donkey could have won the election for Labour in 1997 the Tories were so unpopular. Despite a decreasing vote Labour were still able beat the Tories and even now are only taking 36.5% of vote. It is the supporters labour lost because of Blair we need to recruit not Tory voters who will never vote labour.


Sue Dockett El Zorro 30 Jul 2015 17:28

Why is it that the success of someone classed as "left wing" will destroy party unity? It seems the "right" impales itself on its inability to work as a team unless they get their way all the time. The gang of four did more to damage Labour in '83 than foots dufflecoat or the policies.


jimmyonebomb -> bushwoodcountryclub 30 Jul 2015 14:55

Public opinion/centre ground/general consensus etc, these aren't things that are static and constant, nor are they things that are naturally ingrained in people.

They are ingrained in them largely through what they are told through media. The centre ground/ overton window whatever you want to call it moves and shifts with the times largely dependent on who is pushing what agenda forward and outlets they have he backing of to push it out. Does he have no attraction, or is it cos people only really get messages put to them that he is a raving communist who wants to re-nationalise every corner shop, and are constantly told over and over that he is unelectable without really explaining why? Surely the decision whether somone is unelectable or not is down to the electorate, not for a few 'experts' to keep constantly telling us who is and who isn't.


Gregory Dance -> FelseEngland 30 Jul 2015 14:20

Dear False England, following the right wing nut bags who hypnotised the Blairites into selling their souls and taking the nation to hell is not on Corbyn's menu and if you had any sense not on yours either!


Gregory Dance 30 Jul 2015 14:17

Corbyn is popular because he speaks straight and has an ordinary unpolished honest persona. People recognise this as a valuable and rare person in the commons because most of the others are .... well .... lying devious crap really!

The rule of thumb - If a 'leader' or political manifesto has to be heavily marketed and repeatedly polished to make it shine, its a fraud (lipstick on a pig comes to mind), trying appear acceptable to what they hope is an undiscerning rabble.


guydabored76 JamesSilkDavey 30 Jul 2015 11:40

Nonsense. Milliband was constantly derided and labelled as a left-wing extremist. An objective analysis of the policies he advocated shows that claim to be false. We live in a plutocracy and the plutocrats want to make sure that the neoliberal consensus can never be challenged. People are waking-up to this reality, I believe, hence Corbyn's popularity.


VinceDaFox 30 Jul 2015 11:29

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership bid has a momentum even he didn't expect

Is this cutting-edge news any more? I see Corbyn's popularity as a product of the relief felt by the marginalized, ignored and excluded of the Labour movement who see just a glimmer of hope that they might just get their party back from the slick political consultants of the Blairites. It's been a long time.


guydabored76 JamesSilkDavey 30 Jul 2015 11:25

They were persuaded to vote for Cameron, a vacuous, establishment functionary with a studied look of authority on his face as he recites scripts then quickly disappears before anyone can ask him a question because then, his inadequacy would be evident. Why did the cretin avoid the election TV debates?


DaleCooperFIB JamesSilkDavey 30 Jul 2015 11:21

BTW, I voted Green in the last GE too. Mainly because the bulk of their policies were more Labour-like than Labour's.
I'm hoping Corbyn will take Labour back to the centre/left and return to policies similar to the Green's.


El Zorro 30 Jul 2015 11:15

Another Day, another union endorsement of Mr. J. Corbyn!

Will it undercut the other "more mainstream" candidates when so many larger Trades Unions and constituency labour parties are flocking to the outsider? He was supposed to be a bit of an outlier, wasn't he? You can see that Corbyn is campaigning with less pressure, more assurance because of that, as if to say: "nobody expects me to win, but it's nice if I do! But in the meantime, let's have a conversation." His demeanour has helped him too. He seems calm, unruffled, affable (so far). Is there a softness in his rivals' appeal that they've not been able to break through in the same way? If yes, that can't bode well for a leader who is starting so far behind the Tories.

But ... I wonder if it could severely impale Labour Party unity? If not physically rupturing the organization, but internally. Would centrist swing or independent voters become alienated by this hard-left turn & flock over to revive the Liberal Democrats? ... Ed Miliband allegedly ushered in many more left-leaning MPs than in the Blair-era, surely Corbyn would do the same (even if he's not elected and/or is merely a caretaker leader)? Is this the Labour Party having a summer tantrum after the election & say, "you might not like us or even have voted for us, but we are who we are! So deal with it!"

Whoever triumphs, I hope they can get their act together because the thought of ANOTHER decade of cuts, austerity and cutting off opportunities for the young at the knees is especially depressing and bleak. :-(


DaleCooperFIB JamesSilkDavey 30 Jul 2015 11:03

Sorry JamesSilkDavey, but I have to disagree with you. The media play a massive part in how they portray/present (particularly Labour) Politicians to the electorate - whether it's to continually show an embarrasing snap-shot of Miliband munching on a bacon butty, or as you say they chose to make Corbyn look like a "beardy sandal wearer" (a la the original JC, eh?).

Generally, the electorate have to base their decision making on how politicians are represented in the media.


LeonardPynchon -> ds9074 30 Jul 2015 11:00

Yes thanks I understand how it works - I have fully paid back the student loan I took out years ago.

Ironic that the Tories constantly bemoan the disincentivizing effects of taxing the wealthy - why wouldn't this be equally disincentivizing? Seems to me that discouraging poorer students from going to University is the only possible reason for doing/supporting this.

Bizarre also that you believe this does not amount to a debt - the money is loaned and then repaid is it not? I clearly remember it coming out of my bank account on a monthly basis.

The IFS notes that 'The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500. In return for an extra £766 per year in cash while studying.'

That's £12,500 more - a significant sum.

The government's decision to scrap maintenance grants and replace them with loans while increasing the debt burden faced by poorer students will do little to improve the public finances, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as only around a quarter of the loans will be repaid. Furthermore the IFS concludes that the decision to freeze the repayment threshold at £21,000 for 5 years rather than allow it to increase with inflation will see graduation repayments increase by £3,800 on average.

So a negligible effect on the public finances but a considerable debt laid specifically on the poorest students - why would the Tories do this?


guydabored76 30 Jul 2015 10:38

On a superficial level, you can tell Corbyn is the only candidate that doesn't advocate free-market capitalism by his refusal to adopt the uniform of the business classes. The fact that politicians now need to dress like financial advisors in order to have perceived credibility is another example of the corruption of neoliberalism.


godforbidowright BrigadierCrispbread 30 Jul 2015 10:35

The vestiges are alive and well. But the Westminster is quite happy to plod on without rocking the boat too much, first past the post, dodgy bicameral chambers reigning supreme in our top-heavy state...

... And then the Milliband - let alone Corbyns - face a five-year hatchet job by the Daily Mail et al, the swinging middle Englanders will sniff and wonder what that weirdo is all about, before driving out of their banal semi-detached homes in their banal semi-detatched communities to put a cross in the Conservative box for that forthright blonde chap, or that tough economic decisions fellow we've heard so many good things about.

And that'll be that.


uuuuuuu -> TheMarxOfProgress 30 Jul 2015 10:34

Voters are largely lead by propaganda; and the Tories are much better at that (and have 90% of the media in their pocket; or vice versa). For the same reason Putin is also leading the polls in Russia by a huge margin.

if you can win two elections on the basis of a factual lie ("Labour spent too much") then you must be good at propaganda.


DaleCooperFIB 30 Jul 2015 10:25

Corbyn may not win the next GE (as he doesn't fit the media's identikit PM profile), but if he becomes Labour leader he will help restore it's position to the centre/left and create a real alternative for the electorate.

If one of the more media friendly faces (Jarvis, Cooper, Burnham, Umunna) work with Corbyn in repairing the Labour party, there may be a slight chance of avoiding a further Tory term in office.

The Cons only look after a select few of the population, so God help the poor, the sick, the disabled, students, the NHS, etc if the Tories do win again.

q321gg8cla -> cpslashm 30 Jul 2015 09:32

The unions exist to stop workers becoming slaves. Thatcher smashed the mining unions because she hated the fact that the Miners had through their brotherhood in appalling work conditions, created health, education and welfare systems for their communities. Also Britain has an outdated and farcical class system and any group who can provide an alternative social model of equality and benefit to the working class, the poor, the homeless gets battered because it threatens the Conservative Political model of the BEEHIVE

AvidViewer 30 Jul 2015 09:32

Frankie Boyle's piece earlier in the week raised a smile, and this from Dan Hodges may do the same (except for the heading and the final line, which suggest that Hodges doesn't quite get what he is joking about):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11772481/The-Labour-party-is-a-joke.-We-should-stop-taking-it-seriously.html


RadioPartizan -> ID635255522172 30 Jul 2015 09:18

For millions of people - and the numbers grow greater every day - austerity is not "abstract" its a very real and savage attack on their standard of living - pushing many of them over the edge. Osbourne's budget will make millions of people - working people - thousands of pounds worse off every year (im one of them) - in addition you have services being slashed to breaking point, a housing crisis and a whole generation of under 25s being kicked to shit (tuition fees, stopping of housing benefit, exclusion from minimum wage, work fare). At the same as these privations they see tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations being enabled to dodge their tax bill.

Is there enough affected to defeat the tories in the next election? I dont know. Will they support a labour party that sits on its hands rather than fight their corner? Will they bollocks.

As for the "guardian hymn sheet" - nearly of their commentators have in meltdown at the prospect of a corbyn led labour party ditching (failed) neo-liberalism.


unlywnted gaitero 30 Jul 2015 09:17

"Not sure whether it is hilarious or tragic how closely the pro-COrbyn comments on here match the pro-Farage comments in Torygraphland threads."
You're in some fair measure right but it is neither hilarious nor tragic but positively uplifting that people are spontaneously aroused from Left and Right to oppose the stale, status quo neoliberal political views of the established parties and MSM and how interesting to observe the MSM attacking both Farage and Corbyn along similar spurious lines.


Tim Veater 30 Jul 2015 09:10

People are crying out for an antidote to Blair, his public relation acolytes and reincarnations. Corbyn has been uniformly castigated by 'new labour' and 'right wing' types, which must speak in his favour. I, in common with many I suggest, know little about him, but in just one appearance in a recent Question Time he impressed and put the other panellists in the shade. He appeared refreshingly free of slogans and the image-maker's mark. They clearly thought he wasn't worth bothering about, although they are probably clustering now. I hope he has the sense to reject them and their dark arts. He spoke rationally, calmly and with an authority that offered at last, a promise of true opposition to the patently selfish money-only ideology of the present government. In fact it may indeed have been a glimmer of the idealism embedded in the original Labour pioneers, long since buried in the sediment of a corrupt international capitalism.


cpslashm 30 Jul 2015 09:06

One question: in a re-nationalised country, what would Jeremy Corbyn do to prevent the re-emergence of powerful unions where a few thousand, unelected by the rest of the population, can bring the country to its knees by industrial inaction? I lived through these power games where some far-off "dispute" in transport, energy, health or education screwed up ordinary people's lives. When Thatcher broke the unions, many breathed a sigh of relief but the management culture which was a major reason for the disputes wasn't touched. Corbyn may want a fairer society but will he prevent unionised unfairness?


MysteryMachines 30 Jul 2015 09:01

Rather excited by a labour leader for once, the amount of spin and rhetoric thrown at Corbyn recently, suggests what the ruling elite think of him (he's a threat).

Could he win a general election? If a lizard masquerading in human skin (Cameron) can why can Corbyn not?

First things first, he needs to get elected leader, after that one step at a time.

Feeling hopeful.


Mal Evans JohnJDuffy 30 Jul 2015 08:40

Corbyn has an ace up his sleeve, though. Well, not so much up his sleeve, it's actually on full display. Young people who have never voted have a keen eye that sees the cruel Conservative ideology underpinning the atrocious Tory policies that are devastating the already destitute and vulnerable. They are angry and they are flocking to Labour to register as supporters and members of the party. There's a huge appetite there for social justice and a determination to oust the Tories from government whenever the opportunity arises.

It's really good to see our young people becoming engaged in such a way but if the successful candidate for the Labour leadership doesn't accommodate the desire for the ideological change these young people demand they will be punished for it with falling membership rolls and at the ballot box.


johngwalia 30 Jul 2015 08:39

It would appear that Blair was also convinced that it was his charisma that got him his landslide victory in 1997. Nothing to do with the fact that the Tories had dug their own grave and buried themselves in sleaze. So much so even diehard Tories never went to the polls. He could have done so much good instead he chose to do harm at the bequest of the US. Currying favour it is called which did well for him personally.

The propaganda weapon that faces any Labour administration is formidable as the Tory driven media constantly undermines any concerted efforts to ensure that a fair and just society is created for the many rather than the few.


cherryredguitar robertdr 30 Jul 2015 08:39

JC excites the labour left and political activists, but will horrify the greater electorate.

As the Indy pointed out, a majority of the greater electorate support many of Corbyn's policies, including renationalisation, rent controls and a 75% tax rate for those who are earning over £1m.

andrewdoddsuk Attmtihss 30 Jul 2015 08:38

You meant that whenever a vaguely left-wing government is elected nowadays, it immediately comes under sustained attack from high finance? Regardless of the actual policies enacted.


computer8000 30 Jul 2015 08:30

Why has Tony Blair jumped into all this ? Talks of Heart transplant ! Seems to have got insane. Must have been paid because he speaks only when paid huge sums for his speeches. He should be in the International court of Justice at Hague and be tried for the destruction of mankind when was a prime Minister.
The other Labour candidates besides Corby lack gravity and would not command leadership.


THKMTL 30 Jul 2015 08:18

Power does not exist in the Gov . The gov. cannot rule without a compliant, lobotomized by the diseducation system, general public. The most important thing ( as J.C. said) is to create a means for discussion , and a channel for high- profile REAL public opinion, which did not exist before his gratifying and uniquely honourable attempt to do so

... ... ...

continue in pride and confidence.


prosep 30 Jul 2015 08:10

Who knows, this could be the beginnings of a Socialist renaissance that could have been lying dormant until the Scots took some action and banished a pseudo Labour party to the verve of extinction in Scotland, and will probably finish off the job come next may, with the two recent shocking abstentions uppermost in their minds.

The strong right wing press and media have at all times suffocated any socialist aspirations, and never gave it a chance to really get going and in the process kept very intelligent men like Foot and Benn always struggling to get their sound policies over . The Bankers and big business and those who controlled them always made it their goal to discredit anyone who had the temerity to espouse policies the would be beneficial to the working man/woman in the UK.

The younger voter could be the springboard for this seismic change in UK politics and one should not be surprised by this as it is patently obvious to all and sundry the past 40 years have been a failure for the ordinary person with the rich getting richer and poverty in the UK taking a firm grip on, yes, even those who are in work, with the Joseph Rowntree foundation stating over half of the 13 million people classed as in poverty in this, one of the wealthiest countries in the world today, are in actual fact working .

Thatchers main aim, if not whole raison d'etre, was to destroy the unions, and in doing so left the poor worker practically defenseless and open to exploitation, and as always happens if the opportunity is there, the bosses will exploit it, and before you start screaming nonsense, just how much of the welfare bill goes indirectly to the employers in the way of the state subsidising THEIR workers, and you can already hear the rumblings of discontent at the modest rise the Government have said they must pay .

But alas this is all pie in the sky as even if Corbyn was to win, he would have to leave the Labour party and start a new one, as it seems no one is prepared to work with him, so in essence, this my friends is just wishful thinking.


Cicero001 30 Jul 2015 07:41

Corbyn is a breath of fresh air and just what the Labour party and the UK needs. A real alternative to the austerity-loving elitist landed gentry that govern us aka the Tory party.

Even if he's not going to win the 2020 election he at least will offer an alternative view in UK politics and that can only be a good thing.

The nation needs an opposition that is completely opposed to the ruling party to give the voters a real choice.

The public have complained that there was no point in voting as all the parties were the same...well not any more!

Labour tried being Tory-Lite and it got them trounced at the election...if the voters want Tory policies they will vote for the real Tory party not a bunch of Red-Tory wannabes!!

It's time Labour got back to the Left of centre and to their true roots. Time to throw the 'Nu-Labour' experiment and it's adherents into the political dustbin.

Corbyn has my vote!


MissingInActon 30 Jul 2015 07:39

As they say across the pond, do the math.
This piece has 4,114 comments as I write, and other pieces on JC have been racking the numbers up for a while. The Mail is finding every angle they can on him, trying to do him down without much support from their readers, and has gone as far as finding the market vendor who sells him his vests. The Indy has one story and a vid on the front page, and the Mirror has dug up the old 'bigger than Jesus' tag based on his google ranking.
He has the media profile he needs to start, and manage, the debate he wants. If that debate happens across the country, I think he'll be a happy man. If Labour choose anyone else, they'll be seen as deliberately picking a second-rater. John McTiernan may not give a damn about the grassroots but, come polling day, they have the last word.
Right now, JC is that word.

[Jul 31, 2015] The Fed & The Donald

July 29, 2015 | Macro Allocation Inc.

Donald Trump's ascendance as the early GOP front-runner is symbolic of a greater global trend: growing pushback against institutional political and economic power.

To many centrist politicians and mainstream political observers, Donald Trump is a boastful, insensitive egomaniac spouting populist rhetoric. Whether such a characterization is true is not worthy of debate, which may explain why the rantings of enraged career political pundits have no impact on Mr. Trump's popularity among Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America. It seems no amount of ink or air time spent tarring and feathering Trump's reputation sticks; in fact it seems to help Teflon Don in the polls, where he leads a crowded field of career politicians.

Donald Trump is a threat not only to the nattering nabobs in the press corps and the Republican Party. His day in the sun may be symbolic of a broader dynamic: the declining power held by historically powerful institutions. Ask yourself if Trump's campaign is making a mockery of the political process or exposing the mockery that the political process has become. A not-insignificant percentage of Americans away from the coasts, are looking past his utter lack of decorum and political savvy to hitch their wagons to his outrage.

Let's forget, for a moment, about our personal politics, preferred policies, and individual candidates we may be excited to elect. Are we supposed to forget that the Supreme Court, through its 2010 decision that corporate donors should be treated legally as individual donors under the First Amendment, effectively subordinated individual voters into mere supporting targets to which political aspirants have to appeal? Most importantly, are we supposed to nod our bobble heads in agreement with the heads of the national parties to choose a candidate they find acceptable based on which will appeal to the best funded special interests?

Is anyone really polling in favor of Donald Trump or is he conveniently filling the role of the not-so-quiet counterfactual?

I recently texted one of the premier Sunday morning political pundits with these thoughts and he texted back:

"That's what I am arguing internally. This is the country's collective middle finger to Washington."

As an investment strategist and consultant observing our current global economy and markets, it is difficult not to extrapolate this sense of helplessness against powerful institutions. Tell us again why six years of central bank financial repression is serving the interests of the greater factors-of-production? As investors, should we care about widening wealth and income gaps that are clearly part-and-parcel with central bank policies devoted to maintaining asset values (see here and here)?

Should we expect free, democratic markets that create, form and price capital efficiently - not that treat financial assets as balance sheet collateral for credit?

Who can voters elect to again have an economy that puts producers over rentiers, or to have markets that price value? I'm sure it's not Donald Trump (a rentier's rentier!), but I'm also sure it's not the heads of the Democrat and Republican Parties. Who can investors elect to keep the rentier thing going? Is that really what investors should want? It's complicated.

[Jul 30, 2015] MeiN CoiF! Zero Hedge

"...She tried to outdo Bill's $200 haircut, but he held up air traffic on the east coast for two hours, so he is still ahead."
"...She failed the bar exam. http://www.buzzfeed.com/deenashanker/fail-the-bar-become-president We're ruled by elite morons."
"...You don't have to be smart to be a politician, all you need to be is "Willing to give the banksters what they want." "

ChanceIs

No, no. The haircut was only $100. Hillary had to cough up another $500 because the Secret Service had to close down the rest of th salon for security reasons. She had to compensate the owners for the lost business from all of the empty chairs and idle beauticians.

Just kidding.

Actually, I wasn't. It wasn't the Secret Service at all. It was Hillary not wanting to suffer the indignity of being coiffed next to mere mortal in an adjacent chair. You knw...the other clients would see how much gray she really has and talk to Matt Drudge.

I always love how Drudge finds the photos showing the most wrinkles.

MontgomeryScott

Is anyone old enough to remember the time, about 3 weeks after 1992 selection, that Hitlery's masochist Boi-toy Bill (three weeks after taking office in his first term) made LAX shut down for an hour while he got his hair cut (on Air Force One, on the runway)? Seems there was this rise to impeach him in the Senate after he sold the Long Beach (CA) Naval Shipyards to COSCO (actually, he LEASED them to the civilian operations sector of the Chinese Communist People's Liberation Army, but why split hairs). It served him WELL to get the attention diverted from his FIRST presidential scandal, though.

Hitlery is doing some 'pre-selection' diversion, here...

NICE hairdo, WB. I think I see a family/pod/nest of vultures in her hair, though.

AN INSIDE JOB? HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx4dM5KoqU0

Lumberjack

"You Can Legally Bribe a Government Official" http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-can-legally-bribe-a-government-official/5465490

Janine Jackson interviewed investigative reporter Lee Fang about Washington's revolving door for the July 24 CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: When Eric Holder first joined law firm Covington & Burling in 2001, he was coming from a stint as deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton. So it's no wonder that when Holder went to the Obama administration as attorney general, the folks at Covington kept his seat warm.

...JJ: Well, when you talk about Eric Holder going from Covington & Burling to the White House back to Covington & Burling back to the White House back to Covington & Burling, the response from many could be summed up, I think, as "duh." I mean, some of us don't forget 1992 Hillary Clinton saying, "For goodness sakes, you can't be a lawyer if you don't represent banks."…

Nobody For President

I was laughing at the title before I even got to the site.

She tried to outdo Bill's $200 haircut, but he held up air traffic on the east coast for two hours, so he is still ahead.

Reaper

Hitlery needed affirmative action and a stuck up coif for her SS admission. She failed the bar exam. http://www.buzzfeed.com/deenashanker/fail-the-bar-become-president

We're ruled by elite morons.

ThrowAwayYourTV

You don't have to be smart to be a politician, all you need to be is "Willing to give the banksters what they want."

[Jul 28, 2015] Could Trump Win

Zero Hedge
07/28/2015 16:45 -0400

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

The American political class has failed the country, and should be fired. That is the clearest message from the summer surge of Bernie Sanders and the remarkable rise of Donald Trump.

Sanders' candidacy can trace it roots back to the 19th-century populist party of Mary Elizabeth Lease who declaimed:

"Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master."

"Raise less corn and more hell!" Mary admonished the farmers of Kansas.

William Jennings Bryan captured the Democratic nomination in 1896 by denouncing the gold standard beloved of the hard money men of his day: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

Sanders is in that tradition, if not in that league as an orator. His followers, largely white, $50,000-a-year folks with college degrees, call to mind more the followers of George McGovern than Jennings Bryan.

Yet the stagnation of workers' wages as the billionaire boys club admits new members, and the hemorrhaging of U.S. jobs under trade deals done for the Davos-Doha crowd, has created a blazing issue of economic inequality that propels the Sanders campaign.

Between his issues and Trump's there is overlap. Both denounce the trade deals that deindustrialized America and shipped millions of jobs off to Mexico, Asia and China. But Trump has connected to an even more powerful current.

That is the issue of uncontrolled and illegal immigration, the sense America's borders are undefended, that untold millions of lawbreakers are in our country, and more are coming. While most come to work, they are taking American jobs and consuming tax dollars, and too many come to rob, rape, murder and make a living selling drugs.

Moreover, the politicians who have talked about this for decades are a pack of phonies who have done little to secure the border.

Trump boasts that he will get the job done, as he gets done all other jobs he has undertaken. And his poll ratings are one measure of how far out of touch the Republican establishment is with the Republican heartland.

When Trump ridicules his rivals as Lilliputians and mocks the celebrity media, the Republican base cheers and laughs with him.

He is boastful, brash, defiant, unapologetic, loves campaigning, and is putting on a great show with his Trump planes and 100-foot-long stretch limos. "Every man a king but no man wears a crown," said Huey Long. "I'm gonna make America great again," says Donald.

Compared to Trump, all the other candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, are boring. He makes politics entertaining, fun.

Trump also benefits from the perception that his rivals and the press want him out of the race and are desperately seizing upon any gaffe to drive him out. The piling on, the abandonment of Trump by the corporate elite, may have cost him a lot of money. But it also brought him support he would not otherwise have had.

For no group of Americans has been called more names than the base of the GOP. The attacks that caused the establishment to wash its hands of Trump as an embarrassment brought the base to his defense.

But can Trump win?

If his poll numbers hold, Trump will be there six months from now when the Sweet 16 is cut to the Final Four, and he will likely be in the finals. For if Trump is running at 18 or 20 percent nationally then, among Republicans, it is hard to see how two rivals beat him.

For Trump not to be in the hunt as the New Hampshire primary opens, his campaign will have to implode, as Gary Hart's did in 1987, and Bill Clinton's almost did in 1992.

Thus, in the next six months, Trump will have to commit some truly egregious blunder that costs him his present following. Or the dirt divers of the media and "oppo research" arms of the other campaigns will have to come up with some high-yield IEDs.

Presidential primaries are minefields for the incautious, and Trump is not a cautious man. And it is difficult to see how, in a two-man race against the favorite of the Republican establishment, he could win enough primaries, caucuses and delegates to capture 50 percent of the convention votes.

For almost all of the candidates who will have dropped out by then will have endorsed the last man standing against Trump. And should Trump be nominated, his candidacy would make Barry Goldwater look like the great uniter of the GOP.

Still, who expected Donald Trump to be in the catbird seat in the GOP nomination run before the first presidential debate? And even his TV antagonists cannot deny he has been great for ratings.

[Jul 26, 2015] Donald Trump's Top 30 Insults

"...In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. -- George Orwell "
"... "You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?""
"...Not that Trump is right or electable - but he's calling out the mealy-mouthed pandering politically correct make everyone like us while screwing everyone over process that is the joke of a government populated by a bunch of ass clowns - so no wonder Trump resonates."
"... "I honestly can't think of a single person I'd call a "statesman" these days. " ... joseJimenez: "Well, that is because you can only lower the bar so much then anything gets thru. Obama comes to mind."
"...At this time in history, we have long passed the point of no return. Who is president just doesn't matter anymore. The Neoliberal ideology has destroyed every social fabric. What matters is to further internalize profit and socialize cost. Yes, We Can.
"
Jul 26, 2015 | Zero Hedge
In no particular order...
  1. Former President George W. Bush: "You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?" asked Trump on July 9, after reports the former president charged a vets group for a speech. "Bush didn't have the IQ [to be president]," he added on June 16.
  2. Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) — "I'm not a big fan. The last thing we need is another Bush," Trump said on June 16. Trump's account also retweeted an insult to Bush's wife on July 4th: "@RObHeilbron: @realDonaldTrump #JebBush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife." It was later deleted.
  3. Hillary Clinton — "Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of State in the history of the United States," Trump told Business Insider. His account on April 16 also retweeted an attack on Clinton: "@mplefty67: If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" Trump said a campaign staffer was responsible and deleted the tweet.
  4. Anderson Cooper — "What a waste of time being interviewed by@andersoncooper when he puts on really stupid talking heads like Tim O'Brien-dumb guy with no clue!" Trump tweeted on July 22 after his interview with the CNN anchor. During his interview, Trump told Cooper: "The people don't trust you and the people don't trust the media."
  5. Bill Cosby — Trump said he believed the sexual assault allegations against the comedian, calling him "guilty as hell." "I've known him, and I've never liked him," Trump said in a July radio interview. "I think he is a highly overrated guy, both in talent and in many other ways,"
  6. Des Moines RegisterAfter the paper called on Trump to drop out, he dismissed it as a "sophomoric editorial" and called their coverage "uneven and inconsistent, but far more importantly, very dishonest."
  7. Forbes Magazine "Why does a failed magazine like @Forbes constantly seek out trivial nonsense? Their circulation way down. @Clare_OC," Trump tweeted on July 9.
  8. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) —"What a stiff, what a stiff, Lindsey Graham. By the way he has registered zero in the polls," Trump said, at a campaign speech in Bluffton, S.C. on July 21. "A total lightweight. In the private sector, he couldn't get a job. Believe me. Couldn't get a job. He couldn't do what you people did. You're retired as hell and rich. He wouldn't be rich; he'd be poor." Trump also shared Graham's personal cellphone number and said he had begged him to help get on Fox News's "Fox and Friends." "What's this guy, a beggar? He's like begging me to help him with [the show] 'Fox and Friends.'" Trump said of Graham on "CBS This Morning," on July 21.
  9. Jonah Goldberg — "Jonah Goldberg @JonahNRO of the once great @NRO#National Review is truly dumb as a rock. Why does @BretBaier put this dummy on his show?" Trump tweeted, criticizing the conservative columnist on April 20.
  10. Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman — Trump said the Mexican drug lord would be no match for him. "Can you envision Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton negotiating with 'El Chapo', the Mexican drug lord who escaped from prison? ...Trump, however, would kick his ass!" he tweeted on July 12. Trump later called in the FBI after a death threat from a Twitter account associated with Guzman.
  11. Arianna Huffington — "The liberal clown @ariannahuff told her minions at the money losing @HuffingtonPost to cover me as entertainment. I am #1 in Huff Post Poll," Trump tweeted on July 18.
  12. Penn Jillette — After the magician and comedian criticized Trump, he responded on July 16, tweeting: "I hear @pennjillette show on Broadway is terrible. Not surprised, boring guy (Penn). Without The Apprentice, show would have died long ago." He then followed up with, "I loved firing goofball atheist Penn @pennjillette on The Apprentice. He never had a chance. Wrote letter to me begging for forgiveness."
  13. Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) — "What people don't know about Kasich- he was a managing partner of the horrendous Lehman Brothers when it totally destroyed the economy!" Trump tweeted on May 20.
  14. Charles Krauthammer"One of the worst and most boring political pundits on television is @krauthammer. A totally overrated clown who speaks without knowing facts," Trump tweeted about the conservative writer and Fox News contributor on June 4. A tweet a day later called him a "dumpy political pundit" and took issue with Krauthammer's support for the Iraq war. Krauthammer brought on Trump's ire by mocking his then-low standing in the polls.
  15. Bill Kristol — When the Weekly Standard editor belittled Trump's chances against Hillary, Trump responded on July 23, tweeting, "Bill, your small and slightly failing magazine will be a giant success when you finally back Trump. Country will soar!"
  16. Mitt Romney — "Why would anybody listen to @MittRomney? He lost an election that should have easily been won against Obama. By the way, so did John McCain!" Trump tweeted of the 2012 Republican nominee on July 18.
  17. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) "He's not a war hero," Trump said at a rally on July 18. "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured." This followed a July 16 tweet saying, "@SenJohnMcCain should be defeated in the primaries. Graduated last in his class at Annapolis--dummy!" The insults came after McCain said Trump had "fired up the crazies" on immigration.
  18. ...
  19. Mexico — Trump lambasted the southern neighbor. "The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems," he said on May 30 at his campaign launch. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." The remarks led a number of businesses to cut their ties with him. He doubled down after the escape of a top drug kingpin. "It's a corrupt place," Trump said on July 17. "It's a terrible court system." "Let's put it this way," he added, "I'm not going to Mexico."
  20. President Obama — Trump has long said he is not sure Obama was born in the U.S. and slammed his policies, calling him the "worst ever president." Obama hit back at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, mocking Trump who was in attendance. But Trump hasn't let up. During the Baltimore riots in April this year he tweeted: "Our great African American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!" He also Obama to leave office early and golf on one of his many courses. "If he'd like to play, that's fine. In fact, I'd love for him to leave early and play. That'd be a very good thing," he said at his campaign launch in June. After the Chattanooga shooting, Trump pressed Obama to lower the flag for the victims. "We have a president who just can't say a few words: 'Put the flags at half-mast for the five Marines that were just killed.' Why? Why? Why?" Trump said at a South Carolina rally on July 21. "It's almost like, does he read the papers? Does he watch television?"
  21. ...
  22. Former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) — Perry has been a tough critic of Trump's rhetoric on immigration. "Rick Perry failed at the border. Now he is critical of me. He needs a new pair of glasses to see the crimes committed by illegal immigrants," Trump tweeted on July 5th. On July 16, he added, "@GovernorPerry failed on the border. He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate." "He's doing very poorly in the polls. He put on glasses so people will think he's smart. And it just doesn't work! You know people can see through the glasses," Trump said at a rally on July 21.
  23. Former Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.) — Trump tweeted that Pataki "couldn't be elected dog catcher if he ran again—so he didn't!" Trump tweeted July 1. He followed up with: ".@GovernorPataki was a terrible governor of NY, one of the worst -- would've been swamped if he ran again!"
  24. Karl Rove — Trump went off on the Republican strategist's record in 2012 record. "@KarlRove wasted $400 million + and didn't win one race—a total loser. @FoxNews," he tweeted on July 16, followed by "Irrelevant clown @KarlRove sweats and shakes nervously on @FoxNews as he talks 'bull' about me. Has zero cred. Made fool of himself in '12." Trump even called out the network: "@FoxNewsYou shouldn't have @KarlRove on the air—he's a clown with zero credibility—a Bushy!"
  25. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — "[Sanders] knows the country is ripped off. And I know the country is being ripped off," Trump told The Hill on July 23. "The difference is that I can do something about it and he can't. He'll never be able to negotiate with China."
  26. Republican National Committee — "The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy," Trump toldThe Hill on July 23. "The RNC has been, I think, very foolish."
  27. Chuck Todd —"I hear that sleepy eyes @chucktodd will be fired like a dog from ratings starved Meet The Press? I can't imagine what is taking so long!" Trump tweeted on July 12 about the "Meet the Press" host.
  28. ...
  29. The Wall Street JournalTrump has had a long feud with owner Rupert Murdoch. After the paper questioned his candidacy, Trump tweeted on July 20: "The ever dwindling @WSJ which is worth about 1/10 of what it was purchased for, is always hitting me politically. Who cares!"
  30. Juan Williams — "@TheJuanWilliams you never speak well of me & yet when I saw you at Fox you ran over like a child and wanted a picture," tweeted Trump on July 3 of the Fox personality.

realmoney2015

"Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of State in the history of the United States," - Donald Trump

So why does he give her foundation money? Why did he support her 2008 campaign. Was it bad judgement and now he has changed his ways and learned his lesson? Or is this all for show to win support? Until he admits he was wrong and made a mistake, I will assume he is still a clinton supporter.

ctiger2

Ummm... cause Trump realizes you have to BUY influence in a fascist faux constitutional republic with rigged democratic elections? Like the bankers Trump funds both sides.

buzzsaw99

Gonzales: There is one question, Inspector Callahan: Why do they call you "Dirty Harry"?

De Georgio: Ah that's one thing about our Harry, doesn't play any favorites! Harry hates everybody: Limeys, Micks, Hebes, Fat Dagos, Niggers, Honkies, Chinks, you name it.

Gonzales: How does he feel about Mexicans?

De Georgio: Ask him.

Harry Callahan: Especially Spics.

Normalcy Bias

What about some of the comments Trump made about Rosie O'Donnell when they were having a flame war? Funny stuff...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32577Hom08

elegance

That is fucking brilliant! Comedy gold. I do want that guy to be US president. Only candidate I follow on twitter.

ebworthen

It is refreshing to hear someone say what they think.

Not that Trump is right or electable - but he's calling out the mealy-mouthed pandering politically correct make everyone like us while screwing everyone over process that is the joke of a government populated by a bunch of ass clowns - so no wonder Trump resonates.

realmoney2015

But he has never mentioned the federal reserve or the bankers that actually control those politicians. Until we end the fed no major positive changes will happen.


chunga

Lucy promises this time she won't pull the football away so the few remaining voters, once again, go for the kick.

I honestly can't think of a single person I'd call a "statesman" these days.

joseJimenez

Well, that is because you can only lower the bar so much then anything gets thru. Obama comes to mind.

Lumberjack

The video is hysterical but remembering how birds of a feather act, one has to wonder.

http://dailybail.com/home/giuliani-tells-don-imus-i-wouldnt-lock-up-jami...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

mamasan

In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. -- George Orwell

Omega_Man

Believe it or not. USA's only chance is with Donald.

If the mainstream zio media attacks him so much - well there is your answer.

If he is elected he should take great care... remember, someone made the decision in Dallas in November 22, 1963 to use the convertible limo... it was not by coincidence.

dogfish

The USA cant be saved. its suicidal.

joseJimenez

I have been thinking the same thing for a while. We know the scumbags that run this won't like a loose cannon

reader2010

Americans need more entertainment from public discourse if there's any.

At this time in history, we have long passed the point of no return. Who is president just doesn't matter anymore. The Neoliberal ideology has destroyed every social fabric. What matters is to further internalize profit and socialize cost. Yes, We Can.


Speech Teddy Roosevelt Gave Right After Getting Shot...

by Henry Blodget

Oct. 14, 2011 | Business Insider

Given the tension in the country today over inequality, greed, corporate influence over politics, taxes, regulation, etc., it seems worth noting that these issues aren't exactly new.

The recent extremes of corporate power and profitability juxtaposed with super-high unemployment and stagnant wages have just made them hit a boiling point.

So it's worth revisiting a famous populist speech Teddy Roosevelt gave in 1912, when similar issues plagued the country.

What's remarkable about the speech is not that Roosevelt gave it.

It's that he gave it a few minutes after getting shot by some anarchist who was pissed off that he was running for a third term.

The assassin's bullet hit Roosevelt in the chest. Before it reached his skin, however, it hit the pages of the speech he was planning to give, which were in his vest pocket. The bullet penetrated the pages, but they slowed it down. When the bullet finally hit Teddy Roosevelt, therefore, it was going too slowly to kill him.

So he insisted on making the speech.

And here it is:

"It Takes More Than That to Kill a Bull Moose":
The Leader and The Cause*

* Address at Milwaukee, Wis., October, 14, 1912. Just before entering the auditorium at Milwaukee, an attempt was made on Colonel Roosevelt's life. The above speech is from a stenographic report, differing considerably from the prepared manuscript.

[TR was shot in an assassination attempt by John Schrank, who had been having disturbing dreams about TR's predecessor, William McKinley and also thought that no president should serve more than two terms.
Schrank spent the rest of his life in a mental institution. No one came to visit him. He died shortly after Franklin Delano Roosevelt, TR's fifth cousin, was elected to a third term. Schrank had stalked TR for thousands of miles before getting a clear shot at him in Milwaukee. Schrank was caught on the spot.]

Friends, I shall ask you to be as quiet as possible. I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose. But fortunately I had my manuscript, so you see I was going to make a long speech, and there is a bullet - there is where the bullet went through - and it probably saved me from it going into my heart. The bullet is in me now, so that I cannot make a very long speech, but I will try my best.

And now, friends, I want to take advantage of this incident to say a word of solemn warning to my fellow countrymen. First of all, I want to say this about myself: I have altogether too important things to think of to feel any concern over my own death; and now I cannot speak to you insincerely within five minutes of being shot. I am telling you the literal truth when I say that my concern is for many other things. It is not in the least for my own life. I want you to understand that I am ahead of the game, anyway. No man has had a happier life than I have led; a happier life in every way. I have been able to do certain things that I greatly wished to do, and I am interested in doing other things. I can tell you with absolute truthfulness that I am very much uninterested in whether I am shot or not. It was just as when I was colonel of my regiment. I always felt that a private was to be excused for feeling at times some pangs of anxiety about his personal safety, but I cannot understand a man fit to be a colonel who can pay any heed to his personal safety when he is occupied as he ought to be with the absorbing desire to do his duty.

I am in this cause with my whole heart and soul. I believe that the Progressive movement is making life a little easier for all our people; a movement to try to take the burdens off the men and especially the women and children of this country. I am absorbed in the success of that movement.

Friends, I ask you now this evening to accept what I am saying as absolutely true, when I tell you I am not thinking of my own success. I am not thinking of my life or of anything connected with me personally. I am thinking of the movement. I say this by way of introduction, because I want to say something very serious to our people and especially to the newspapers. I don't know anything about who the man was who shot me to-night. He was seized at once by one of the stenographers in my party, Mr. Martin, and I suppose is now in the hands of the police. He shot to kill. He shot - the shot, the bullet went in here - I will show you.

I am going to ask you to be as quiet as possible for I am not able to give to challenge of the bull moose quite as loudly. Now, I do not know who he was or what he represented. He was a coward. He stood in the darkness in the crowd around the automobile and when they cheered me, and I got up to bow, he stepped forward and shot me in the darkness.

Now, friends, of course, I do not know, as I say, anything about him; but it is a very natural thing that weak and vicious minds should be inflamed to acts of violence by the kind of awful mendacity and abuse that have been heaped upon me for the last three months by the papers in the interest of not only Mr. Debs but of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Taft.

Friends, I will disown and repudiate any man of my party who attacks with such foul slander and abuse any opponent of any other party; and now I wish to say seriously to all the daily newspapers, to the Republicans, the Democrat, and Socialist parties, that they cannot, month in month out and year in and year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault that they have made and not expect that brutal, violent natures, or brutal and violent characters, especially when the brutality is accompanied by a not very strong mind; they cannot expect that such natures will be unaffected by it.

Now, friends, I am not speaking for myself at all, I give you my word, I do not care a rap about being shot; not a rap.

I have had a good many experiences in my time and this is one of them. What I care for is my country. I wish I were able to impress upon my people -- our people, the duty to feel strongly but to speak the truth of their opponents. I say now, I have never said one word one the stump against any opponent that I cannot defend. I have said nothing that I could not substantiate and nothing that I ought not to have said -- nothing that I -- nothing that, looking back at, I would not say again.

Now, friends, it ought not to be too much to ask that our opponents -[speaking to some one on the stage]-I am not sick at all. I am all right. I cannot tell you of what infinitesimal importance I regard this incident as compared with the great issues at stake in this campaign, and I ask it not for my sake, not the least in the world, but for the sake of common country, that they make up their minds to speak only the truth, and not use that kind of slander and mendacity which if taken seriously must incite weak and violent natures to crimes of violence. Don't you make any mistake. Don't you pity me. I am all right. I am all right and you cannot escape listening to the speech either.

And now, friends, this incident that has just occurred - this effort to assassinate me- emphasizes to a peculiar degree the need of the Progressive movement. Friends, every good citizen ought to do everything in his or her power to prevent the coming of the day when we shall see in this country two recognized creeds fighting one another, when we shall see the creed of the "Havenots" arraigned against the creed of the "Haves." When that day comes then such incidents as this to-night will be commonplace in our history. When you make poor men - when you permit the conditions to grow such that the poor man as such will be swayed by his sense of injury against the men who try to hold what they improperly have won, when that day comes, the most awful passions will be let loose and it will be an ill day for our country.

Now, friends, what we who are in this movement are endeavoring to do is forestall any such movement for justice now - a movement in which we ask all just men of generous hearts to join with the men who feel in their souls that lift upward which bids them refuse to be satisfied themselves while their countrymen and countrywomen suffer from avoidable misery. Now, friends, what we Progressives are trying to do is to enroll rich or poor, whatever their social or industrial position, to stand together for the most elementary rights of good citizenship, those elementary rights which are the foundation of good citizenship in this great Republic of ours.

(At this point a renewed effort was made to persuade Mr. Roosevelt to conclude his speech.)

My friends are a little more nervous than I am. Don't you waste any sympathy on me. I have had an A-1 time in life and I am having it now.

I never in my life was in any movement in which I was able to serve with such whole-hearted devotion as in this; in which I was able to feel as I do in this that common weal. I have fought for the good of our common country.

And now, friends, I shall have to cut short much of that speech that I meant to give you, but I want to touch on just two or three points.

In the first place, speaking to you here in Milwaukee, I wish to say that the Progressive party is making its appeals to all our fellow citizens without any regard to their creed or to their birthplace. We do not regard as essential the way in which a man worships his God or as being affected by where he was born. We regard it as a matter of spirit and purpose. In New York, while I was police commissioner, the two men from whom I got the most assistance were Jacob Riis, who was born in Denmark, and Arthur von Briesen, who was born in Germany - both of them as fine examples of the best and highest American citizenship as you could find in any part of this country.

I have just been introduced by one of your own men here - Henry Cochems. His grandfather, his father, and that father's seven brothers, all served in the United States army, and they entered it four years after they had come to this country from Germany. Two of them left their lives, spent their lives, on the field of battle. I am all right - I am a little sore. Anybody has a right to be sore with a bullet in him. You would find that if I was in battle now I would be leading my men just the same. Just the same way I am going to make this speech.

At one time I promoted five men for gallantry on the field of battle. Afterward in making some inquiries about them I found that two of them were Protestants, two Catholic, and one a Jew. One Protestant came from Germany and one was born in Ireland. I did not promote them because of their religion. It just happened that way. If all five of them had been Jews I would have promoted them, or if all five of them had been Protestants I would have promoted them; or if they had been Catholics. In that regiment I had a man born in Italy who distinguished himself by gallantry; there was another young fellow, a son of Polish parents, and another who came here when he was a child from Bohemia, who likewise distinguished themselves; and friends, I assure you, that I was incapable of considering any question whatever, but the worth of each individual as a fighting man. If he was a good fighting man, then I saw that Uncle Sam got the benefit of it. That is all.

I make the same appeal to our citizenship. I ask in our civic life that we in the same way pay heed only to the man's quality of citizenship, to repudiate as the worst enemy that we can have whoever tries to get us to discriminate for or against any man because of his creed or birthplace.

Now, friends, in the same way I want out people to stand by one another without regard to differences or class or occupation. I have always stood by labor-unions. I am going to make one omission to-night. I have prepared my speech because Mr. Wilson had seen fit to attack me by showing up his record in comparison with mine. But I am not going to do that to-night. I am going to simply speak of what I myself have done and what I think ought to be done in this country of ours.

It is essential that here should be organizations of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize. My appeal for organized labor is two-fold; to the outsider and the capitalist I make my appeal to treat the laborer fairly, to recognize the fact that he must organize that there must be such organization, that the laboring man must organize for his own protection, and that it is the duty of the rest of us to help him and not hinder him in organizing. That is one-half appeal that I make.

Now, the other half is to the labor man himself. My appeal to him is to remember that as he wants justice, so he must do justice. I want every labor man, every labor leader, every organized union man, to take the lead in denouncing disorder and in denouncing the inciting of riot; that in this country we shall proceed under the protection of our laws and with all respect to the laws, I want the labor men to feel in their turn that exactly as justice must be done them so they must do justice. They must bear their duty as citizens, their duty to this great country of ours, and that they must not rest content unless they do that duty to the fullest degree.

I know these doctors, when they get hold of me, will never let me go back, and there are just a few more things that I want to say to you.

And here I have got to make one comparison between Mr. Wilson and myself, simply because he has invited it and I cannot shrink from it. Mr. Wilson has seen fit to attack me, to say that I did not do much against the trusts when I was President. I have got two answers to make to that. In the first place what I did, and then I want to compare what I did when I was President with what Mr. Wilson did not do when he was governor.

When I took the office the antitrust law was practically a dead letter and the interstate commerce law in as poor a condition. I had to revive both laws. I did. I enforced both. It will be easy enough to do now what I did then, but the reason that it is easy now is because I did it when it was hard.

Nobody was doing anything. I found speedily that the interstate commerce law by being made perfect could be made a most useful instrument for helping solve some of our industrial problems. So with the antitrust law. I speedily found out that almost the only positive good achieved by such a successful lawsuit as the Northern Securities suit, for instance, was in establishing the principle that the government was supreme over the big corporation, but by itself that the law did not accomplish any of the things that we ought to have accomplished; and so I began to fight for the amendment of the law along the lines of the interstate commerce law, and now we propose, we Progressives, to establish and interstate commission having the same power over industrial concerns that the Interstate Commerce Commission has over railroads, so that whenever there is in the future a decision rendered in such important matters as the recent suits against the Standard Oil, the Sugar - no, not that - Tobacco - Tobacco Trust - we will have a commission which will see that the decree of the court is really made effective; that it is not made a merely nominal decree.

Our opponents have said that we intend to legalize monopoly. Nonsense. They have legalized monopoly. At this moment the Standard Oil and Tobacco Trust monopolies are legalized; they are being carried on under the decree of the Supreme Court. Our proposal is really to break up monopoly. Our proposal is to lay down certain requirements, and then to require the commerce commission - the industrial commission - to see that the trusts live up to those requirements. Our opponents have spoken as if we were going to let the commission declare what those requirements should be. Not at all. We are going to put the requirements in the law and then see that the commission requires them to obey that law.

And now, friends, as Mr. Wilson has invited the comparison, I only want to say this: Mr. Wilson has said that the States are the proper authorities to deal with the trusts. Well, about eighty percent of the trusts are organized in New Jersey. The Standard Oil, the Tobacco, the Sugar, the Beef, all those trusts are organized in the state of New Jersey and the laws of New Jersey say that their charters can at any time be amended or repealed if they misbehave themselves and give the government ample power to act about those laws, and Mr. Wilson has been governor a year and nine months and he has not opened his lips. The chapter describing what Mr. Wilson has done about trusts in New Jersey would read precisely like a chapter describing snakes in Ireland, which ran: "There are no snakes in Ireland." Mr. Wilson has done precisely and exactly nothing about the trusts.

I tell you, and I told you at the beginning, I do not say anything on the stump that I do not believe. I do not say anything I do not know. Let any of Mr. Wilson's friends on Tuesday point out one thing or let Mr. Wilson point out one thing that he has done about the trusts as governor of New Jersey.

And now, friends, there is one thing I want to say especially to you people here in Wisconsin. All that I have said so far is what I would say in any part of the Union. I have a peculiar right to ask that in this great contest you men and women of Wisconsin shall stand with us. You have taken the lead in progressive movements here in Wisconsin. You have taught the rest of us to look to you for inspiration and leadership. Now, friends, you have made that movement here locally. You will being doing a dreadful injustice to yourselves; you will be doing a dreadful injustice to the rest of us throughout the Union, if you fail to stand with us now that we are making this national movement. What I am about to say now I want yo to understand. If I speak of Mr. Wilson I speak with no mind of bitterness. I merely want to discuss the difference of policy between the Progressive and the Democratic party and to ask you to think for yourselves which party you will follow. I will say that, friends, because the Republican party is beaten. Nobody needs to have any idea that anything can be done with the Republican party.

When the Republican party - not the Republican party - when the bosses in control of the Republican party, the Barneses and Penroses, last June stole the nomination and wrecked the Republican party for good and all - I want to point out to you that nominally they stole that nomination from me, but it was really from you. They did not like me, and the longer they live the less cause they will have to like me. But while they don't like me, they dread you. You are the people that they dread. They dread the people themselves, and those bosses and the big special interests behind them made up their mind that they would rather see the Republican party wrecked than see it come under the control of the people themselves. So I am not dealing with the Republican party. There are only two ways you can vote this year. You can be progressive or reactionary. Whether you vote Republican or Democratic it does not make a difference, you are voting reactionary.

Now, the Democratic party in its platform and through the utterances of Mr. Wilson has distinctly committed itself to the old flintlock, muzzle-loaded doctrine of States' rights, and I have said distinctly we are for people's rights. We are for the rights of the people. If they can be obtained best through National Government, then we are for national rights. We are for people's rights however it is necessary to secure them.

Mr. Wilson has made a long essay against Senator Beveridge's bill to abolish child labor. It is the same kind of argument that would be made against our bill to prohibit women from working more than eight hours a day in industry. It is the same kind of argument that would have to be made; if it is true, it would apply equally against our proposal to insist that in continuous industries there shall be by law one day's rest in seven and three-shift eight-hour day. You have labor laws here in Wisconsin, and chamber of commerce will tell you that because of that fact there are industries that will not come to Wisconsin. They prefer to stay outside where they can work children of tender years, where they can work women fourteen and sixteen hours a day, where if it is a continuous industry, they can work men twelve hours a day and seven days a week.

Now, friends, I know that you of Wisconsin would never repeal those laws even if they are at your commercial hurt, just as I am trying to get New York to adopt such laws even though it will be to the New York's commercial hurt. But if possible I want to arrange it so that we can have justice without commercial hurt, and you can only get that if you have justice enforced nationally. You won't be burdened in Wisconsin with industries not coming to the State if the same good laws are extended all over the other States. Do you see what I mean? The States all compete in a common market; and it is not justice to the employers of a State that has enforced just and proper laws to have them exposed to the competition of another State where no such laws are enforced. Now, the Democratic platform, and their speakers declare we shall not have such laws. Mr. Wilson has distinctly declared that we shall not have a national law to prohibit the labor of children, to prohibit child labor. He has distinctly declared that we shall not have a law to establish a minimum wage for women.

I ask you to look at our declaration and hear and read our platform about social and industrial justice and then, friends, vote for the Progressive ticket without regard to me, without regard to my personality, for only by voting for that platform can you be true to the cause of progress throughout this Union.

Thanks to reader Bob Sharak for sending the speech along.

[Jul 26, 2015] Hillary Clinton aides Wall Street links raise economic policy doubts

"...Hillary Clinton is Wall St.'s contingency plan. No matter who wins, republican or democrat, they're still the real winner."
.
"...She is a hypocrite on her knees to the rich she sucks on, failing in the fight for the rights of regular Americans who need her to stand up for them.
.
On the horizon is the end of America presented to us by Republican candidates -Scott Walker- a wholly terrifying, destructive authoritarian candidate and Bush who wants a war with Iran just because war runs in his family. Neoliberalism their secret philosophy, means wealth rules and crushes every government protection or benefit in the name of freedom from all regulation, enabling unlimited profit for the un-taxable rich with nothing but corporate slavery and the underclass for the American people. That's what Republicans and their handlers call true freedom. Freedom from the ability to resist the rape of the people and planet by the psychopathic rich.
.
1 in 5 children are hungry now, the hungrier we all get the weaker we all are. Bow down now and worship the job creators for they provide us with the heaven of low wage work. We owe them the deepest respect, tax breaks and perfect lives while they find a million new ways to undermine everything that makes us human beings, teaching us to be psychopathic like them selfish, vengeful, dishonest, racist and just plain murderous.
.
The Republicans, as the face of the oligarchy, will no doubt legislate a "final solution" to the black problem, the brown problem and the moslem problem, establishing white supremacy as their assumed right as God's representatives on earth.
.
Citizens United has unleashed the psychopathic society and it like a smiling BTK killer will rip the guts out of America and turn it into a killing field.
Nobody seems to be reacting to the American progression toward the ultimate terror state, their heads buried in their media asses cannot see anything wrong. In 2017 Oligarchs with the finest military in the world at their disposal will be ready to kill in the name of peace, new markets and new profit.
.
We have taken leave of our senses - if we elect ANY Republican we have signed our own death warrant. "
The Guardian

Both Nides and Hormats have a strong history of taking pro-business stances on financial regulation and other issues near and dear to progressives. While at Morgan Stanley, which received a federal bailout, Nides pushed for the Obama administration to "find the right balance" in avoiding criticism of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis. He also played an important role in the Bill Clinton administration lobbying members of Congress to vote for Nafta in 1993.

Hormats, who has been described as Clinton's "economic guru", boasted of the Clinton State Department's support of the business community in a 2013 interview. He is also on the record being supportive of partial privatization of social security. Hormats also touted the benefits of "widescale deregulation" in the 1990s and strongly supported increased trade with China.

Nides, in particular, has played a major role in Clinton's current campaign. He has been one of the campaign's top bundlers of contributions and responsible for raising over $100,000 for the former secretary of state. He has been tipped as a future White House chief of staff in a Clinton administration. Further, employees of Morgan Stanley, where Nides serves as vice-chairman, have given Clinton more than $90,000 in the past quarter. This is more than every Republican candidate combined has received from the firm.

Sroka said: "Democrats want and the American people need a president who truly understands that the problem isn't that Wall Street firms or even Wall Street front groups like the Third Way have too little power in Washington, and that one very easy way to curb Wall Street's insatiable greed is to make sure that their former employees aren't on your payroll advising you."

Sroka was echoed by Kurt Walters, spokesman for the progressive campaign finance reform group Rootstrikers, who expressed his trepidation about potential staffers in a Clinton administration based on her past track record. "There's a lot of interest in the kind of people Secretary Clinton would hire in the executive branch, but the reality is she's already been in the executive branch and she surrounded herself with Wall Street insiders."

Profhambone -> 2miners 26 Jul 2015 12:55

It will be hard but he has principles and he presents a plan: tax the wealthy, stop the overseas empire building, infrastructure investment for re-building the middle class, bring back Glass-Steagall, cut defense, increase education. People want something other than the misty wishy-washy promise of illusion which the Clintons and the Bushes excel in doing.

Profhambone -> Cayce Jones 26 Jul 2015 12:50

But the point is Hillary is already owned by Big Business. We can't take much more from these vampires. The middle class is drying out and blowing away. If Hillary has no objection to the revolving door then she is just another illusion like Obama turned out to be....

peacefulmilitant 26 Jul 2015 12:43

Clinton is very wealthy and her son-in-law is a banker. What links do people expect her to have?

Ann Blasius -> Cayce Jones 26 Jul 2015 12:41

Both sides of the aisle are owned by Wall Street. That's why this country is in the shape it's in.

Joseph DeLassus 26 Jul 2015 12:29

If Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley start to rise more in the polls the Clinton people will try and paint them as far left wild eyed radicals. But if you examine the things Sanders and O'Malley stand for they are no different than mainstream Democratic proposals before Bill Clinton took the party to the right and closer to Wall Street. So it makes progressive ideas seem extreme. They are not. What is extreme is the way in which big money interests controls all three branches of government and intends to keep it that way.

CivilDiscussion 26 Jul 2015 12:05

Yeah, yeah -- but she might, maybe, possibly support an increased minimum wage, maybe extended out over ten years or so -- doesn't that make her progressive and a big champion of the working class? Just as her precious hubby, and Barack Obama, the first priority is to elect a Democrat so they can save us from those awful Republicans. NO, we have had enough of fake liberals who are bankrolled by bankers. Why not just support the GOP who at least tells that they want to make the rich richer and don't pussyfoot around and pretend to like the non-rich? But Hillary is a -- woman -- how can we not see what a fantastic thing that is? First a black president who loves bankers, then a woman president who loves bankers. Isn't that progress? No matter that most Americans are sinking into poverty and unemployment. This is the party of FDR now.

Shizz MacDribble -> 2miners 26 Jul 2015 11:48

At the moment, it is the Obama administration DOJ that is saying Clinton may have broken the law using her private email account to send classified messages. Yeah. You read that right. The Department of Justice under a democratic administration is now investigating Clinton for possible criminal activities. Sure, they will probably whitewash the whole thing in the end. The average person has little to no concept that the SMTP or POP3 they use to send their "private" emails are not secure protocols. They don't know the meaning of transmission control protocol. You can include the majority of people investigating the issue in the group of the networking ignorant. And don't try to throw any BS arguments about TLS or SSL at me. If one is using a private account or, as in Clinton's case, not using the government network, then copies of the messages one sends can still be on every public email relay along the way. In that case, all any militants would need to intercept the classified information in those emails is one IT person at any one of the relay points. In the end, the citizenry will just shrug all of this off and, yeah, it will be another waste of time and money. It will mostly be wasted because justice will not be served and the U.S. public will continue being duped by its servants. There are no new stories. Nothing ever changes. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

MadHatterSays -> veloboldie 26 Jul 2015 11:33

Hillary Clinton is Wall St.'s contingency plan. No matter who wins, republican or democrat, they're still the real winner.

Cayce Jones 26 Jul 2015 11:32

While the article notes campaign contributions by Wall Street, it fails to mention how much money has been given to Super PACs. Jeb Bush has received over $100 million in Super PAC funds, while Hillary's total is $15 million.
She has raised much more in direct campaign contributions. The difference between the campaign money and the Super PAC money is that we can look at the FEC filings and see the names of who has contributed. The fact that Hillary's funding is much more transparent should not be used against her.
Cruz and Rubio each have over $30 million in Super PAC money. And these PACs don't have to reveal who is giving them the money. The comparison between how much Morgan Stanley has given in campaign money to Democrats versus Republicans is a very small part of the picture, because Morgan Stanley could have contributed millions to any of these Super PACs and nobody will know.

2miners 26 Jul 2015 11:12

And the link to Wall St. for our current president, Obama's 2008 campaign received $42 million — "more than any other candidate in history" — from "Wall Street bankers and financial insiders."

Newsworthy piece my arse.

mallakhan123 26 Jul 2015 10:53

Money in politics will kill us all. Hillary is foolish. If she had rejected the big money and gone to the people like Bernie Sanders has done, she could have won easily, but now she is exposed as a shill for big money, everybody loses. She is a hypocrite on her knees to the rich she sucks on, failing in the fight for the rights of regular Americans who need her to stand up for them.

On the horizon is the end of America presented to us by Republican candidates -Scott Walker- a wholly terrifying, destructive authoritarian candidate and Bush who wants a war with Iran just because war runs in his family. Neoliberalism their secret philosophy, means wealth rules and crushes every government protection or benefit in the name of freedom from all regulation, enabling unlimited profit for the un-taxable rich with nothing but corporate slavery and the underclass for the American people. That's what Republicans and their handlers call true freedom. Freedom from the ability to resist the rape of the people and planet by the psychopathic rich.

1 in 5 children are hungry now, the hungrier we all get the weaker we all are. Bow down now and worship the job creators for they provide us with the heaven of low wage work. We owe them the deepest respect, tax breaks and perfect lives while they find a million new ways to undermine everything that makes us human beings, teaching us to be psychopathic like them selfish, vengeful, dishonest, racist and just plain murderous.

The Republicans, as the face of the oligarchy, will no doubt legislate a "final solution" to the black problem, the brown problem and the moslem problem, establishing white supremacy as their assumed right as God's representatives on earth.

Citizens United has unleashed the psychopathic society and it like a smiling BTK killer will rip the guts out of America and turn it into a killing field.
Nobody seems to be reacting to the American progression toward the ultimate terror state, their heads buried in their media asses cannot see anything wrong. In 2017 Oligarchs with the finest military in the world at their disposal will be ready to kill in the name of peace, new markets and new profit.
We have taken leave of our senses - if we elect ANY Republican we have signed our own death warrant. And Hillary, she will be the face of a loving grandma on a Hallmark card as the climate ,like a mad dog, eats us alive.

allymaxy Tom Voloshen 26 Jul 2015 10:37

The Roosevelt's belonged to the 1% of their time but their wealth was not held against them because they were populists and were trusted.

HC makes unforced errors that for someone who's been running for the top job for 30 years are confounding and hard to understand.

For someone schooled in politics and the way Washington works one would think she would do everything possible so as not to give ammunition to her opponents.

HC never should have had a server in her home and now should turn it over to the FBI. But she fights for herself more than she would fight for ordinary Americans, and the electorate doesn't trust her.

She is also running one of the most lackluster campaigns in recent history. That's why progressives are looking at Bernie.

If you want to revisit an inspired speech by a progressive known to voters for years, read Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 speech to a crowd in Milwaukee right after he was shot in the chest. Roosevelt's heart was in the right place, but we can't say the same about Hillary's.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-famous-populist-speech-teddy-roosevelt-gave-right-after-getting-shot-2011-10

DatelessNerd bcarey 26 Jul 2015 09:54

Historically, Clinton's list of top contributors has read like a Wall Street Who's Who: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

PatrickTrombly 26 Jul 2015 09:37

Wall Street is Wall Street.

About what will you "confront them" exactly?

Do you even know what it is that they do that adversely affects Main Street?

Don't give us meaningless phrases like "insatiable greed" or "unfettered capitalism" or "shadow banking" or "risky derivatives." Explain it.

Not a trick question. There is an answer. But if you don't know it, you can't fix the problem.

Hint - what was materially "exotic" about an "exotic" mortgage. And no, it wasn't interest only for 2 years - all 30 year loans are almost i/o at first.

Hint - what is the real reason that Warren can't break up "money center banks?" What function do they perform?

Hint - what slogan popular among the OWS protesters would, if acted upon in 2001, have prevented the housing bubble, crash and crisis?

Wall Street is the channel through which the policies that produce booms and busts, and that have transformed the US from a savings based economy to a debt based economy, flow.

Those policies are called

Open
Market
Operations

in order to artificially reduce interest rates. They print money and use it to buy securities from the big banks. Or they lend it to the big banks at 0.25%.The big banks get the money when it's still worth something.

elboberto -> mcgarnicle 26 Jul 2015 09:30

She chose corporate lawyering as a way of life before politics. Her Daughter worked a short time in that world. Son-in-law comes from Goldman Sachs and runs a hedge "fund." He comes from a similar Democrat family who got into politics and made their money off politics and political ties just like the Clintons. Wall Street and the financial industry are a large and integral part of her social, political and financial life. She is not going to do anything to change that arrangement.

Tom Voloshen 26 Jul 2015 09:24

The Clintons make hundreds of millions of dollars simply giving speeches and then talk about income inequality, how amusing.

wohlgemuth 26 Jul 2015 09:21

This is why no matter how progressive she tries to sound we are not trusting her. She has to call on Robert Reich or Stiglits (sp) or Krugman or David K. Johnson. There is NO Freemarket outside of the one percent, outside of the ones who hold the cash and the power.

[Jul 24, 2015] guaranteed retirement accounts

"The government would invest the money and guarantee a rate of return" So this is duplicate of TIPS with a twist: that money is going to WALL STREET one way or other.
Jul 24, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

Clinton advisor Teresa "Ghilarducci's big idea is to create government-run, guaranteed retirement accounts ("GRAs," for short). Taxpayers would be required to put 5 percent of their annual income into savings, with the money managed by the Social Security Administration. They could only opt out if their employer offered a traditional pension, and they wouldn't be able to withdraw the money as readily and early as with a 401(k). The government would invest the money and guarantee a rate of return, adjusted to inflation" [National Journal]. Because fiat money is only for banksters.

Push to lift minimum wage now "serious business" [New York Times].


jrs, July 24, 2015 at 2:15 pm

Alright policy. At a certain point does one really even want to know what the new thing they have for us to bend over for is? So WHERE is the money going to be "invested" in these new retirement plans. Yes I know it's possible to have a retirement plan without investing, it would be something like social security. But if that's what they wanted they could just increase social security, not propose a new plan (yes even increase funding but not while it covers current outgo at least). A new plan rather than expanded social security is entirely unnecessary so by proposing one they are up to no good. That money is going to WALL STREET one way or other.

... ... ...


Brindle, July 24, 2015 at 3:07 pm

The optics of this look like part of Clinton's feint left—for the base of the Dem party:

—For the Clinton campaign, Ghilarducci offers significant benefits, too. As Clinton tries to move away from the centrist economic legacy of her husband's administration, with its welfare reform and deregulation of banks, Ghilarducci offers a fresh take—and a fresh face—on economic-policy debates long dominated by a small, sharp-elbowed cast of white men who have advised the Clinton or Obama administrations.—

[Jul 23, 2015] How Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, & Microsoft Lobbyists Are Bundling Funds For Hillary

Jul 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The pantsuit revolutionary is at it again. Once again demonstrating her populist chops by employing the services of lobbyists to bundle millions in campaign funds. It's no wonder opinion polls on her have been plunging as of late.

We learn from Bloomberg that:

When Barack Obama was running for the presidency in 2008—and later for reelection in 2012—he promised he wouldn't take money from registered lobbyists, not even as bundlers. In the race to succeed him, Hillary Clinton is not following in his footsteps.

The former secretary of state raised more than $2 million from 40 "bundlers"—fundraisers who get their contacts to give to campaigns—who were also lobbyists, according to financial forms released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. In all, the Clinton campaign raised $46.7 million between the beginning of April and the end of June.

Clinton's bundlers include some familiar names: Jerry Crawford, an outside lobbyist to Monsanto and Iowa kingmaker, put together another $35,000 or so. Tony Podesta, a mega-lobbyist who co-founded the Podesta Group and is the brother of Clinton's campaign chair John, bundled almost $75,000.

Other bundlers lobby for big companies including Microsoft (Fred Humphries) and Exxon Mobil (Theresa Fariello) or industry groups including the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (Daphna Peled). Another group includes former staffers for prominent Democratic politicians (including President Clinton) and politicians themselves, including former South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges. Lobbyist bundlers don't have to disclose their employers, but the names appear on both Clinton's disclosures and 2015 lobbyist registrations.

She certainly knows how to diversify her portfolio when it comes to people who bribe U.S. Congress for a living.

Clinton was the only Democrat running for president to have declared lobbyist bundlers as of Thursday. Two Republicans candidates, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, also filed disclosures on lobbyist bundlers, with Bush raising more than $228,000 from eight lobbyist bundlers and Rubio raising more than $133,000 from three lobbyist bundlers.

Lobbyist participation in a campaign can be hard to avoid: Despite President Obama's promise, the New York Times found in 2011 that at least 15 of his bundlers had strong links to lobbyists, including "overseeing" them, even if they weren't registered themselves.

But hey,

Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 1.09.30 PM

* * *

For related articles, see:

[Jul 21, 2015] Donald Trump: A False Flag Candidate? by

"...The usual "mainstream" media tactics regarding a political outsider they hate is to ignore him or her: the example of Ron Paul should suffice to make this point. Indeed, Jon Stewart pointed this out in a memorable "Daily Show" segment, and it took Paul three runs for the White House to get their attention."
July 13, 2015 | antiwar.com

A warmongering racist lunatic lets loose – and he's crazy like a fox

That we have to take Donald Trump seriously confirms my longstanding prognosis that we've entered another dimension in which up is down, black is white, and reason is dethroned: in short, we're living in BizarroWorld, and the landscape is not very inviting. Yet explore it I must, since the reality TV star and professional self-promoter is rising in the polls, and garnering an inordinate amount of media attention – and whether the latter is responsible for the former is something I'll get into later, but for now let us focus on what practically no one else is paying much attention to, the Trumpian foreign policy.

... ... ...

On Iraq, The Donald makes much of his alleged opposition to the Iraq war – a position no one has documented to my satisfaction – but now that we're back there, what's Trump's plan? "We shouldn't have been there," he opines, and yet "once we were there, we probably should have stayed." While this may sound bafflingly counterintuitive, not to mention flat out contradictory, you have to remember two things: 1) In Bizarro World, contradictions do exist, A is B, and the sensible is the impossible, and 2) Similar things were said about the Vietnam war by politicians less obviously nutso than The Donald. As Murray Rothbard put it in a 1968 newspaper column he wrote for the Freedom Newspapers chain:

"A lot of people throughout the country are beginning to realize that getting into the Vietnam war was a disastrous mistake. In fact, hardly anyone makes so bold as to justify America's entrance into, and generation of, that perpetual war. And so the last line of defense for the war's proponents is: Well, maybe it was a mistake to get into the war, but now that we're there, we're committed, so we have to carry on.

"A curious argument. Usually, in life, if we find out that a course of action has been a mistake, we abandon that course and try something else. This is supposed to be the time-honored principle of 'trial and error.' Or if a business project or investment turns out to be an unprofitable venture, we abandon it and try investing elsewhere. Only in the Vietnam war do we suddenly find that, having launched a disaster, we are stuck with it forevermore and must continue to pour in blood and treasure until eternity."

I'm editing a new collection of Rothbard's work, entitled The Coming American Fascism and Other Essays, due out from the Ludwig von Mises Institute pretty soon, which is where I came upon this, and it got me to thinking: maybe it wasn't the 9/11 terrorist attacks that tore a hole in the space-time continuum and blew us into Bizarro World – maybe it happened much earlier.

At any rate, The Donald's bloviations about staying in Iraq are nothing new: the man is a veritable volcano of well-worn bromides which he keeps stored under his toupee and emits when the occasion calls for it. Which wouldn't distinguish him from most other politicians except for the fact that Trump's words might as well be coming out of the mouth of a twelve-year-old. For example, in spite of his alleged opposition to the Iraq war, in 2011 he told a reporter:

"I always heard that when we went into Iraq, we went in for the oil. I said, 'Eh, that sounds smart.'"

Which is precisely what a somewhat disturbed adolescent is wont to do: grab someone else's lunch money if he thinks he can get away with it. Elaborating on his larcenous plan in 2011, Trump averred:

"I very simply said that Iran is going to take over Iraq, and if that's going to happen, we should just stay there and take the oil. They want the oil, and why should we? We de-neutered Iraq, Iran is going to walk in, take it over, take over the second largest oil fields in the world. That's going to happen. That would mean that all of those soldiers that have died and been wounded and everything else would have died in vain – and I don't want that to happen. I want their parents and their families to be proud."

Just like the criminally-inclined parents of a juvenile delinquent would be proud of their son's very first bank heist. As Rothbard was fond of saying: "Are we to be spared nothing?"

Trump's foreign policy views belie his reputation as an unconventional politician who's willing to say what others don't dare even think to themselves. Indeed, he sounds like most of the other GOP presidential wannabes when it comes to the pending nuclear deal with Iran:

"Take a look at the deal [Obama's] making with Iran. [If] he makes that deal, Israel maybe won't exist very long. It's a disaster. We have to protect Israel. And we won't be using a man like Secretary Kerry that has absolutely no concept of negotiation, who's making a horrible and laughable deal."

Is Trump willing to go to war with Iran? He positively drools at the prospect:

"America's primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran's nuclear program must be stopped – by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists. Better now than later!"

And speaking of drooling, get this:

"Who else in public life has called for a preemptive strike on North Korea?"

I'm glad you asked. The answer is: Ashton Carter and William Perry, the former the current Secretary of Defense and the latter a former Secretary of Defense. In their jointly authored book, Carter and Perry claim then-President Bill Clinton was minutes away from authorizing just such a strike before Jimmy Carter called with the news that the North Koreans were willing to negotiate. And then there's Rep. Peter King, another loudmouth New Yorker in the Trump mold, not to mention James Woolsey, Bill Clinton's CIA Director, as well as this guy.

So you think Trump is crazy? He may well be, but he's just reflecting the general lunacy that afflicts large portions of the political class in this country. Far from opposing the elites, Trump is merely echoing – often caricaturing – their looniest effusions.

Speaking of loony effusions, Bill Kristol has said that he's sick of the "elite" media dissing Trump. Dan Quayle's Brain got out his neocon playbook to declare he's "anti-anti-Trump." Which is interesting, since the last time a Republican anti-immigration, anti-free trade candidate arose, Kristol and his fellow neocons were in a lather of fear and loathing: that's because Pat Buchanan was not only one of the dreaded "nativists," he was also militantly anti-interventionist. Buchanan dared to call out Israel's amen corner as the agitators for Gulf War I and its successor: for that, he was branded an "isolationist," a label affixed to him also on account of his economic nostrums. Yet those same nostrums, when given a far cruder expression by Trump, evince a kind of admiration in the Grand Marshall of the laptop bombardiers. And the reason for this is Trump's limning of the neocons' penchant for unabashed militarism and grandiose imperialism: The Donald told a Phoenix audience over the weekend that "I'm the most militaristic person in this room." And his prescription for what we ought to do to counter ISIS sounds like a Weekly Standard editorial:

"I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth. Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in. And you let Mobil go in, and you let our great oil companies go in. Once you take that oil, they have nothing left. I would hit them so hard. I would find you a proper general, I would find the Patton or MacArthur. I would hit them so hard your head would spin."

Finally, one has to wonder about the provenance of the Trump phenomenon. Seemingly coming out of nowhere, it's been attributed to a populist upsurge against the regnant elites, who are so out of touch with the people that they never saw what was coming. The media, we are told, are biased against Trump – this is one of The Donald's chief complaints – and now The People are rising up against the Washington-New York know-it-alls with their "big words" and pretentious airs.

Yet this analysis is lacking in one key ingredient: the facts. For the reality is that the media, far from ignoring Trump, have lavished so much attention on him that he's eating up coverage that would otherwise go to the rest of the crowded Republican field. And that may be a clue as to what's really going on here….

The usual "mainstream" media tactics regarding a political outsider they hate is to ignore him or her: the example of Ron Paul should suffice to make this point. Indeed, Jon Stewart pointed this out in a memorable "Daily Show" segment, and it took Paul three runs for the White House to get their attention. Trump has suffered no such fate: quite the opposite, in fact. The Donald's every demagogic pronouncement is faithfully recorded and broadcast far and wide. Over a hundred reporters crowded into his latest appearances in Las Vegas and Phoenix. Jeb Bush, for all the many millions stuffed into his campaign coffers, couldn't buy that kind of exposure.

... ... ...

As San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders points out, Trump is not really any kind of Republican, and, what's more, his links to the Clintons are well-documented and close:

"In 1987, Trump registered as a Republican in New York. But in 1999, he registered with the Independence Party. In 2001, he registered as a Democrat. In 2009 he was back in with the GOP.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton sat in the front row at Trump's 2005 wedding with Melania Knauss.

"According to Politico, Trump has donated more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

"In the 2006 cycle, Trump donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $20,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, but only $1,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

"When Trump flirted with running for president in 2012, CNN reported he had given $541,650 to federal Democratic candidates and committees since 1990 – more than the $429,450 he contributed to GOP candidates and committees."

National Review's Jonah Goldberg rips the veil off Trump's alleged nativism in a by turns anguished-and-amused plea to his fellow conservatives not to be taken in by The Donald's act:

"You seem to think he's an immigration hardliner, and he's certainly pretending to be. But why can't you see through it? He condemned Mitt Romney as an immigration hardliner in 2012 and favored comprehensive immigration reform. He told Bill O'Reilly he was in favor of a 'path to citizenship' for 30 million illegal immigrants:

"Trump: 'You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it's 11, but I don't think it's 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.'

"Question: Just how many rapists and drug dealers did Donald Trump want to give green cards to?"

Trump has been playing the media with his supposed presidential ambitions for years, but it was clear then that it was just The Donald doing what he does best – promoting himself. So why now has he suddenly turned "serious"? I give that word scare quotes because 1) Serious is not a word one associates with a clown, and 2) It's not at all clear that, for all his megalomania, he really thinks he can win the White House. He may be a lunatic but he's far from stupid.

And so the question jumps out at us: Why now?

... ... ...

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

[Jul 20, 2015] Trumpism The Ideology - Jeffrey Tucker

Jul 20, 2015 | Liberty.me
It's not too interesting to say that Donald Trump is a nationalist and aspiring despot who is manipulating bourgeois resentment, nativism, and ignorance to feed his power lust. It's uninteresting because it is obviously true. It's so true that stating it sounds more like an observation than a criticism.

I just heard Trump speak live. It was an awesome experience, like an interwar séance of once-powerful dictators who inspired multitudes, drove countries into the ground, and died grim deaths.

His speech at FreedomFest lasted a full hour, and I consider myself fortunate for having heard it. It was a magnificent exposure to an ideology that is very much present in American life, though hardly acknowledged. It lives mostly hidden in dark corners, and we don't even have a name for it. You bump into it at neighborhood barbecues, at Thanksgiving dinner when Uncle Harry has the floor, at the hardware store when two old friends in line to checkout mutter about the state of the country.

The ideology is a 21st century version of right fascism — one of the most politically successful ideological strains of 20th century politics. Though hardly anyone talks about it today, we really should. It is still real. It exists. It is distinct. It is not going away. Trump has tapped into it, absorbing unto his own political ambitions every conceivable bourgeois resentment: race, class, sex, religion, economic. You would have to be hopelessly ignorant of modern history not to see the outlines and where they end up.

For now, Trump seems more like comedy than reality. I want to laugh about what he said, like reading a comic-book version of Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler. And truly I did laugh, as when he denounced the existence of tech support in India that serves American companies ("how can it be cheaper to call people there than here?" — as if he still thinks that long-distance charges apply).

Let's hope this laughter doesn't turn to tears.

As an aside, I mean no criticism of FreedomFest's organizer Mark Skousen in allowing Trump to speak at this largely libertarian gathering. Mark invited every Republican candidate to address the 2,200-plus crowd. Only two accepted. Moreover, Mark is a very savvy businessman himself, and this conference operates on a for-profit basis. He does not have the luxury of giving the microphone to only people who pass the libertarian litmus test. His goal is to put on display the ideas that matter in our time and assess them by the standards of true liberty.

In my view, it was a brilliant decision to let him speak. Lovers of freedom need to confront the views of a man with views like this. What's more, of all the speeches I heard at FreedomFest, I learned more from this one than any other. I heard, for the first time in my life, what a modern iteration of a consistently statist but non-leftist outlook on politics sounds and feels like in our own time. And I watched as most of the audience undulated between delight and disgust — with perhaps only 10% actually cheering his descent into vituperative anti-intellectualism. That was gratifying.

As of this writing, Trump is leading in the polls in the Republican field. He is hated by the media, which is a plus for the hoi polloi in the GOP. He says things he should not, which is also a plus for his supporters. He is brilliant at making belligerent noises rather than having worked out policy plans. He knows that real people don't care about the details; they only want a strongman who shares their values. He makes fun of the intellectuals, of course, as all populists must do. Along with this penchant, Trump encourages a kind of nihilistic throwing out of rationality in favor of a trust in his own genius. And people respond, as we can see.

So, what does Trump actually believe? He does have a philosophy, though it takes a bit of insight and historical understanding to discern it. Of course race baiting is essential to the ideology, and there was plenty of that. When a Hispanic man asked a question, Trump interrupted him and asked if he had been sent by the Mexican government. He took it a step further, dividing blacks from Hispanics by inviting a black man to the microphone to tell how his own son was killed by an illegal immigrant.

Because Trump is the only one who speaks this way, he can count on support from the darkest elements of American life. He doesn't need to actually advocate racial homogeneity, call for a whites-only sign to be hung at immigration control, or push for expulsion or extermination of undesirables. Because such views are verboten, he has the field alone, and he can count on the support of those who think that way by making the right noises.

Trump also tosses little bones to the Christian Right, enough to allow them to believe that he represents their interests. Yes, it's implausible and hilarious. But the crowd who looks for this is easily won with winks and nudges, and those he did give. At the speech I heard, he railed against ISIS and its war against Christians, pointing out further than he is a Presbyterian and thus personally affected every time ISIS beheads a Christian. This entire section of his speech was structured to rally the nationalist Christian strain that was the bulwark of support for the last four Republican presidents.

But as much as racialist and religious resentment is part of his rhetorical apparatus, it is not his core. His core is about business, his own business and his acumen thereof. He is living proof that being a successful capitalist is no predictor of one's appreciation for an actual free market (stealing not trading is more his style). It only implies a love of money and a longing for the power that comes with it. Trump has both.

What do capitalists on his level do? They beat the competition. What does he believe he should do as president? Beat the competition, which means other countries, which means wage a trade war. If you listen to him, you would suppose that the U.S. is in some sort of massive, epochal struggle for supremacy with China, India, Malaysia, and, pretty much everyone else in the world.

It takes a bit to figure out what the heck he could mean. He speaks of the United States as if it were one thing, one single firm. A business. "We" are in competition with "them," as if the U.S. were IBM competing against Samsung, Apple, or Dell. "We" are not 300 million people pursuing unique dreams and ideas, with special tastes or interests, cooperating with people around the world to build prosperity. "We" are doing one thing, and that is being part of one business.

In effect, he believes that he is running to be the CEO of the country — not just of the government (as Ross Perot once believed) but of the entire country. In this capacity, he believes that he will make deals with other countries that cause the U.S. to come out on top, whatever that could mean. He conjures up visions of himself or one of his associates sitting across the table from some Indian or Chinese leader and making wild demands that they will buy such and such amount of product else "we" won't buy their product.

Yes, it's bizarre. As Nick Gillespie said, he has a tenuous grasp on reality. Trade theory from hundreds of years plays no role in his thinking at all. To him, America is a homogenous unit, no different from his own business enterprise. With his run for president, he is really making a takeover bid, not just for another company to own but for an entire country to manage from the top down, under his proven and brilliant record of business negotiation, acquisition, and management.

You see why the whole speech came across as bizarre? It was. And yet, maybe it was not. In the 18th century, there is a trade theory called mercantilism that posited something similar: ship the goods out and keep the money in. It builds up industrial cartels that live at the expense of the consumer. In the 19th century, this penchant for industrial protectionism and mercantilism became guild socialism, which mutated later into fascism and then into Nazism. You can read Mises to find out more on how this works.

What's distinct about Trumpism, and the tradition of thought it represents, is that it is non-leftist in its cultural and political outlook and yet still totalitarian in the sense that it seeks total control of society and economy and places no limits on state power. The left has long waged war on bourgeois institutions like family, church, and property. In contrast, right fascism has made its peace with all three. It (very wisely) seeks political strategies that call on the organic matter of the social structure and inspire masses of people to rally around the nation as a personified ideal in history, under the leadership of a great and highly accomplished man.

Trump believes himself to be that man.

He sounds fresh, exciting, even thrilling, like a man with a plan and a complete disregard for the existing establishment and all its weakness and corruption. This is how strongmen take over countries. They say some true things, boldly, and conjure up visions of national greatness under their leadership. They've got the flags, the music, the hype, the hysteria, the resources, and they work to extract that thing in many people that seeks heroes and momentous struggles in which they can prove their greatness.

Think of Commodus (161-192 AD) in his war against the corrupt Roman senate. His ascension to power came with the promise of renewed Rome. What he brought was inflation, stagnation, and suffering. Historians have usually dated the fall of Rome from his leadership. Or, if you prefer pop culture, think of Bane, the would-be dictator of Gotham in Batman, who promises an end to democratic corruption, weakness, and loss of civic pride. He sought a revolution against the prevailing elites in order to gain total power unto himself.

These people are all the same. They are populists. Oh how they love the people, and how they hate the establishment. They defy all civic conventions. Their ideology is somewhat organic to the nation, not a wacky import like socialism. They promise greatness. They have an obsession with the problem of trade and mercantilist belligerence as the only solution. They have zero conception of the social order as a complex and extended ordering of individual plans, one that functions through freedom and individual rights.

This is a dark history and I seriously doubt that Trump himself is aware of it. Instead, he just makes it up as he goes along, speaking from his gut. This penchant has always served him well. It cannot serve a whole nation well. Indeed, the very prospect is terrifying, and not just for the immigrant groups and imports he has chosen to scapegoat for all the country's problems. It's a disaster in waiting for everyone.

[Jul 18, 2015] Hillary Clinton turns up the heat as Iowa takes on general election feel

"...She's playing the fear-mongering, personality-based, empty rhetoric game and avoiding any substantive debate save that which she can promise without having to actually DO anything about. Such techniques always play well in Democracies until the bankruptcy of the policies brings about actual collapse."
"...Sadly, the majority of Americans continue to believe that "elections" matter and that their votes will shape the foundations of US society. In truth, the most critical decisions are made by the banker-funded think tanks and foundations such as the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, etc., in other words, by the unelected and unrepresentative "shadow government"."
The Guardian

mkenney63 18 Jul 2015 22:40

Hillary Clinton, Really? Just look at the political corruption we see every day and the many signs of coming collapse and ask yourself if we really want this corporate shill as our president. I will vote for Bernie Sanders no matter what. I believe in political revolution and we may be at the beginning of one now. The 1% have had their day; they've had their way with the reforms that are near and dear to progressives. It's time to stop the insanity of criminal capitalism and restore our country to the people.

sherlockh 18 Jul 2015 21:23

Providing free pizza--isn't that cheating? If Hillary provided a credible economic policy instead, maybe her supporters would be as enthusiastic as Bernie's.

Rob Sacher 18 Jul 2015 17:05

Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill in Congress that will tax investors when they buy shares of stock. That's a big mistake. Shares can always go down in value. Tax on profit, not on investment.

Some people say well, it's such a small tax. I say nonsense. All taxes eventually get raised. Some people say the tax is to stop high speed traders. I say say that may be true but there are plenty of regular guys who like to trade stock and make their living from that endeavor. And, since half of all seniors own stock, whenever they choose to sell one and buy another they will get taxed. No matter if they lose money on the stock, they still get taxed.

This is wrong.

The Republicans will crush Bernie on this issue. Seniors will never vote for a any new tax on their income. Remember, they are no longer working and live off of their investments.

Bernie supporters should get him to change that part of his bill but we know that will not happen.

kerfuffler -> Sam Sammitysam 18 Jul 2015 16:49

Hillary is unpopular, even amongst Democrats. Most stories about her inspire negative comments. For this reason she is unelectable.


H9ank 18 Jul 2015 16:30

Billary is a bad choice for many reason. Dishonest, seems to play with the boys in the backroom. Is not her own boss. Tries to appease the doubters with that open guile that is really an act. Is often two faced and reneges on her promises.

I like Sanders. I'm not sure he will survive. He may be more effective in Congress than as a prez.


VWFeature 18 Jul 2015 14:36

Listen to
Hilary Clinton @ 1:33
Bernie Sanders @ 2:10
Jim Webb @ 2:29

Bernie has the fire and deserves credit for putting forth a vision, but I want Jim Webb for VP to get all the legislation passed. (Like LBJ for JFK.) Webb isn't as dramatic as Bernie, but Webb got the Vietnam War Memorial changed to include a black and hispanic GI instead of three white guys, got the post-Iraq GI education bill passed- and was against the Iraq war from the beginning, based on expert knowledge of what the military can and can't do.

He's right there with Bernie on the issues, wrote a bill reforming the criminal justice system in the Senate, which was supported by the Marijuana Project, the National Sheriffs' Association, the ACLU, the American Bar Association and a hundred other organizations. It got filibustered, but he's asking the president to create the commission to make recommendations on finally fixing the criminal 'justice' system in the US.

He's nuanced, so he'll "deplore the institution of slavery but to try to understand those who served." defending the valor of Confederate (and Union) soldiers-he has ancestors who fought on both sides- while agreeing the Confederate flag shouldn't fly at any statehouse.

He deserves more attention.


Aldous0rwell 18 Jul 2015 13:47

She's playing the fear-mongering, personality-based, empty rhetoric game and avoiding any substantive debate save that which she can promise without having to actually DO anything about. Such techniques always play well in Democracies until the bankruptcy of the policies brings about actual collapse.


Weihan Xingqi 18 Jul 2015 13:25

Sadly, the majority of Americans continue to believe that "elections" matter and that their votes will shape the foundations of US society. In truth, the most critical decisions are made by the banker-funded think tanks and foundations such as the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, etc., in other words, by the unelected and unrepresentative "shadow government".


SJuniper 18 Jul 2015 13:22

How can ANYONE believe ANYTHING that Hillary the Horrible says, or that she actually believes anything that she is saying? In terms of actual accomplishments, Nixon would be an improvement over either Clinton, or Obama as well, for that matter. In spite of his nuttiness, I would vote for Rand Paul over Clinton. At least I think he actually believes what he says.


Ramus 18 Jul 2015 13:16

Bernie, unlike HRC and the rest of them does not have a PAC and does not take corporate money. So he is able to say what he thinks. And to my mind, what he thinks is correct. I don't know where HRC stands on Keystone, on TPP. I do know she voted to give George W. Bush the old blank check on 10/11/2002, and Bernie actually read all the information and decided to vote no. It is a matter of trust. HRC is funded by Citibank, Goldman - Go Bernie!


Nicko Thime -> Robert Saunders 18 Jul 2015 13:14

Walker has BURIED Wisconsin in debt, failed to deliver on his employment promises and wants to waste even more government money on drug testing welfare cases, which has proven to be expensive and futile elsewhere.

But what can you expect from somebody who has always lived on the gubbmint dime? Scott Walker has never worked in the private sector.


nnedjo 18 Jul 2015 12:53

Americans must be crazy to choose this woman to be president of the US. And, about the psychology of this lady also is no need to waste words, as she struggles to come to the same house in which her husband used to satisfy his perverse desires. Imagine a flood of memories that will overwhelm the mind of Mrs. Clinton, if one day she really went into the Oval Office. Could it possibly be called "post-traumatic marriage syndrome"? And out of that room she should manage such a powerful country as the US.
Another thing, Mrs. Clinton proved to be a liar no less than her husband Bill, judging at least, by this episode:
Hillary Clinton's Bosnia sniper story exposed

And unlike the scandals of her husband, who had resulted in only one stained blue dress, scandals in which she was involved had much more serious consequences, which led, among other things, to the murder of the US ambassador in Libya:

So, even if none of this had happened, Hillary Clinton had her chance to participate in the leadership of the United States, at least initially as first lady and then as US secretary of state. And if among the three hundred millions of Americans there is nobody better than her who would take the place of the President, this fact by itself speaks very badly about American democracy.


David Meyer -> Chris Silva 18 Jul 2015 12:44

It is indeed disturbing to watch Sanders and Clinton in action. The latter never says anything unless cornered. She'll spout every platitude ever heard by man. Sad. Sad. Sad.

Sanders on the other hand simply tells you what he thinks. And that, dear American citizen is why he can't win. But by God I'll work for him.


TerryinUSA 18 Jul 2015 12:20

Hillary Clinton is a psychopath and traitor. She belongs in prison, along with a lot of people occupying the US government.
"We came, we saw, he died." Then maniacal laughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y


Chris Silva 18 Jul 2015 12:12

Did you even watch the event? HRC's speech was about as fiery as mayonnaise. She was wooden, vague and insincere.

Bernie Sanders carried the night. While the other candidates plagiarized his platform, Bernie took it a step further and explained exactly how he will accomplish his goals when he becomes president.

O'Malley and HRC paid people to stand outside with signs and chant:

Before the event, large groups of Clinton and O'Malley supporters gathered outside, chanting and holding signs. Some were paid by Clinton's campaign and by Generation Forward, a political action committee supporting O'Malley. Many said they were not allowed to speak to the media.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article27474967.html#storylink=cpy

Bernie Sanders' supporters are moved to do this by his honesty and integrity.

After the event the crowd swarmed Sanders while HRC disappeared. O'Malley and the rest were lucky if 3 or 4 people came to shake hands. One has to assume that writer of this article fell asleep during the event or is just biased and trying to manipulate readers by printing lies.


shininhstars122 Darryl Touchet 18 Jul 2015 12:02

An unobtainable dream? Hardly the bottom line is forty years of economic and political policy promoted by both parties have brought us to this point where a growing majority of Americans think America is in a downward spiral.

I disagree with that assessment as it is actually the forced fed narratives, and the painful realities of the choices we have allowed to be made in the name of our of democracy.

We can re-access our choices by questioning and challenging the special interests with out a revolution...its called throwing out the special interests and participating in our democracy in ways not ever seen in our country since the start pf the 20th century.

Most political leader can barely think beyond the next election cycle, we need leaders who can think about the next 25 to 50 years in our country.

Bernie Sanders is one such candidate.

Hilary Clinton is a plutocrat plain and simple and that is where her loyalties have and will always lie.


haroldclurman Xak999 18 Jul 2015 11:37

She voted for the Iraq War a position which to my mind does not make her the most qualified, in fact it makes her the least qualified. She also supported her husbands' NAFTA policy which sent millions of American jobs overseas, another position which the American electorate should disqualify her for the job of President. She's (imo) a betrayer to her generation and a part of the establishment for far too many years which has made our country ever more the poorer. She accepts monies from the banks for her campaign while Sen. Sanders does not and who in fact wants to break up the all too powerful banks. This is a stance which Ms Clinton will not take as she will not want to bite the hand that feeds her. This for any thinking person is a bribe. I don't want a worm for a president but a person who stands up in ACTION for what she or he believes in.


Beep Tomkens 18 Jul 2015 10:32

Clinton is a con woman, she's just not good at it. Bill and Podesta are doing a good job in obtaining and building the numbers of democratic voters. She is focused in gathering an American majority of voters, simple. She doesn't have to debate or appear and discuss anything with anyone and the democratic voter block has no questions for her. It's going to be a continuation of all the "Free Stuff" for minorities promise without having to say it. She's not running from State to State promising that , she is simply smiling and reinforcing the program. I doubt that she can get elected without publicly taking strong positions on just about every subject in pubic forums. She may, over the next year , avoid all public exposure and refuse to debate anyone if she is sure she has black , brown, yellow people and the female vote coupled with some white males. If every white male and female doesn't vote for a Republican then she will walk away with the White House and Bill Clinton will have a third term and run the country as a business for himself as he did the Secretary of State's Office.

Notice that she did not demand the vice presidency for Obama which would have set her up even more solid for the presidency, but she refused that and demanded the Secretary of State job which enabled her to sell influence.

panpipes 18 Jul 2015 09:51

I am suspicious of the way this was written. A paragraph talking about how Clinton having more visible supporters than O'Malley followed by an exact headcount for the Sanders supporters - seems like it was written in an attempt to put forward an impression that Clinton's support far outnumbered Sanders without actually saying that.

Profhambone NottaBot 18 Jul 2015 09:43

The citizens of the US Empire are not worldly enough or knowledgeable enough about their own history to NOT vote this unqualified person as President. And I believe she will be looking for a war to show her teeth to the world.


NottaBot 18 Jul 2015 09:37

Clinton lost in 2008 because she was a lousy candidate. Between then and now there's been the financial collapse, Occupy, and continuing revelations about Clinton herself, including the private email server, etc. As recently as a couple of years ago she was sucking down that good Goldman Sachs money, 250 grand a pop.

I just don't see how this creature of Wall St. will be able to win this time around. Even without a single gaffe it will be more of a struggle than she or other talking heads believe. Toss in some idiocy from Bill ("I gotta pay our bills!") or some other scandal or revelation about money and she's toast.

I do think it's high time for a woman to be president. But I want a woman who made her reputation based on honest hard work, not on being married to a former president. If that's all we needed to believe that things have changed and women are seen as an even footing with men, Pakistan would have to be counted as one of the most enlightened societies in the world! But just as B. Bhutto represented oligarchic continuation, NOT true women's equality in the political sphere, so another Clinton presidency would just be cementing the power and might of oligarchs and family here in the States.

No thanks. Give us a REAL woman candidate, please!


kjbessenjohnson 18 Jul 2015 09:09

Guardian editors: reading the comments across all of the Hillary articles implies that most of your readers believe that she's a corporate shill, and they're gonna vote for Bernie and really don't care what she has to say (or more accurately that she's going to say a bunch of progressive talking points now and ignore her campaign promises as soon as her hand hits the inaugural bible).

May I suggest keeping up with the times?

[Jul 14, 2015]Walker the Generic Hawk

Jul 14, 2015 | The American Conservative

If no one can describe Walker's foreign policy views in much detail, that's probably because they are unformed and very generic. He invokes Reagan every chance he gets, expresses hostility to diplomatic engagement, and is strongly opposed to ruling out any military options. Walker's foreign policy thus far is what one would get by recycling a handful of hawkish talking points that have circulated on cable news or in the conservative media over the last few years. When it comes to being prepared to be president, Walker simply isn't right now, but if his foreign policy statements are judged as a perfunctory box-checking exercise (which is how he seems to be treating them) he has been doing the bare minimum necessary.

When Walker has said anything on foreign policy subjects, the results have ranged from unimpressive to embarrassing, but his lack of a record could prove to be something of a blessing for his campaign

Fran Macadam, July 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm

These guys really don't have many ideas, beyond the unthinking positions they are willing to adopt if they think it can bring them power.

Whatever reasons do any of them have for running for President, beyond the desire they have to be top dog?

This is not a character trait that challenges the status quo donorist interests who own the duopoly, but seeks their approval, whatever drivel is offered up temporarily to the electorate.

seans, July 14, 2015 at 10:05 am

"He does not have to have deep experience. He just needs policies that make sense."

And who is going to give him his policies? More than likely is going to be the same cast of neocon characters that staffed the Bush II Administration because who else is he going to turn to? There simply any large grouping of Republican non-interventionists or realists to staff a Walker Administration so hardliners are going to take charge again and make the exact same mistake because they have repudiated nothing. Of what Walker has said on foreign policy is basic GOP boilerplate "we ave to get tough" which is easy to say until you have to decide between full engagement of military forces or stand down which Walker, politically, could not choose and would not given who he'll surround himself with. It will be Bush II all over again

bt, July 14, 2015 at 10:41 am

It is a little sad that generic toughness, unburdened with any actual experience in foreign affairs, is an ideal resume for a presidential candidate.

It is a recipe for allowing the military-industrial complex to do as it pleases. I am starting to think that Eisenhower's M-I complex is in fact today's Neocons – they are one and the same.

balconesfault, July 14, 2015 at 12:10 pm

@bt It is a recipe for allowing the military-industrial complex to do as it pleases

That's pretty much the marching orders for 95% of the GOP today, and 50% of the Dems to boot.

And given that anyone who doesn't give the MI complex everything it wants will immediately branded by the media (including … or especially .. the "liberal" Washington Post) as soft on defense …

And adding that anyone who doesn't give the MI complex everything it wants runs a massive risk of being labeled a traitor who sold America down the drain if anything happens in the world that we don't like …

And noting that our electorate seems wholly disinterested in punishing any legislator for pushing for higher defense spending (now, if they call for higher taxes to pay for that higher defense spending … that's a different issue) …

The game is pretty much wired to reward some level of subservience to the Neocon gameplan, be it whole on use of the plan (Bush), or select elements (Obama) … and to ridicule and punish those who reject Neocon dogma.


[Jul 14, 2015] Everybody loves Bernie Sanders – especially top Republican operatives

"...Republicans have little else than slanders of Clinton while pointing at Sanders and endlessly chanting their own message of exclusivity. "The poor, beleaguered rich people deserve their wealth and the rest of you deserve nothing." Throw in a crazy Donald Trump, another cunning Bush, a corrupt Sicillian bully, and a few nincompoops financed with billions of dollars of special interest money and suddenly HRC's message becomes the more politically viable. This is the state of American political discourse.

HRC better expresses the Republican message than Republicans themselves."

Jul 14, 2015 | The Guardian

lefthalfback2 14 Jul 2015 08:23

Geez a Republican operative calling somebody a "...cold, inauthentic fraud....".

And they say that Vaudville is dead.


catch18 14 Jul 2015 08:15

In the 2000 election, 537 votes gave George W. Bush a crucial and controversial victory in Florida.

Nader received almost 100,000 votes in Florida.

Bernie probably won't run as an independent. Although he has done so in the past.

Be careful Bernie.

MiltonWiltmellow 14 Jul 2015 08:15

"I don't know Bernie can play the role of Barack Obama in 2008 because he's a 70-something year-old curmudgeon." He added: "It becomes hard to beat a celebrity without a celebrity."

Of course if Republicans could deliver a message as resonant as Sanders, they wouldn't be Republicans.

Instead they must praise Sanders' because they have no effective political message of their own.

Republicans have little else than slanders of Clinton while pointing at Sanders and endlessly chanting their own message of exclusivity.

"The poor, beleaguered rich people deserve their wealth and the rest of you deserve nothing."

Throw in a crazy Donald Trump, another cunning Bush, a corrupt Sicillian bully, and a few nincompoops financed with billions of dollars of special interest money and suddenly HRC's message becomes the more politically viable.

This is the state of American political discourse.

HRC better expresses the Republican message than Republicans themselves.

This infuriates Republicans.

Thus Republicans must pray that Sanders can damage Clinton's political viability so that Americans forget about their own history of incompetence and cruelty.

kattw dectra 14 Jul 2015 07:56

Indeed. Trump is telling all the deep dark ideological truths of the republican party that make people wince to hear them. They've been hiding their emotions in the dark for so long, they can't stand to have them out in the open.

Sanders is telling the deep, bright truths of the democratic party that liberals have been longing for somebody to stand up and defend. They're not in the least bit embarrassed of their ideology. They've wanted somebody to talk about it for years.

Both men are saying what are in the hearts of the base they want to get votes from. Only one of those bases is happy to have the views discussed openly.


kattw 14 Jul 2015 07:53

See, here's the trick, Republicans. When you say bad things about Clinton? You're generally lying. Liberals are, by and large, smart enough that they can figure such things out. It's obvious what you're doing. As such, you don't effect anything but your own base - and driving frothing hateful idiots into a frothing round of hate is hardly an accomplishment.

When Sanders talks about her, he's being honest. He's saying things that are ACTUALLY wrong with her. Again: folks are smart enough to know the difference.

It's exactly like how you claim Obama is a Muslim/Socialist/etc. All false, all wrong, all obvious lies that merely hurt YOU, rather than the target. When folks complain about his drone program, on the other hand, at least it's something that actually exists.

Also: I'm sure republicans want Bernie to get the nod for exactly this reason. Can you imagine their glee at being able to use the 'socialist' pejorative, and NOT be reminded immediately that they are lying idiots who wouldn't know reality if it bit them on the nose AGAIN?


Book_of_Life Book_of_Life 14 Jul 2015 07:49

Turn the Pyramid upside down
PNAC NWO TTIP OWC OWG got to Go

jim6555 Sonegel 14 Jul 2015 07:48

The problem for Republicans is that in order to win early primaries in the conservative states of Iowa and South Carolina, they have to move to the very far right. In doing this, many candidates go against some of their beliefs. If they emerge victorious, they then have to begin moving back toward the political center to win the general election in November. Along the way, they often lose track of their personal principles and become willing to say anything to win the election. That's what seems to have happened to both John McCain and Mitt Romney and we will probably see the same phenomenon occurring in 2016. The media will often expose a candidate's flip flop on a position of importance. Voters are turned off by candidates who take one side of an issue in Alabama and the opposite side in New York. The Republican Party has to change the order of states in the early primaries if it ever wants to ever recapture the presidency.

Mike5000 14 Jul 2015 07:42

Clinton and her fellow Republicans in both parties still don't understand consistency and integrity.


Jay Smort 14 Jul 2015 07:35

How sad that the Republican operatives are so perplexed and fascinated. Shows how far gone they are from reality and honesty. What really impressed me with Sanders was his question that he posed at the start of his campaign. Can a politician, in this day and age, be elected who truly works for the people for the common good and isn't financed and spouts legislation written by wealthy corporations and billionaires? Even if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, he is pushing issues to the forefront and is acting as a healthy agent of political discussion unlike the ape who I shall not name.

blacksox666 14 Jul 2015 07:27

Bernie is the real deal and has a message that resonates with the people. Republican operatives should remember Tom Dewey and Harry Truman and think long and hard before they dismiss him. likewise, I think he would have very good coattails to carry people into office in the Congress. Hope so, anyhow. Hillary is old news and obviously doesn't have the middle class' problems in mind.

[Jul 14, 2015] Scott Walker: a candidate who embodies America's current partisan divisiveness

align="left">Scott Walter might eat Jeb! lunch ;-).
.
"...Weasily recognized as a lying, cheating little Koch sycophant, Walker may be "soup du jour", but there is a big difference to ruling Wisconsin and trying to rule America. Walker is dreadful for his state and would be a total disaster for America.

He will do well in the primaries because he has a boatload of money and what that money can buy behind him."
.
"...Walker DID set Wisconsin on a path to small government and personal freedom. Wisconsin WAS near the top of the heap in recovering from the recession. Walker changed all that - now it lags behind all of its neighbors by a substantial amount in nearly every category except incarceration rate, which is, somewhat amusingly, true of the US as a whole relative to most other developed countries."
.
"...Most successful countries have governments that do things for their people that businesses will never do in a million years. And many businesses do things to people (very efficiently) that should, but don't usually, get them locked up."
.
"...Walker: the man who managed to carry through on the republican threat of making sure that government couldn't function. Wisconsin, apparently, enjoys being worse off than it could be. And a lot of people in the US still seem to believe that the only way to be well off is to hit rock bottom and stay there. "

14 July 2015 | The Guardian

... ... ..


Why Walker's political underpinning should be so rigid is at least partly explained by the highly partisan nature of his politics: he appeals to half of the electorate because he is only talking to half the electorate. That syndrome was on full display Monday night at his campaign launch, where he thumped out a litany of rightwing conservative causes: his anti-abortion credentials; his championing of Wisconsin's version of the stand-your-ground laws made notorious through the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida; his signing of a concealed carry law that allows Wisconsinites to carry undercover guns; and of course his signature attack in 2011 on public sector unions and this year on their private sector equivalents with the so-called "right-to-work" legislation that prohibits requiring a worker to pay union dues.

It was all extremely well received by the devoted Walker supporters who crammed into the Waukesha County expo center on Monday wearing red, white and blue under a scorching sun. Walker was dressed to appeal to them, in a blue button-up shirt with no tie.

His rhetoric also spoke to popular conservative themes of marriage and family, a strong and aggressive military and local control of education. The crowd, gathered in the heart of the Republican stronghold of Waukesha, chanted and cheered as if on cue when the governor called for bold new leadership in Washington and "a president who will fight and win for them", an oblique reference to those union-busting battles.

Democrats who have witnessed Walker's uncompromising approach to leadership have been struck by how unflustered he is about the need to broaden his following. Peter Barca, the leader of the minority Democratic group in the Wisconsin assembly, told the Guardian that unlike most governors he had observed who made a point of building support over time, "this governor makes very little effort to try and build broader support. He governs with 52% or 53% of the electorate. He seems very comfortable with a very narrow base and doesn't even make overtures to win over more moderate voters."

Such an approach to politics – feed your base with red meat while virtually ignoring everybody else – may be enough to scrape to victory in successive elections in Wisconsin, and may yet work wonders in Iowa. But it presents Scott Walker, and his fellow Republicans, with a longer-term dilemma: are they happy to talk almost exclusively to themselves, knowing that such insularity might cost them the presidency?

Joe Marchand 14 Jul 2015 09:10

What he say is while his reforms were successfully implemented, they were disastrous for economic growth in Wisconsin. Furthermore, he is facing several investigations for corruption and appears to have a truckoad of closets containing skeletons. But I still think he'll win the nomination in the end precisely because he is so divisive. He'll try and tack to the centre once nominated, just as all the others plan to do.

khongor 14 Jul 2015 09:10

It's easier to judge Scott Walker's performance as governor than it is most governors, since there's such a good comparison right next door. Wisconsin and Minnesota are neighbors. They have similar industries, demographics, populations etc. They're a perfect case study for comparison. Conveniently, Minnesota is also run entirely by Democrats who have done things like raise taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans.
What has happened is fairly straightforward. Minnesota does better on job growth, income, percentage of citizens with health insurance, etc. If you can find one major category where Wisconsin is doing better than Minnesota, congrats.
Oh, and Minnesota has a budget surplus. Surplus. Wisconsin's tax cuts, even with massive service cuts, mean the state now has a massive budget deficit.
My hope is that everywhere Scott Walker goes on the campaign trail, somebody asks him why Minnesota is eating his state's lunch.

MKB1234 14 Jul 2015 09:06

Weasily recognized as a lying, cheating little Koch sycophant, Walker may be "soup du jour", but there is a big difference to ruling Wisconsin and trying to rule America. Walker is dreadful for his state and would be a total disaster for America.

He will do well in the primaries because he has a boatload of money and what that money can buy behind him. Don't rule him out just yet, but watch and learn and be ready to fight.

bren333 14 Jul 2015 09:05

Kind of wonder when, or even if, America will ever get over this small government thing.

Governments can be very inefficient, no question; but equating what's inefficient with what's unnecessary is really bizarre. When will this narrative end? It plainly doesn't work.

Most successful countries have governments that do things for their people that businesses will never do in a million years. And many businesses do things to people (very efficiently) that should, but don't usually, get them locked up.

kattw 14 Jul 2015 08:41

Walker DID set Wisconsin on a path to small government and personal freedom. Wisconsin WAS near the top of the heap in recovering from the recession. Walker changed all that - now it lags behind all of its neighbors by a substantial amount in nearly every category except incarceration rate, which is, somewhat amusingly, true of the US as a whole relative to most other developed countries.

Walker did exactly what he promised he would do: he shrank the government to the point where it could no longer function, and gave people the personal freedom to be as poor as they wanted to be. We should all take a good long look at his record while he runs. Not just the actions, but also the consequences.

Walker: the man who managed to carry through on the republican threat of making sure that government couldn't function. Wisconsin, apparently, enjoys being worse off than it could be. And a lot of people in the US still seem to believe that the only way to be well off is to hit rock bottom and stay there. Let's hope that enough people still instead equate success with prosperity to keep him OUT of high office.

[Jul 12, 2015] Democracy in neoliberal society is illusive

"...As for democracy it does exists, but only for a tiny fraction of population — the elite and upper middle class. And this is nothing new. Historically democracy always existed mostly for the members of ruling class. For Greece that was class of slave-owners. Nothing essentially changed. This dream of “perfect democracy” is just a propaganda trick. And here you are right: “perfect democracy”, “mass democracy” or “democracy for everybody” does not exist and never existed. Some strata of population and first of all low income strata historically were always excluded and marginalized. A simple question is: Does democracy exists if a party accepts $100K contributions?"
"...I agree, Anatoly. Western media networks have a wide variety of opinions on a limited number of issues only, and sing in startling unison on the some other extremely important matters. Wikileaks is a great example, the policy on Israel in the US is another."
"...“True democracy requires multi-party system.” You are mixing apples and oranges. Democracy requires that citizens are equal before the law and have equal voting rights. By extension it leads to such thing as “tyranny of majority” which is inevitable (that’s why Hegel prefer monarchy). Democracy also presuppose that alternative parties are not banned. But representation is completely another thing. If you are representing 3% of population and to get to Parliament requires 5% you are f*cked absolutely legitimately within this framework and can do nothing without undermining the notion of democracy as expressed. "

cartman, October 6, 2011 at 12:51 am

Slavic untermensch – especially Orthodox Christian ones – must be destroyed. Catholic Slavs are much easier to control. Witness that Poland has the presidency of the EU at the same time Merkel is giving ultimatums to the Serbs and German soldier are once again shooting Serbs at the border checkpoints (which are illegal under UNSC 1244). No matter what they say, it is totally irrelevant as a power.

kievite,October 5, 2011 at 11:23 pm

IMHO you are going a little bit too far both in regard of the value of Russian independence and existence of democracy.

As for independence. nobody cares too much about Russian independence as long as most oligarchs have London real estate, keep money in Western banks, teach children abroad in best colleges, etc.

As for democracy it does exists, but only for a tiny fraction of population — the elite and upper middle class. And this is nothing new. Historically democracy always existed mostly for the members of ruling class. For Greece that was class of slave-owners. Nothing essentially changed. This dream of “perfect democracy” is just a propaganda trick. And here you are right: “perfect democracy”, “mass democracy” or “democracy for everybody” does not exist and never existed. Some strata of population and first of all low income strata historically were always excluded and marginalized. A simple question is: Does democracy exists if a party accepts $100K contributions?

But situation is more subtle. If the people’s ability to vote candidates in and out of office has no meaningful influence on the decisions they make while in office, does democracy exist? The second important question is: “How much civil liberty and protection against government abuse remains in the system?”

In view of those arguments I think it is more correct to say that what in most cases what is sold under the marketing brand of “democracy” should be more properly be called “inverted totalitarism”. Like with totalitarism the net effect is marginalization of citizens to control the direction of the nation through the political process. But unlike classic totalitarian states which rely on mobilization around charismatic leader, here a passive populace is preferred (famous “Go shopping” recommendation by Bush II after 9/11).

Barriers to participation like “management” of elections using two party system and by preselection of candidates by party machine are used as more subtle and effective means of control. Formally officials purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. In reality manipulation the levers of power excludes everybody but a tiny percentage of the population (oligarchy).

Like in classic totalitarism propaganda dispensed by schools and the media, not to mention the entertainment. The stress is on eliminating the audience for anybody who does not support the regime. Ideology is supported by powerful research institutions (aka “think tanks”) and is adapted to modern realities by well paid “intellectual agents”. Milton Friedman is a classic example. The goal is the same as in classic totalitarism: the dominance of official ideology, especially in schools and universities. But this is achieved without violent suppression of opposing views, mainly by bribing and ostracizing instead of the key ingredient of classical totalitarism — violence toward opponents.

October 6, 2011 at 2:17 am

The part about media self-censorship is at least every bit as prevalent in “free” societies such as the US as in Russia. Noam Chomsky’s concept of the propaganda mode cannot be mentioned enough. The latest example is how The Guardian and NYT – and remember, print newspapers everywhere are more sophisticated than TV – colluded in with-holding from publication many Wikileaks cables that cast a bad light on the power elites.

Another question is ask is, which of these countries has the most democracy – one where many policy decisions are based on the wishes of corporate lobbyists; and one where many policy decisions are made as per opinion polls and the interests of the “overwhelming majority.” Much of the “free” West is in the former category; Russia and China are in the latter.

Reply

kievite,October 6, 2011 at 2:45 am

AK: “Noam Chomsky’s concept of the propaganda mode cannot be mentioned enough”

I think the right term is “Manufactured Consent”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

It describes five editorially-distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:

1. Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners – often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.

2. The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de-facto licensing authority”.[1] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working-class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

3. Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”[2]

4. Flak and the Enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[2]

5. Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the “War on Terror”, as the major social control mechanism.[3][4

kovane,October 6, 2011 at 7:25 am

I agree, Anatoly. Western media networks have a wide variety of opinions on a limited number of issues only, and sing in startling unison on the some other extremely important matters. Wikileaks is a great example, the policy on Israel in the US is another.

The real difficulty of politics is making weighted decisions that would be beneficial for the future of the country, listening both to lobbyist and the popular opinion. And mistakes can be made on both extremes. In retrospection, few would argue that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in the US was made under significant pressure of financial lobby and it seriously contributed to the 2008 meltdown. But populism is equally dangerous, as it is evidenced by Greece. Adopting policies only because they are popular, without considering the long term effect, can be a ruin of any country. Keeping a right balance between these two approaches is the key.

Reply

grafomanka,October 6, 2011 at 9:57 am

‘Managed democracy’ is a front, and I would say it’s kind of refreshing that we can stop living this hypocrisy now. And it’s not because of Prokhorov and Kudrin, but because of bizzaro way in which Putin and Medvedev announced that they decided ‘years ago’(!) about the job swap. And not even United Russia knew what was going on. What does it make United Russia then?

kovane,October 6, 2011 at 11:19 am

Democracy, first and foremost, is about the wishes of the voters. Putin can run all he wants, but if he doesn’t get elected, their decision will be worth as much as my decision to run, for instance. And that’s democracy and all that matters. By the way, why do you conclude that since Putin and Medvedev simply announced their decision, there were no consultations, etc?

yalensis,October 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm

@grafomanka: I don’t think the main problem is what goes on within United Russia and how they internally pick their candidate. It is the job of any political party to nominate their best candidate who, in this case is obviously Putin. The real problem is that they are the ONLY viable political party. So, Russia is effectively a one-party system now. True democracy requires multi-party system.

grafomanka,October 6, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Yes, basically….

kievite, October 6, 2011 at 7:33 pm

“True democracy requires multi-party system.”

You are mixing apples and oranges. Democracy requires that citizens are equal before the law and have equal voting rights. By extension it leads to such thing as “tyranny of majority” which is inevitable (that’s why Hegel prefer monarchy). Democracy also presuppose that alternative parties are not banned.

But representation is completely another thing. If you are representing 3% of population and to get to Parliament requires 5% you are f*cked absolutely legitimately within this framework and can do nothing without undermining the notion of democracy as expressed.

Also you can have an illusory alternative parties system like the USA two party system with “winner takes all” provisions in each state which make success of the third party extremely unlikely. My impression is that the existing two party system in the USA is just an improved version of one party system that existed in the USSR with the only difference that that two wings of the same party (let’s say that one that represents mainly Wall Street but is friendly to military-industrial and Energy complex and that other the represents mainly Military-industrial and Energy complex but also is quite friendly to Wall Street) are staging the theatrical battles to amuse the electorate.

I hope you are not proposing special anti-democratic regime of affirmative action to change that situation (as you might remember from Okudzhva song “A pryanikov sladkih vsegda ne hvataet na vseh”).

grafomanka,October 6, 2011 at 10:26 pm

Two party system is just like ‘upgraded’ one party system. Right. But in one political change is possible, in the other it isn’t.

yalensis,October 7, 2011 at 12:36 am

Ha ha! No, I do not believe USA 2-party system is true democracy. How can there be any democracy when 1% of the population owns 99% of all the wealth? Is ridiculous situation.

grafomanka, October 6, 2011 at 11:49 am

@kovane

They certainly pretended that there were consultations for the last 4 years, with Medvedev not ruling out that he’s going to run, with the talk about some kind of modernizing fraction in the Kremlin.

Now it turned out that none of this was for real. I have more respect for Putin, at least he chose not to violate Russian constitution.

And about wishes of the votes, please. I read that opposition ads in some Russian regions were banned from state TV. Let’s not pretend this is a democracy.

kovane,October 6, 2011 at 12:04 pm

So you suppose that if “elites” (that’s a very democratic term, straight from the Constitution) were unanimously opposed to Putin’s nomination, he would be running anyway? Just because he and Medvedev allegedly made the decision 4 years ago?

Yes, if Nemtsov’s talking head was on every channel 24/7 then the opposition would have every chance to win the election. The Muslim Brothers in Egypt were banned altogether, let alone the access to media, but that didn’t stop them from being the most popular movement. So let’s not pretend that isn’t a democracy, having own TV network is not one of the God-given rights last time I checked.

Reply

grafomanka,October 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm

If you didn’t mean consultations within the elites then what consultations did you have in mind?

TV coverage is crucially important, because as Kremlin PR masters know right TV coverage can add as much as 15-20% support to a party/candidate. And they have no competition. TV is used for black PR all the time. I don’t think Egypt is the fair example, for many reasons, religious etc.

Putin is popular and quite probably Putin is what Russia needs now. It doesn’t make Russia a democracy. Democracy is run on institutions, fair competition, public discussion….

Reply

kovane,October 6, 2011 at 12:50 pm

I meant exactly consultations within elites, though “consultations” is a very unsuitable term. Maneuvering and falling behind the right candidate, that’s how I would put it.

TV coverage is crucially important

That’s what I wrote in the piece. And that’s why the Kremlin controls TV so zealously.

Democracy is run on institutions, fair competition, public discussion

That’s not democracy, that’s a spherical model of democracy. Let’s talk about two countries that are usually presented as model democracies, the UK and US. Does anybody discuss the policy on Israel in the US media? Did they discuss if the US should get into the war on Iraq? Bailout of the big banks in 2008? Or any major problem for that matter. And by being discussed I mean not presenting 1001 reason why it should be done. The UK mass media is even more pitiable in that regard. So, please, get off your high horse and stop gluing labels.

grafomanka,October 6, 2011 at 10:14 pm

I don’t want to go into ‘In America they…’ If Russia is a democracy then where are the mechanisms for political change? They are technically there but in reality the Kremlin makes sure that they are useless. I certainly don’t see anything democratic about how politics is handled.

Reply

kovane,October 7, 2011 at 8:49 am

Oh, no, you’re not going to reduce it to lynching Negroes. The mechanism for political change is present in Russia, and you know it. When the citizens become dissatisfied with the government UR will be forced to make some changes. In many respect the Russian system is more responsive to negative tendencies in public sentiment, because UR can’t shift blame on Democrats or Republicans or the Labour party. Whatever happens, everyone knows that’s UR’s fault.

yalensis,October 7, 2011 at 11:01 am

Well, this is how it is with artists, they experience everything in a vivid emotional manner and are not always rational thinkers. The good news is: Bondarchuk DID show up for work the following day (ergo, he was not whisked away to death star for torture by Putin). I like his rant, I like the way he talks. But I am still scratching my head: what specific policy changes is he asking for? If he decides to build his own faction within United Russia, then he will need a platform of proposed policies. Is not enough to show: “Look how brilliantly I am expressing my emotions! I should be the next Hamlet!”

apc27,October 6, 2011 at 2:48 pm

That desire for a “public discussion” is a common criticism of the way Putin makes decisions, as he seems to prefer to keep his cards close to his chest. Some “discussion” is necessary, but all too often there is that annoying Russian delusion that “any housewife can run a country”, that dictates peoples’ desire to discuss things, rather than any practical considerations.

The decision as to who will run for a president may have huge implications, but at the end of the day, it is a deeply personal one. What good would our uninformed discussions could have done, besides rocking the boat and setting the power elites on the course for a direct confrontation? Plus, its not as if people’s opinions are not considered. There plenty of polls and, of course, the elections themselves where Russians can have their say.

People often use US as an example of the way democracy should work, but what they themselves do not appreciate is that only in US can such polarising and all encompassing “discussions” NOT lead to chaos and ruin.

October 6, 2011 at 5:13 pm

The impression that running a country is little more complicated than baking a cake or changing a tire is common to a great deal wider group than Russians. Please don’t think I’m endorsing politicians, but politics and government are their business and they typically have some educational background that suits them to the purpose. The notion that a farmer who spends 70% of his waking hours running a farm and doesn’t have time to watch more than the local news can engage at an international level and make decisions that will affect complicated relationships of which he is not even aware is beyond silly. But people insist on the right to be involved with the political process without exercising their own due diligence of informing themselves on the issues, and persist with the fiction that anyone could do the job just as well. Anyone who thinks mistakes in that respect are of little consequence, and any damages caused by a foolish choice based on sloganeering and jingoism are easily repaired should review the G.W. Bush and Yeltsin presidencies.

Putin is largely respected and trusted by the Russian people because his policies have generally brought Russia success, and under his guidance Russia has prospered while avoiding most of the stumbling-blocks placed in its path. They believe he can continue this record of success, and they believe it more than they believe Boris Nemtsov could achieve a similar level of success. Nemtsov was a Deputy Prime Minister – it is unrealistic to imagine there is a significant group of voters who do not know who he is and his name on the ballot would be instantly recognizable to nearly all voters. Voting in Boris Nemtsov, or Kasyanov or Kasparov just to prove the validity of the multiparty system would have consequences far beyond the immediate.

Just once, I wish the government would not mess with Nemtsov – would allow him all the free advertising time he wanted and access to the voters as he pleased. Of course the government could not let him just blather and make shit up the way he does in his egregious “white papers”, but rebuttal should be confined to calm, reasoned ripostes that do not attempt to overpower his message, rather offering citizens the opportunity to fact-check his claims. When Nemtsov still lost by a wide margin, as I’m sure he would, he would have to confront the fact that he has nothing to offer Russians but a big ego, a big aggreived pout and an inflated sense of self-worth.

yalensis,October 7, 2011 at 11:07 am

Why cannot a housewife run the country? Was Katherine the Great not a housewife before she became Emperess? Most historians agree she was pretty good ruler, except for that unpleasant business surrounding Pugachev uprising.

October 7, 2011 at 3:42 pm

I assume you were joking, but ruling – as a member of the nobility – in days gone by is quite a bit different than ruling in the superpower age when all is comprised of alliances, “what have you done for me lately?” expectations and constant jockeying for advantage. Resolving international conflicts is unlikely to be brought about by challenging the enemy to a pie-making contest, winner take all. The more you don’t possess any background knowledge in – political science, international affairs, foreign policy, trade….the more you must rely on advisors: and then, not only is the resulting policy not your own, you don’t even understand it well enough to know if you’ve been sold a bag of shit that will have serious negative effects on the country.

George W. Bush is an excellent example of the radical pursuit of a narrow ideology that can result when someone is elected on his folksy charm and his devoutness, and not much else. He relied on a tight, like-minded circle of advisors to coalesce his opinions for him, decided things based on “gut feeling” rather than analysis and was not well-read in any subject except baseball despite having had the benefits of an excellent education. And he was a member of the political class!

While some modest, ordinary citizens might make excellent leaders on a community scale or with a simple problem in a subject with which they are acquainted, international politics are generally beyond them and they are not prepared for the infighting among their own political system that will make it difficult to get anything constructive done. I’m not suggesting ordinary citizens are too stupid to be politicians – merely that their life experiences have not prepared them for the political arena and I don’t understand why anyone would invest their formative years in preparing for such a career (except that you can make quite a lot of money for doing little but talking and voting).

October 7, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Sorry if I sound a little disillusioned with politics and politicians right now, but I’m still steaming after watching this video from Leos Tomicek’s Austere Insomniac, which shows members of the European Parliament showing up at 7:00 AM just to enregister for the day – and pocket their 284-Euro allowance for doing so – and then buggering off for the weekend: many of them have their suitcases with them. I’m not sure what the language is, but it sounds like German and the film takes pains to point out EU Parliamentarians can earn more than Chancellor Merkel for basically doing dick-all. The reporter who is filming this gets kicked out by EU Parliament security.

October 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm

“Democracy is run on institutions, fair competition, public discussion….”

Please provide an example of somewhere that occurs absent influence or interference by the party currently in power.

yalensis,October 7, 2011 at 12:42 am

…or absent influence of big money interests…

October 6, 2011 at 4:25 pm

This is the crux of the argument for me – let’s not pretend this is a democracy, but while we’re caught up in the tide of refreshing honesty, let’s stop pretending there is real democracy anywhere. In that light, Russia is no better and no worse than anywhere else, so let’s stop with the finger-pointing and the self-righteous pontificating. I’m not opposed to criticism of Russia, provided it is not hypocritical or unfair.

The Italian papers wouldn’t run a toothpaste ad without consulting their guidelines, because Berlusconi owns the media – but nobody suggests Italy isn’t a democracy or is a managed democracy. In every country that exercises a simple vote and is not a monarchy, the leaders maneuver behind the scenes to gather more power for themselves and reduce or eliminate the possibility of successful challenge by opposition – by control of media outlets, by manufactured scandal and by inflation or fabrication of their own accomplishments. When everyone drops the pretense that they’re a real democracy, the accusation that this country or that country oppresses its citizens by unduly and unfairly influencing their exercise of a free vote will lose its sting altogether. Hey, you, you’re a crook – say, fellow crook; like to get together for a drink after work, and compare notes?

On the opposite pole of the argument are the voters, who don’t know shit about governance or running a country, much less the nuances of international relationships and alliances, but are ready to vote for the leader with the best hair or the most affable public-speaking style. Let’s not pretend that’s democracy, either.

October 7, 2011 at 12:04 am

There is no democracy anywhere – and hasn’t been for a long time – like the idealized model you describe. I know you don’t want to get involved in a Russia-vs-the USA discussion, but the USA sets itself up for just such a comparison by regularly expounding that American-style democracy is so wonderful they simply must export it to others, and by virtue of the fact that most of Russia’s harshest critics are Americans or products of American agencies.

Russia is not an ideal democracy, as kovane already pointed out, in that not all parties have equal access to media and the ruling party has extensive control over both voting mechanisms and the rulebook for viability of new parties. However, the USA is similarly deficient in democratic values in that it uses gerrymandering, redistricting and voter disenfranchisement to manipulate the popular vote, and the current opposition seems perfectly willing to use the filibuster to crash the economy so that its chances of regaining power are improved. That’s manifestly not what the electorate wants, since polls regularly reveal jobs and the economy as its biggest concerns.

Granted, that’s the opposite problem to Russia – in that the opposition has too much power and can highjack every economic initiative by misusing the supermajority rule – but it ushers in what some analysts describe as “the normalization of extortion politics“, and is plainly not democracy because party discipline supersedes loyalty to the constituent.

“Tame” media outlets like Fox News regularly report outright falsehoods, misstate the qualifications of their guests and frequently push made-up narratives as if they were real news – is that democracy?

grafomanka,October 7, 2011 at 9:22 am

Mark, in America Democrats and Republicans are locked in constant battle, and of course it has negative effects like extortion policies and Fox News. Maybe It’s even too extreme and bad for the country. Quite probably Chinese with their 5-year plans will turn out to be more effective in governing because they’re not locked in constant competition battle. But America is democracy and China isn’t. Americans don’t have it ideal, half of the country alienated when Bush became president. But it is democracy, power shifts, you can watch the daily show which takes a piss out of Fox News.

October 7, 2011 at 3:51 pm

However nice TDS may be, it still behaves as though there are important differences between the two parties when, when it comes to (all-important) economic policy, there really isn’t.

Both parties encourage outsourcing, both give huge subsidies to industries while cutting back on redistributive programs, neither party is willing to regulate and prosecute corrupt businesses/behavior (Cheney).. Certainly they differ a bit in the area of abortion/gay rights/etc., but they’re doing as little as possible while still seeming distinct.

Reply

grafomanka,October 8, 2011 at 10:31 pm

They differ economically too, but both pander to big businesses, yes. I think if Russia had more diversified economy and more different big businesses maybe politics would be a different story. But when big business in the country are oil and gas, why wouldn’t the elites collude instead of competing? Collusion makes more sense to them.

About ‘made-up narratives’ I think Americans arrived at the conclusion that it doesn’t matter what you say as long as it evokes emotional response. In the end it’s emotions that win elections, not rational thinking. That’s why Sarah Palin, Fox News, etc feel that they can spawn any bullshit.

[Jul 12, 2015] Donald Trump is flaming right wing passions against "illegal" immigrants

Jul 11, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview

pgl said...

Donald Trump is flaming right wing passions against "illegal" immigrants. But guess who Trump hired to build some of his hotels and casinos - illegal immigrants. Do the Tea Party nitwits that now heart the DONALD know this?

400 ppm said in reply to pgl...


"
Donald Trump is flaming right wing passions against "illegal" immigrants. But guess who Trump
"
~~pgl~

Easy living within a land of plenty cuts lots of slack for each of us to become *mean spirited*. Perhaps if we concentrate less on our own economic imperfections but concentrate more on lifting people of other nations we could thus indirectly learn a modicum about our own system.

Good
luck
!

pgl said in reply to 400 ppm...

He is speaking in Las Vegas right now to the right wing crowd. Did Rusty write his critic of Obamacare? 3 accountants per doctor - really? I guess these accountants are working 10 hours a week.

djb said in reply to pgl...

he cares so much about workers, he put thousands of contractors in atlantic city out of business by not paying his bills

what I heard is he'd say go on and sue, I got better lawyers than you

EMichael said in reply to pgl...

Donald Trump is the greatest example in the world why the US should have an immense estate tax.

DrDick said in reply to EMichael...

Trump (or any of the Bushes) is the best argument for a 100% estate tax on estates over $1 million.

John Cummings said in reply to pgl...

Trump himself hires 'illegal' immigrant and indeed a rentier. Leftists should demand the end to all legal 'immigration'. Capitalism is what needs the extra labor, not socialism. This is why politics is dying. The dialect has twisted politics and idiots that agree with Trumps dialect, help propagate it.

Trump himself will be destroyed by the fall. IMO, he never wanted this and the contradictions will become apparent to obliterate him soon enough. I would not be surprised he is also a Clinton agent considering their past ties. He is tying up the GOP and wasting their time.

Brad said...

Got an idea. Let's end the subsidies to crony capitalist industries soooo supported by Bush, Romney, GOP and their ilk (petroleum, Big Sugar, Military Industrial Complex, etc.).

Romney screwed the FDIC out of $16M. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

Bush family made its money initially trading with the WWII enemy and then built a fortune in petroleum, which was heavily subsidized. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Dick Cheney and his relationship with KBR-Halliburton, was the big winner in the Iraq war. http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905

The real issue is not one of 'takers' or 'non-workers' but a 'smash and grab' scrum for WHO gets to be the REAL TAKERS and clearly the right wing GOP have a sense of entitlement to rip off the most and are incensed if they perceive anyone might need some social services!

What a joke!

pgl said in reply to Brad...

Hey! Their lawyers and lobbyists worked long hours to rig the system in their favor.

JF said...

"16 tons and what did I get?

Another day older and deeper in debt.

Oh, I owe my soul to the company store."


So this is the new thinking of the GOP? Produce more, work as many hours as needed, get paid no more than I'd planned on paying you. Good campaign platform. I can see how that will attract the attention of those who work for a living or worked decades before they were able to retire.

And better yet, if I get the 16 tons and I use even fewer workers (who really are indebted to me for getting a job), all the better. Good productivity metric. Just need fewer of them to work longer, harder too.

I can hear the music playing now as the GOP candidates take to the podium.

I just hope other US residents hear the doleful music too, and relate to it by voting a straight ticket for the other party.

JF said...

"don't you call me, I can't go"

The GOP platform is also designed to solve the Social Security accounting matter in the Jonathan Swift manner. Keep people working longer and harder, paying them so they can never get ahead, so they can never retire and claim any earnings via the social security system's support for the economy (and it is earned, a return on investment of the human capital).

John Cummings said...

Capitalism itself died in 1933. Governments saved it in Bernie Lomax form and now the Capitalists want to create the market state to bring Bernie back to life as a totalitarian force.

[Jul 12, 2015] Hillary Clinton and middle-class-out/progressive supply side economics proposals that Larry Summers floated for her at Davos

July 11, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

pgl said...

Jeb! "Work longer hours". Hillary?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hillary-clinton-economic-agenda-boosting-wages

Increase wage rates.

Peter K. said in reply to pgl...

"Clinton will lay out the themes of her economic plan in a speech Monday in New York. Clinton's campaign says in a preview on Saturday that the speech will emphasize the need for the real incomes of everyday Americans to rise steadily along with corporate profits and executive compensation."

Hopefully she does this. The question is how? Her speech at Roosevelt island just focused on stuff like tax breaks for small companies and profit-sharing.

Weak tea.

It rally depends on Yellen. I doubt Hillary will mention the Fed. She can increase the power of unions. I doubt she will mention that.

What did Bill Clinton campaign on? Not increasing wages. What was his record? An upward tick in the late 90s as Greenspan refused to raise rates?

JaaaaayCeeeee said in reply to Peter K....

I think Hillary Clinton will claim on Monday that it can be morning again in America for the middle class, with her middle-class-out/progressive supply side economics proposals that Larry Summers floated for her at Davos in January. Remember his "It Can Be Morning Again For The World's Middle Class" op-ed, in January 18th's links here at EV, one of several he wrote his "Report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity" published at the Center For American Progress?
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2015/01/15/104266/report-of-the-commission-on-inclusive-prosperity/

I remember, after skimming CAP's report, thinking it had some good ideas for lots of our problems, but ignored some of the most necessary reforms, and hand waved at others.

Although the CAP report had plenty of good proposals, like recommending step up basis reform and Obama's transfer pricing abuse proposed rule, it didn't seemt o have a goal of making the tax code progressive enough and taxing capital like labor, let alone addressing Stiglitz's proposed corporate tax reform or a financial transaction tax.

Although the CAP report proposed that Congress legislate more wage and benefit protections for workers, I don't remember anything contracting or about increasing disposable pay by improving work week/vacation/job sharing/vacation/leave, and paid family leave is not the whole package. The CAP reports praises more immigration to increase labor supply and output, with nothing about visa abuse.

The praise of trade pacts as how to raise wages, not only around the world but in the USA, with nothing about preventing these trade pacts from making current VISA abuse look timid, sounded as ill-advised as the CAP report's praise for the gig economy, with nothing more than a recommendation that another commission do studies on how to prevent labor exploitation in the gig economy. In fact, the only trade policy change proposal was to include rules against currency manipulation in trade treaties. After reading the CAP report, would a Clinton administration be much more helpful to labor than the Obama administration has been (yes, updating OT proposal is good, but look at the Obama administration on minimum wage and caregivers).

Summers' CAP report admits early on that because technology, we should not expect jobs for everyone at socially acceptable wages. The CAP report even claims that more technical and top-flight education will save workers, promoting the myth that more STEM pays more, without addressing why that's not what is happening, and we know why. These two are good examples of how the proposals sound good until you think about what is missing and whether it adds up to enough, or even deserves Larry Summers claiming it adds up to "progressive supply side economics".

No matter how long a laundry list of not-enough-to-turn-the-tide progressive proposals that Hillary Clinton's donors allow her, I can't see how the economic proposals that CAP prepared for Hillary add up to economic growth that is productive enough, stable enough, and sustainable enough to generate enough economic demand for full employment policy (not mentioned in the CAP report) and living wages. I wish I were and economics expert, and could write as well as that report, but even I can tell that it is missing some minimal requirements.

The CAP report is full of great little talking points, like convert mortgage interest and property tax deductions to tax credits and limit cap gains exclusions on castle flipping. and even on exec pay (don't remember even disclosure being mentioned, though). Even touts climate mitigation as an investment opportunity without cheerleading for public/private explicitly. Excellent descriptions of some problems, like, "the direct costs of top-end pay packages are relatively small as a portion of the economy, but the indirect effects of incentivizing managers on the basis of short-term stock performance have major implications for investment, innovation, and wage growth." Well, at least apart from the execrable "incentivizing".

The CAP report proposes card check, but only after proof of employer coercion in the election process which means that workers just have to hope that Larry Summers' counterpart in a big donor Democrat administration will have whole new levels of clout, new policies, enforcement, and resources, to counter that employers no longer follow the rules and don't pay for it, either?

It would be helpful if Hillary Clinton's economics speech Monday makes it hard to know if she agrees (is fully on board and ready to bully pulpit) or disagrees (thinks there's a third way still) on the following people's proposals: Joseph Stiglitz on corporate tax reform, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on a financial transaction tax and restoring a Glass-Steagall law, the House Progressive Caucus' "People's Budget" on income tax reform, Robert Reich on labor support, Dean Baker on prioritizing reducing our trade deficit and full employment policy (and the currency manipulation, treaty, and tax changes needed to solve these), Mark Thoma's deficit neutral fiscal stimulus as a million times more necessary than weaponized Keynes, Stiglitz/Baker on alternatives to our unsustainable patent funded pharma, and Krugman on VSP's.

The New York Times and Washington Post have said that Hillary Clinton's economic proposals will be based on the CAP "Inclusive prosperity" report, but her allies are smart enough to have held a couple for effect and make a couple sound more Bernie Sander-ish, but 'ish doesn't add up to progressive policies.

[Jul 12, 2015] Jeb and the Nation of Takers

economistsview.typepad.com

Paul Krugman:

Jeb and the Nation of Takers: Maybe we were unfair to Mitt Romney; Jeb "people should work longer hours" Bush is making him look like a model of empathy for the less fortunate. ...

But I think it's also important to understand where this is coming from. Partly it's Bush trying to defend his foolish 4 percent growth claim; but it's also, I'm almost certain, coming out of the "nation of takers" dogma that completely dominates America's right wing.

At my adventure in Las Vegas, one of the questions posed by the moderator was, if I remember it correctly, "What would you do about America's growing underclass living off welfare?" When I said that the premise was wrong, that this isn't actually happening, there was general incredulity — this is part of what the right knows is happening. ...

As I asked a few months ago, where are these welfare programs people are supposedly living off? TANF is tiny;... overall spending on "income security" has shown no trend at all as a share of GDP, with all the supposed growth in means-tested programs coming from Medicaid...

But isn't there an epidemic of people declaring themselves disabled? Actually, no..., if you look at age-adjusted disability rates, they have been flat or even declining...

But none of this will, of course, make any dent in the right-wing narrative: they just know that the rising number of bums on welfare is a problem, even though there basically isn't any welfare and there are no more bums than there ever were.

Brad

Got an idea. Let's end the subsidies to crony capitalist industries soooo supported by Bush, Romney, GOP and their ilk (petroleum, Big Sugar, Military Industrial Complex, etc.).

Romney screwed the FDIC out of $16M. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

Bush family made its money initially trading with the WWII enemy and then built a fortune in petroleum, which was heavily subsidized. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Dick Cheney and his relationship with KBR-Halliburton, was the big winner in the Iraq war. http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905

The real issue is not one of 'takers' or 'non-workers' but a 'smash and grab' scrum for WHO gets to be the REAL TAKERS and clearly the right wing GOP have a sense of entitlement to rip off the most and are incensed if they perceive anyone might need some social services!

What a joke!

Sandwichman

Not to overlook that even in trying to weasel out of his "people need to work longer hours" assertion, Governor Bush talked about people working 30 hours "getting in line and depending on government."
Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...
John Pencavel, "The Productivity of Working Hours."

ABSTRACT: Observations on munition workers, most of them women, are organised to examine the relationship between their output and their working hours. The relationship is non-linear: below an hour's threshold, output is proportional to hours; above a threshold, output rises at a decreasing rate as hours increase. Implications of this finding for the estimation of labour supply functions are considered. The findings also link up with the current research on the effects of long working hours on accidents and injuries.

Links at: http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2015/07/people-need-to-work-longer-shorter-hours.html#more

The Economist, December 9, 2014: Proof that you should get a life

But a new paper, by John Pencavel of Stanford University, also shows that reducing working hours can be good for productivity.

TIME, June 19, 2015: How to Unplug From Work

Productivity falls sharply after a 50-hour workweek, found Stanford economics professor John Pencavel. So connecting less is good for you and your company—though your boss may need convincing.

Financial Post, July 3, 2015: If we agree productivity has dropped despite working longer hours, how can we fix it?

Research shows working longer hours doesn't increase productivity. Economists have argued for some time working longer hours would negatively affect productivity. John Hicks, a British economist who looked at this issue in the 1930s, concluded that productivity declined as working hours increased. And John Pencavel of Stanford University showed in his research that reduced working hours can be good for productivity. The study found that productivity declined markedly after more than 50 hours a week and that the absence of a rest day (such as Sunday) damaged productivity.

New Zealand Herald, July 11. 2015: No winners in culture of overwork

Employee output falls sharply after a 50-hour working week and falls off the cliff after 55 hours, with those putting in 70 hours producing nothing more in those extra 15 hours, according to a recent study by John Pencavel of Stanford University. He says long hours are also connected to absenteeism and high employee turnover, and there are ancillary costs to employers such as providing light, heat, ventilation, and supervisory labour during those extra hours.

Human Resources Executive Online, February 5, 2015: Long Hours Lead to Lower Productivity

Research by Stanford University economics professor John Pencavel indicates there's a point of no return, if you will, when long hours and overwork become unproductive and unhealthy, and even have negative effects on your bottom line. So, counter to common thinking, your hardest workers may not be your best workers, not by a long shot.

The study—The Productivity of Working Hours, based on a review of much earlier research undertaken by investigators of the British Health of Munition Workers Committee during the First World War—finds employee output falls sharply after 50 hours of work in a week. After 55 hours, that output is fast becoming nonexistent, to the point that an employee working 70 hours in a week produces absolutely nothing between 55 and 70 hours, according to the research.

"Long weekly hours and long daily hours do not necessarily yield high output," Pencavel writes in his report, "and this implies that, for some employees engaged in certain types of work, their profit-maximizing employer [should] not be indifferent to the length of their working hours over a day or week."

This point has already been made in reports of fixed employment costs, where costs linked to the number of workers employed inclines a firm to extend workers' hours, he notes.

"[But] this paper," Pencavel writes, "has suggested a different reason for an optimizing employer to care about the length of working hours: employees at work for a long time may experience fatigue or stress that not only reduces [their] productivity, but also increases the probability of errors, accidents and sickness that impose costs on the employer.

"Unlike the case of fixed employment costs," he writes, "these concerns over work stress incline the firm not to extend the work hours of employees, but to curtail them. … This is certainly not a new argument, but it seems to have been neglected in contemporary models of labor markets. It implies that restrictions on working hours—those imposed by statute or those induced by setting penalty rates of pay for hours worked beyond a threshold, or those embodied in collective-bargaining agreements—may be viewed, not as damaging restraints on management, but as an enlightened form of improving workplace efficiency and welfare."

anne said in reply to Sandwichman...
New data:

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

June 30, 2015

Average Annual Hours Worked per Employee, 2014

United States ( 1789)
OCED average ( 1770)

Australia ( 1664)
Austria ( 1629)
Belgium ( 1576)
Canada ( 1704)

Chile ( 1990)
Czech Republic ( 1776)
Denmark ( 1436)
Finland ( 1645)

France ( 1489)
Germany ( 1371)
Greece ( 2042)
Hungary ( 1858)

Iceland ( 1864)
Ireland ( 1821)
Israel ( 1853)
Italy ( 1734)

Japan ( 1729)
Korea ( 2163)
Luxembourg ( 1643)
Mexico ( 2228)

Netherlands ( 1425)
New Zealand ( 1762)
Norway ( 1427)
Poland ( 1923)

Portugal ( 1857)
Slovak Republic ( 1763)
Spain ( 1689)
Sweden ( 1609)

Switzerland ( 1568)
Turkey ( 1832)
United Kingdom ( 1677)

DrDick said in reply to Sandwichman...

This of course totally ignores the fact that Americans work longer hours than anyone else in the Developed world and that there nowhere in the US where working full-time at minimum wage pays enough to rent a two-bedroom apartment.

anne said...

http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-hard-work-election

July 10, 2015

Jeb Bush wants us to work more for the collective good. Who's the socialist now?
Americans already work more than our European counterparts, but the former governor wants to enact policies to force people to work even more hours.
By Dean Baker - Guardian

Governor Jeb Bush announced that he thinks people should work more hours in a campaign speech this week. This puts him in direct opposition to the two leading contenders on the Democratic side, both of whom are pushing proposals that will allow people to work less. This could mean that 2016 will be an election in which work hours play a central role.

Starting with Bush's position, the comment came in the context of a speech where he was listing the things that we need to do to reach his target of 4.0 percent annual GDP growth "as far as the eye can see." Bush said that we need to increase labor force participation, work longer hours, and increase productivity.

This is not the first time that Bush said that he thought people should work more. He previously argued for raising the normal retirement age for Social Security.

The sight of someone who was raised in privilege, and relied on family connections to make his careers in business and politics, telling the rest of the public they have to work more, will make good fodder for Governor Bush's political opponents. But this position is actually held by many people in policy circles in both political parties.

The argument is that we need more workers in order to sustain economic growth, even if almost no one thinks Bush's 4.0 percent growth target is remotely plausible. In particular, they argue that as we see an aging population, we will have to keep people working to older ages and get also to get more hours of work from them each year until they do retire.

This view is striking given that the United States and most of the rest of the world has been suffering from the opposite problem for the last eight years. The United States, Europe, and Japan all have fewer people working than would like to work because there is insufficient demand in the economy. The problem our economies are facing is that we don't have enough jobs.

In fact, one of the lines that is getting widely (and wrongly) repeated is that none of us will have work because robots are taking all the jobs. Obviously we can't both have a shortage of workers and a shortage of jobs at the same time.

While the robots taking all our jobs story is an exaggeration, the basic point is right. We are seeing rising productivity through time, which means that we can produce more goods and services with the same amount of work. This is the basis for rising living standards.

Historically, we have taken the benefits from higher productivity in both higher pay and more leisure. If we go back a century, work weeks of sixty or even seventy hours a week were common. While our workweek has been largely fixed at forty hours a week for the last seventy years, other countries have pursued policies to shorten the work week and/or work year. These policies include paid sick days, paid family leave, and paid vacation.

Several European countries have actively pushed policies of work sharing as an alternative to unemployment. In this case, the government compensates workers in part for a reduction in hours as opposed to paying unemployment insurance to someone who has lost their job. Germany has paved the path on this policy, which is an important factor in its 4.7 percent unemployment rate.

As a result of work sharing and other policies, the average worker in Germany puts in almost 25 percent fewer hours each year than workers in the United States, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Most other wealthy countries are close to Germany. In the Netherlands, the average work year is 21 percent shorter than in the United States. In Denmark, it is 20 percent shorter than in the United States.

The leading Democratic contenders are proposing policies to get the United States more in line with the rest of the world. Secretary Clinton has indicated she will support paid family leave and paid sick days, although she has not yet produced specific proposals. Senator Bernie Sanders, the other leading contender, also supports paid family leave and paid sick days. In addition, he recently put forward a proposal guaranteeing all workers two weeks a year of paid vacation. That might seem like small change compared to the five to six weeks a year that is now standard in Europe, but it would be a huge gain for tens of millions of workers.

There is a long way yet before the parties select their nominees, but if the general election ends up being a contest between Jeb Bush and either Clinton or Sanders, it will present the country with an unusually clear choice. We will have one candidate who wants people to work more hours and retire later, and another candidate who wants to put in place policies so that people can work less. That will make for an interesting election.

ilsm said in reply to anne...

Fascism is socialism for the 1%. The collective in fascism is the 1%.

cm said in reply to ilsm...

I don't know why everybody is so obsessed with the Fascism label. What we are discussing here has little to do with it.

likbez said in reply to cm...

I think you are wrong.

Fascism is a form of corporatism which remains a viable right wing program for setting up a highly centralized regime with militant nationalistic policies (especially external expansion), merge of industrial and financial corporations with the government, total population control, rigid control of MSM, and violent suppression of opposition.

But you need to understand that along with classic fascism, there are multiple mutations that are called by generic name of neofascism. For example some flavors of neofascism replace physical suppression of internal opposition with MSM dominance. Opposition is simply pushed out of media space and ignored, not physically suppressed. The idea of racial/ethnic purity can be replaced by cultural, by rejection of alternative culture/language in particular country; Spanish in the USA or Russian in Ukraine.

And as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity it is not that far from right wing Republican platform as we might wish.

The key question to you is: "Do we have an organized, committed nationalistic (and exceptionalism is a form of nationalism) militants, in alliance with traditional elites, who are ready to use violence without ethical or legal restraints for internal cleansing of the society and external expansion?"

And I would answer positively this question as far as external expansion goes.


Second Best said in reply to anne...

'Obviously we can't both have a shortage of workers and a shortage of jobs at the same time.'

It should be easy to swift boat Jeb Bush on a tacit admission that he is criticizing employers for not hiring more to work more hours for lack of sales, not employees voluntarily working less. The data is too strong to deny this in areas like the Beveridge Curve.

It won't happen because no challenger to Bush will advance a spending platform that hires more at higher hours, a third rail none of them will touch.

cm said in reply to Second Best...

Nobody is claiming a general shortage of workers. The claim is a shortage of suitably skilled workers. Including of course basic skills and professional attitude that should be expected to be readily available (and mostly is). And of course the unstated qualifiers "at a certain price point" and "willing to agree to all our terms".

In "tech", one significant "problem" is that general or even specialized competence is often not enough for a high level of proficiency - the worker also has to get up to speed on proprietary in house tech, learn their way around the complex processes and organizations, etc., which takes several months or even years. This is a considerable sunk cost and risk of having to do it over when the worker leaves. Company pensions/defined benefits as a means to bind workers to the company have been phased out, stock with vesting may work but is expensive at scale, and the next best thing is a work visa where the workers cannot just leave at will, or at least with nontrivial risk and hassle on their part (e.g. being forced to leave the country for a while to get a new visa).

Peter K. said...

Jeb!

Worse than Romney?

pgl said in reply to Peter K....

I thought being worse than Romney was impossible but Jeb! just may exceed "expectations".

Brad said...

Got an idea. Let's end the subsidies to crony capitalist industries soooo supported by Bush, Romney, GOP and their ilk (petroleum, Big Sugar, Military Industrial Complex, etc.).

Romney screwed the FDIC out of $16M. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

Bush family made its money initially trading with the WWII enemy and then built a fortune in petroleum, which was heavily subsidized. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Dick Cheney and his relationship with KBR-Halliburton, was the big winner in the Iraq war. http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905

The real issue is not one of 'takers' or 'non-workers' but a 'smash and grab' scrum for WHO gets to be the REAL TAKERS and clearly the right wing GOP have a sense of entitlement to rip off the most and are incensed if they perceive anyone might need some social services!

What a joke!

pgl said in reply to Brad...

Hey! Their lawyers and lobbyists worked long hours to rig the system in their favor.

JF said...

"16 tons and what did I get?

Another day older and deeper in debt.

Oh, I owe my soul to the company store."

So this is the new thinking of the GOP? Produce more, work as many hours as needed, get paid no more than I'd planned on paying you. Good campaign platform. I can see how that will attract the attention of those who work for a living or worked decades before they were able to retire.

And better yet, if I get the 16 tons and I use even fewer workers (who really are indebted to me for getting a job), all the better. Good productivity metric. Just need fewer of them to work longer, harder too.

I can hear the music playing now as the GOP candidates take to the podium.

I just hope other US residents hear the doleful music too, and relate to it by voting a straight ticket for the other party.

JF said...

"don't you call me, I can't go"

The GOP platform is also designed to solve the Social Security accounting matter in the Jonathan Swift manner. Keep people working longer and harder, paying them so they can never get ahead, so they can never retire and claim any earnings via the social security system's support for the economy (and it is earned, a return on investment of the human capital).

ilsm said in reply to JF...

How to fix entitlements: have them die before reaching SS age! As a matter of fact have them die cheap too.

The money is needed to buy F-35's to do fake missions with a plane that cannot do the fake missions.

If the US had half the $28T spend the past 70 years on the pentagon for the 99%..........

Brad said...

Speaking of more crony capitalist giveaways. Remember Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, in other words giving it to stock brokers WHO HAVE NO FIDUCIARY DUTY!

Dept. of Labor has proposed to making some retirement asset managers fidcuaires. http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150515/FREE/150519925/dol-extends-comment-period-on-fiduciary-duty-proposal

Congress threatens to defund D. of Labor if the rule occurs! http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150625/FREE/150629945/momentum-to-defund-dol-fiduciary-rule-seems-unstoppable

Think of how extreme this attempted giveaway was compared to anything related to the 'social safety net'!

It is "redistribution from the duped to the dupers"! http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/luigi.zingales/papers/research/Finance.pdf

DeDude said in reply to Brad...

Yes what an outrage to demand that retirement asset managers work for the best of the retirees, rather than the Wall Street banksters who bribe them to assist in the looting of their retirees. No wonder the banksters little GOP sock puppets are throwing a fit.

ilsm said in reply to JF...

How to fix entitlements: have them die before reaching SS age! As a matter of fact have them die cheap too.

The money is needed to buy F-35's to do fake missions with a plane that cannot do the fake missions.

If the US had half the $28T spend the past 70 years on the pentagon for the 99%..........

[Jul 11, 2015] Bernie Sanders Gets His Gun

Jul 7, 2015 | The American Conservative

After every election, the Democratic Party spends a lot of time wondering why it keeps losing the support of white working-class voters. Why would the white working class support Republican candidates and policies when those candidates and policies are so detrimental to their economic interests?

Some conclude that racism is the reason, and there's something to that. Others argue that such voters are being duped by the "culture war," and there's something to that, too. But could there also be something here about liberals and their claim to knowing what the Democratic base cares about? Perhaps, I wonder, the white working class might continue to side with the Republicans because liberal Democrats maintain a barely concealed contempt for the white working class, especially in the implication that those who care about guns are insane.

Fact is, the real issue in the gun debate is geography. Bernie Sanders knows it. Vermont is a rural state with relatively weak gun laws and relatively low rates of gun violence. Guns are normal. Meanwhile, most liberal Democrats, especially the ones who write for Slate and MSNBC, live in populous urban centers located on the east and west coasts, where in their experience having a gun makes no sense at all.

I'm not bothered by hypocrisy. What bothers me about this mainstream liberal reaction to Bernie Sanders's record on gun legislation is what it says about mainstream liberalism, especially its understanding of the values of the white working class, a bloc of voters that the Democratic Party still needs in order to advance a majoritarian agenda.

As a close friend of Sanders told National Journal: "He doesn't really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there's an elitism in the antigun movement." And he's right.

[Jul 11, 2015] Jeb Bush's Neo-Fascist PNAC Connection

December 13, 2014 | larouchepac.com

Jeb Bush's signature on the founding documents of the Project for a New American Century will defeat any effort by him to separate his putative presidential candidacy from his family's historical support of overt Nazi and fascist policies, including the revelations of torture detailed in the Senate's report of this week.

PNAC developed and sold the blueprint for the new Anglo-American imperialism which has turned the United States internally into a garrison police-state and an imperial force internationally deployed against any nation deemed unfriendly to British or American financial interests. Its primary target was China, which it describes as the potential great power competitor of the United States, although it is most famous for selling the war in Iraq.

Bush was joined as a PNAC founding signatory in 1997 by Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Midge Dector, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, Fred Ikle, and Robert Kagan (husband of Victoria Nuland). Its leadership included William Kristol, Kagan's father Donald Kagan, and Gary Schmitt. The devotion of many of these people to neo-fascist philosopher Leo Strauss is detailed in "Children of Satan."

Robert Kagan and William Kristol introduced PNAC in a 1997 Foreign Affairs article by attacking John Quincy Adams.

"John Quincy Adams said that America 'should not go forth in search of monsters to destroy', but why not? ... A policy of sitting on a hill and leading by example is a practice of cowardice and dishonor."

America needs to be the benevolent hegemon to the world, the sole superpower, and shape events in its own interest.

PNAC called for unilateral preemptive wars, including a first-strike nuclear capability; fought publicly in 1998 for a war on Iraq based on Saddam's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction; and in 2000 produced a tome entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," much of which was incorporated into George Bush's 2002 national security plan.

In that document PNAC called for consolidating the victory of the Cold War in Europe by creating a Europe "whole and free from the Baltic to the Black Sea" (the same policy we see now in Ukraine), re-positioning U.S. forces around China to prevent a new Chinese century, and the "Clean Break" reshaping of the entire Middle East.

It advocated future weapons such as biological weapons which could target specific human genomes. Written one year before September 11, 2001, the authors noted that these changes in military posture could only occur rapidly if there were a catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harbor.

As you read the torture report and think about the state of mind producing such behaviors in Americans, remember what was documented in the "Children of Satan." Leo Strauss and his mentor, Nazi crown jurist Carl Schmitt, believe that men are inherently evil, that Hobbes was right when he described the world as a war of each against all, a natural world of purgative violence.

The Bush dynasty is the legacy of fascism inside the United States, and today represent the ideological outlook of Nazi crown jurist Carl Schmitt that man can only be unified against other men.

Strauss to Schmitt, 1932:

"The ultimate foundation of right is the principle of the natural evil of man, because man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified, only in unity against other men."

Schmitt attacked the Treaty of Westphalia as extinct because of World War I and replaced it with "concrete order thinking" as the basis for Nazi law — a kind of Nietzscheian situational ethics in which right exists in the hands of the conqueror. According to Strauss, the elite rule justifiably through the myths of laws, morals, and religion sold to a stupid populace. In their benevolent dictatorship, the elite rule through noble lies.

In a 2005 justification for the failed Iraq war, PNAC argued that Bush's decision was moral, based on Suddam's intentions and capabilities, both existing and potential and grounded in his prior behavior, not because of abstract legal norms—to wit, the concrete order thinking of Schmitt. It elsewhere argued that the war was necessary as a demonstration of American resolve and power in the world. Like the Carl Schmitt academic fad in universities throughout the U.S., PNAC's primary funding came from the Bradley and Scaife foundations. It went out of formal existence in 2006, stating that it had achieved its goals.

[Jul 10, 2015] Bernie Sanders solidifies appeal to retirees with social security pitch

Jul 09, 2015 | The Guardian

Democratic presidential hopeful renews calls for expansion of benefits and warns that Republicans will try to undermine Medicare and pensions


Sandra Bowen -> urgonnatrip 10 Jul 2015 00:07

I lived in Vermont for years when he was the 1 state rep -- never a scandal, always clean cut -- doesn't change w/ the wind, stands for what he says


fflambeau 9 Jul 2015 23:30

Poll after poll has shown that the social security program is the most popular one EVER in the USA. Even most conservatives support it (and receive benefits from it). It is NOT a welfare program; it is a retirement, pension system that people have paid into.

Obama came to power being funded by Goldman Sachs Bank and he actually made speeches as a Senator advocating cuts in social security benefits (something the bank favors).

It is nice that Bernie is not only talking about shoring up Social Security but EXPANDING benefits.

talenttruth 9 Jul 2015 23:30

Well, now we have Pope Francis TELLING THE TRUTH, about virtually everything, and Bernie Sanders doing the same. Jimmy Carter's done it too recently, when he fired the bigoted Southern Baptist Convention. This wave of HONESTY is refreshing.

And re: Social Security, others (below) are right on. Today's seniors worked for DECADES and paid into Social Security, only to watch Republi-saurs STEAL from the fund, and then try to dismantle Social Security because it had "grown insolvent."

That is but one example of rich "conservatives" being destroyers (not "conservers") , as well as manipulative, lying sacks of s_____. The Koch Brothers (and their soulless ilk, aren't "satisfied" JUST to have stolen billions and wrecked the environment, now they seek to maximally impoverish everyone else, for the sole purpose of making themselves feel "even bigger." That is called being Sociopaths. so GO BERNIE. And go Pope Francis – keep on calling out such psychopaths for being the criminals that they are.


songwright -> Whitt 9 Jul 2015 23:02

Spot On!

In 1975 the top 1% took home 9% of our national Income. In 2014 they took home 23%. Just that extra 14% = $2Trillion . . . out of a total national income of $15Trillion.

That $2Trillion extra they have stuffed in their already quite full 1% pockets is precisely responsible for shrinking the middle class and locking the bottom 50% of Americans into either daily subsistence or grinding poverty.

Whitt proudlyafricanguy 9 Jul 2015 22:25

As an American myself, I can tell you that the vast overwhelming majority of Americans wouldn't know a "Marxist" if Karl Marx himself rose from the grave and bit them in the ass. The same applies to "socialist" and "socialism". Most of the people who fling these words about, here in the US anyway, haven't got a bloody clue as to their actual meaning.


songwright anncoulter 9 Jul 2015 22:20

Gee, Ann. At 67 I am in great health, still working, and could work for many years yet. However, I have a desk job, so my job isn't very strenuous. Do you propose that all the roofers, and landscapers, and carpenters . . and workers in all the other jobs that require daily physical exertion, need to work until they are 75?

And, are you aware that everyone doesn't age the same, and many people at 60+ are already physically unable to do physically demanding jobs that they excelled at when they were younger? Many of my friends my age, and younger, are becoming increasingly infirm and suffering from serious long-term medical issues. So your solution is for them to remain employed at retail stores and groceries at minimum wage jobs when they get too old to do their old jobs . . . or perhaps they've been replaced because their boss can hire 1½ younger and more productive employees for what they are being paid . . . until they are 75, regardless of their health concerns?

It is truly amazing how blindly irrational and heartless people can become when they allow their ideological 'values' to determine their beliefs instead of common sense and human compassion.


gwpriester 9 Jul 2015 21:02

Social Security is not a welfare program nor is it an entitlement. It is a program that is funded by money deducted from each worker's paycheck and invested for each retirment. If the government had not "borrowed" such vast amounts from the Social Security pension fund, money it never intended to pay back, Social Security would be well funded and solvent for generations to come.


Attu de Bubbalot 9 Jul 2015 20:31

Dear Guardian,

You are mistaken when you identify Medicare and Social Security as "welfare programs". To the contrary, they are Earned Benefit programs where beneficiaries are required to pay into the programs through mandatory deductions from their pay checks for the duration of their working lives. Please, please, please get this right!


macktan894 grossprophet 9 Jul 2015 20:10

What the heck are you talking about? Your social security benefit is based on pre-retirement earnings. No one is talking about limiting benefits--those who make over $125K a year don't pay into social security, but they are still entitled to a hefty benefit when they retire, as well as Medicare.

Given the trend of corporations and govt cutting private pensions, everyone should be fighting for the social security program. During this Criminal Bank Recession, privately invested pensions declined sharply, making that social security benefit the one thing that enabled many retired people to hang on to their homes and buy some groceries.

In this world, you never know what's going to change drastically from one day to the next.


Cayce Jones 9 Jul 2015 19:57

Bernie's proposal to lift the cap has been advanced by other Democrats. Most of what he and others have been putting forward would go to protect younger people.
Republican positions have been to decrease benefits in the future for those who are still working. That way, they won't upset a big portion of their voter base who are on Social Security and Medicare.

Younger people also have been told that SS is going broke and they won't get anything. So they're not so upset by just having to work longer in order to get a little less.


Stormthetower grossprophet 9 Jul 2015 19:26

You seem to be unaware that people are required to work a certain number of years before they qualify for S.S. and that their benefits are based on how much they earned during those years. Or, are you talking about taking the S.S. benefits away from the disabled?


Stormthetower 9 Jul 2015 19:24

By following Bernie's suggestion and lifting the cap so that the wealthy don't get that tax break we can ensure that S.S. pays full benefits for the next forty years.


2426brown 9 Jul 2015 18:27

Social security and Medicare are not "welfare programs." Workers pay into the system and typically receive them later in life, usually upon retirement or reaching the age of 65. Right-wing ideologues are portraying these social insurance programs as "entitlements" with the aim of having seen as handouts. Guardian reporters may not realize "welfare" is a dirty word in the U.S. unlike in much of western Europe. Anything that smacks of a safety net in the U.S. is derided by the oligarchs and their bought and paid-for government hacks that run the country. Bernie Sanders is the people's only hope and I can only hope the people come to their senses and vote for him.


[Jul 10, 2015] Trump'd

"...This is bordering on hero worship with this guy and, frankly, I think that's dangerous. That's exactly how the Ds ended up shoving Obama down everyone's throat and look how lousy that turned out."
"...With that kind of experience, we should make him president of Puerto Rico."

Zero Hedge

1st choice 2nd choice
Dnald Trump

15%

12%

Jeb Bush 11% 7%
Rand Paul 11% 7%

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty

The natives are pissed! Long pitch forks / short rich man's laws

HonkyShogun

Hopey McChange v2.0, The Great White Hope.

We all know the dickhead that gets installed will sell his ass to the jew bankers on day 1.

Paveway IV

Threat level orange-red! Someone sent us up the bomb.

Activate: Jesse Ventura GO! For greater justice...

In the interview,, he says of the two major parties: "They've turned the whole business of elections into panhandling and bribery," and "These two parties now have America $9 trillion in debt." Ventura says people who work their entire lives to leave something for their children are actually just leaving an inheritance that will be seized by government to service the national debt.

One remedy Ventura sees for crushing the "two-party dictatorship" is the inclusion of None of the Above as an electoral option at all levels. Ventura says he believes NOTA would win many races across the country.

He also said a "wasted vote" is when you don't vote your heart or vote your conscience. Ventura mentioned a Larry King poll that said 88% of respondents, of which there were more than 15,000, said Jesse Ventura should be running for president.

0b1knob

Bernie Sanders will wipe that smile off Hillary's face real soon.

The popularity of Sanders and Trump is based on their status as spoilers. Anybody but another Bush or Clinton.

NoDebt

Trump has been for years a HUGE contributor to the Democrat party. Just saying -- he plays both sides. He's a statist and he loves his government buddies as much as any large businessman. Yeah, he says truthy-sounding things, but I haven't met a politician yet who didn't know how to do that when they needed to, though rarely with his sharp tongue. The comment above about his first words in any situation being "I'll sue!" is spot-on as well.

This is bordering on hero worship with this guy and, frankly, I think that's dangerous. That's exactly how the Ds ended up shoving Obama down everyone's throat and look how lousy that turned out.

Waylon Bits

Who cares who becomes president now? All they are is glorified talking heads themselves now. I'm sure once they're elected they're dragged to a dark room and given a good "talking to" about what happens when you step out of line.

MonetaryApostate

I for one will be glad when "We The People" say, "You now what? FUCK THIS CIRCUS SHOW", but if you have to express your "Right" to act like your opinion or vote matters enough to start an argument with someone over which wolf you want to rule over the cowardly sheep who have obviously lost their gnads, then by all means, make a fool of yourselves...

If however you don't want to be relegated to mere scraps from the wealthy bags who obviously don't give a damn about you, your family, or your country one way or another, then please have a good read and wake the hell up already...
http://galeinnes.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-license-to-steal.html

But, if you think any of these wealthy bags will do anything other than what they have been doing for the many centuries, then you are obviously on the wrong forums all together. For those who lack an education, have a good watch here, it will tell you the real deal..

These are the people who call the shots, clearly...
https://youtu.be/J9DFZGQbw2A

So if your ass ain't blue blooded, your ass ain't getting elected, and yes Obummer is related to good ole Georgey the Slave Owner Washington...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&...

THE 4th Quadrant

Hey so when asked what he thinks about the new negro class in America, Trump said "OH yea I love them, I almost got my daughter to marry one but she got the next best thing, a jew".

bob_stl

Anybody with two cents in their head can say the right shit. Trump is too much of an ego maniac to have that kind of power.

nmewn

Me too, 12-15% of republican voters are idiots, thats what the chart says.

Sooo, anyways...

nmewn

Trump filed for bankruptcy protection in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. I have zero interest in putting him in charge of anything remotely connected to my prosperity or posterity.

But I will say this, with Hillary! the current frontrunner, fully 98% of democrats are insane ;-)

Paveway IV

With that kind of experience, we should make him president of Puerto Rico.

[Jul 10, 2015] You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?

Warren, July 9, 2015 at 4:47 pm

You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2015

[Jul 09, 2015] The Answer to Everything Tax Cuts At the Top by Ed Kilgore

"..."Indeed, Jeb's 'work harder' prescription provides harrowing look at the level of derp that can be produced when you take a guy who isn't all that bright and push him to the head of the national leadership line without ever having put in an honest day's work or support himself in his life.""

Jul 09, 2015 | The Washington Monthly
I reported at Lunch Buffet Matt Yglesias' suggestion that Jeb Bush didn't seem to have any specific ideas on how to generate either the longer working hours or the levels of economic growth he talked in his gaffe-tastic New Hampshire comments. But Greg Sargent argues the opposite: we know exactly what his basic prescription for the economy is, because it's the same one Republicans have been promoting for such a long time:
[W]hat's really important here is Bush's apparent overall economic diagnosis: the grand answer is lowering taxes — including at the top — which will trigger runaway growth that will solve those problems, including the gap between productivity and wages.
Indeed, later in the [NH] interview, Bush said that to accomplish this, we must dramatically simplify the tax code, which includes "lowering rates." Bush then went on at length about how cutting taxes and "reducing the size of government" and "shifting power away from Washington" are the economic cure we need. The follow-up question for Bush is: Does this mean one of your solutions for American workers is lowering the tax burden for those at the top?

Yes, of course it is. Otherwise we might have to conclude Bush doesn't care about regular American workers at all, and that wouldn't be fair, would it?

Ed Kilgore edits the Political Animal blog and is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for the Democratic Strategist, a weekly columnist at Talking Points Memo, and the author of Election 2014: Why Republicans Swept the Midterms, recently published by the University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ed Kilgore edits the Political Animal blog and is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for the Democratic Strategist, a weekly columnist at Talking Points Memo, and the author of Election 2014: Why Republicans Swept the Midterms, recently published by the University of Pennsylvania Press.

Celui > howard77

Or: How's this working out in Wisconsin? or in Kansas? or in many of the RTW states? How much of Grover's BS can the nation be expected to swallow before it realizes that this is all a shell game, but one in which the shrinking middle class will now pay for everything.

Because of MO's recent tax revenue rejections, the state will now lose about 50% of its Federal Highway tax dollars, will have at least 5 years of ZERO road and bridge improvements or repairs, NO Medicaid expansion which is key to so many of the state's residents who, for some unknown reason, continue to vote in the idiots, and this state will continue on its rapid descent to eternal flyover status.

howard77 > t6c

i had an acquaintance for a while who was an extreme right-winger and he was saying something moronic about cutting taxes and growth and revenues (he was a true believer, in other words, to your point) and i said to him "ok, why not cut taxes to .000001%? revenues should explode!"

and he quite literally responded (this was via email) that he had never thought about that.

in short, he was entirely expressing a religious belief in the efficacy of tax cuts, he couldn't even be bothered to think his basic premise through.

smartalek > t6c

I fear you give them too much credit.

I am absolutely sure that at least some of them believe the most effective tax rate (for The Makers, not for us peons, of course) would be less than zero.

Do not Makers -- the Job Creators who make the very wheels of our society turn -- deserve our greatest support, including financial? Anything less would constitute punishing success, hobbling the engines of our growth, and giving in to the worst leftist impulses to redistribute wealth downwards to the unproductive.

PDXWriter > smartalek

Well, yes. Exactly. If we would just cut tax rates for the Bush clan, the Romneys, the Kochs and so forth to zero and THEN give them ginormous refundable credits as well, everything would be great. Because, you know, JOB CREATORS.

tigersharktoo

If only a reporter would ask "How does cutting taxes on the Walton family (Sam's, not John Boys) increase sales at Wal-Mart? Or how does it increase wages of Wal-Mart workers?

ComradeAnon

The day that Art Laffer showed Cheney and Rumsfeld the curve back in the Ford Administration, was the beginning of the end of fiscal responsibility in this country.

exlibra > ComradeAnon

It's because the Laffer curve follows GOP's natural inclination; if one were to tighten it a wee bit more, one would get the head-up-my-ass position, so prevalent there.

Partial Mitch

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Einstein

evave2

I always wonder how low the tax code must be for the magical explosion of growth. They never tell us. They just keep saying "lower."

zandru

Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo puts it best:

"Indeed, Jeb's 'work harder' prescription provides harrowing look at the level of derp that can be produced when you take a guy who isn't all that bright and push him to the head of the national leadership line without ever having put in an honest day's work or support himself in his life."


[Jul 09, 2015] Greek debt crisis: 'Of all the damage, healthcare has been hit the worst'

Jul 09, 2015 | The Guardian

steady2 -> AnonForNowThanks 9 Jul 2015 20:43

That post was not supposed to be put here. I accidentally posted twice and asked the G to remove this particular post but instead they removed the other one from the Latvian-related article.

You are quite right about the gross 19th century exploitation in Western Europe including Britain, now that socialism is apparently discredited and all or most social democratic parties have sold out there is no need for the ruling class to continue paying health, housing, education and social security for the workers. Prepare for more cutbacks as profits skyrocket.

steady2 -> moongibbon 9 Jul 2015 20:39

There is no excuse for selling a nation down the drain for a false fear. It is the European bankers exploiting the Latvians not the Russians. It sounds that for a measly 5% GDP they are willing to sell themselves - not the Greeks, yet.

brituser 9 Jul 2015 19:30

Of all the damage done during the last five years, healthcare has been hit the worst.

And yet Greece still has the highest consumption per capita of cigarettes in the world. #1. And some of the cheapest cigarettes in the EU.

Couldn't Greece tax these to other EU country levels and reduce consumption down to the rest of EU levels? It would certainly raise some of the taxes Greece needs.
And given the huge effects on health, that really would make a difference to people's health in the long term.

i.e Greece 2996 cigarettes per capita, UK 750 per capita, Sweden 715 per capita.

Bosula 9 Jul 2015 18:56

Thus is a direct copy of post by another poster from a day ago. It is worth considering this information when thinking about healthcare in Greece and who gets bailed out - not the sick and needy for sure.

'The amounts that banks have been bailed out by the tax payers.

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley — $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America — $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Stearns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion'

Bosula -> NYbill13 9 Jul 2015 18:48

There was a recent Guardian article that stated large amounts of German Borrowed Euros went to bye German military equipment - until a decade ago Greece had the largest defence budget in the EU. Article was about a week ago - easy to find.


ElenaSR -> NYbill13 9 Jul 2015 18:39

Greece has received $284 billion in bailout funds since 2010. 92% went to Greek and European financial institutions (mainly debt repayment) and only 8% reached the people of Greece...

Now you have an answer for all the 9 or 90-year-olds that might ask...

AnonForNowThanks -> steady2 9 Jul 2015 18:37

Thanks for that.

It's always the same story.

Not only that, but in 19th century Britain, women and children worked in the coal mines half-naked. No Zola, either.

AnonForNowThanks 9 Jul 2015 18:35

Of course.

Under capitalism, it is very important not to create incentives for being sick. Do that, and people will be getting sick left and right. And living to some god-awful old age, too.

Enough is enough.

NYbill13 9 Jul 2015 17:55

Greece seems to have 'rundown state hospitals.'

So that's one place all that Euro-loan money did NOT go.

Anyone know where all those billions DID go?

Just asking in case, you know, some 9-year-old student asks me that entirely obvious question, the one absolutely no grownups seem to be asking.

shatnersrug -> bluebearbicycle 9 Jul 2015 16:21

The guardian really needs to stop telling pork pies to the gullible English

http://radicalbuzz.com/an-excellent-example-of-mainstream-media-being-used-for-propaganda-through-lies-the-guardian-lying-about-greece/

bally38 9 Jul 2015 15:56

Would it be too much to ask for some numbers, rather than just interviews with tired, harassed front-line workers? They're great people. I salute their dedication. But numbers still matter.

Here's what I know:

Healthcare expenditure in Greece was rising by an average 7% a year from 2001, taking it from a low-cost, low public satisfaction service to a medium-cost, low public satisfaction one. There were attempts at reform in 2001 by the Simitis administration, firmly resisted by both doctors and the healthcare funds.

Fiscally, the biggest change has been to pharmaceutical purchasing by the central healthcare fund (EOPYY). Greece was spending, in 2009, 2.6% of its GDP on pharmaceuticals. (For comparison: Norway has 0.6%, the OECD average was 1.5%). In absolute terms, pharmaceutical expenditure dropped from €4.36bn in 2010 to €2bn in 2014.

This was, outside cuts in pensions, the biggest cut in public expenditure achieved in the Troika program. It was mostly just doing things that were pretty standard in other countries.

1. Centralised purchasing allowed the country to get far better prices from the pharma companies. It also sharply reduced the scope for corruption amongst senior healthcare workers.

2. Forcing targets for use of generic drugs onto doctors. Forcing prescription based on active ingredient, rather than drug name.

3. Creation of centralised lists of approved (and negative list of non-reimbursable) medicines.

This isn't rocket science. And guess what, the healthcare organisations fought this one every step of the way.

Source on all this: THE GREEK HEALTHCARE REFORM AFTER TROIKA: THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON GLOBAL PRICING AND ACCESS STRATEGY

elaine layabout -> grossprophet 9 Jul 2015 18:11

Wrong.

Endless wars, the robber barons of Wall Street, and oligarch-centric trade deals robbed the middle class.

And, FYI, Social Security and Medicare are not "welfare." They are insurance programs into which Americans pay every time they get a paycheck. And without them, we would never be able to retire, never be able to afford health care in our dotage, and go hungry and homeless. And as a middle class person, my neighbors losing their homes and not being able to afford to buy food in local markets damages the value of my home, damages local businesses, and leaves us all footing the bill when our elderly citizens end up in public care.

alamac 9 Jul 2015 18:22

"Though some analysts have questioned whether this uncompromising approach will limit Sanders' recent surge in the polls when it comes to appealing to less liberal Democrat voters..."

Enough with the lying corporatist "some analysts" already. (You give yourself away with the "Democrat" slur.) It is typical of corporatist media that they have to throw in an opinion by some highly-paid corporatist whore to show how hopeless it is to support Bernie, even though all factual indications are otherwise.

The fact that the old--who traditionally overwhelmingly support Repiglicans--are listening seriously to Bernie gives the lie to the idea he cannot win. In fact, my 87-year-old Republican-precinct-chairman mother is thinking of voting for him--and that tells you a lot for someone who never voted Democratic in her life. But at some point the awful economic reality starts to overcome the lying propaganda the corporatist media spew out 24/7, and we are definitely getting to that point.

Vote your hopes, not your fears. BERNIE IN '16

DCin_Texasout -> JSfromtheStates 9 Jul 2015 18:11

"That money—was suppose to be invested by the government to be returned with interest to the people when they retire."

False! Social Security is not an investment program like an IRA or 401(k). Money collected in Social Security taxes goes out immediately to pay existing recipients. When you collect Social Security it's not your invested money. It's money collected as taxes from the existing workforce.

[Jul 05, 2015] Clinton defends progressive record as campaigns hit Independence Day by Jana Kasperkevic

"...When did condoning drone strikes and protecting torturers become a progressive position?"
.
"...her "centrism" is the same as her husband's – centrally located in the maze of corporate and rich people's political fund-providing, and far too long a denizen of that Never-Never-Land called the Washington Beltway."
Jul 05, 2015 | The Guardian

Sanders has been gaining on Clinton. On Thursday, a Quinnipiac University poll found Clinton at 52% in Iowa while Sanders had climbed to 33%. On 7 May, Clinton led the same poll by 60% to 15%. The latest CNN poll shows Clinton only eight points ahead of Sanders in New Hampshire, although national surveys remain more clearly in Clinton's favor.

peter nelson TheWholeNineYards 4 Jul 2015 23:08

Experience is a plus for her as a senator and Secy of State.

How is it a plus when she made so many bad judgements in those roles? That's like Carly Fiorina running on her experience as head of Hewlett Packard - her time there was a shipwreck.

I keep hearing HRC's supporters citing her "experience" in the Senate and at State but they fail to mention what she DID in those offices that they think is so great. I can think of lots and lots of bad things she did in those roles.

MonotonousLanguor consumerx 4 Jul 2015 23:07

Clinton signed NAFTA into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico in 2014 was $53,825,400,000, we have not had a trade surplus with Mexico since 1994. According to the Economic Policy Institute, some 700,000 jobs were lost as production was shifted to Mexico.

MonotonousLanguor 4 Jul 2015 22:58

March 24, 2008 - The Clinton campaign says Senator Hillary Clinton may have "misspoke" recently when she said she had to evade sniper fire when she was visiting Bosnia in 1996 as first lady.


peter nelson NormDP 4 Jul 2015 22:37

When did condoning drone strikes and protecting torturers become a progressive position?

Well, you have to admit she progressed. She progressed from invading Iraq to the surge in Afghanistan, to bombing Libya thus turning the most prosperous nation in Africa into a Disneyland for warlords and new base of operations for Isis. Who knows where she'll progress the American military to if she becomes Commander in Chief.


shininhstars122 4 Jul 2015 22:35

Spoken like a true plutocrat.

"Supposed I don't want to redeem myself? Why should I fight to uphold the system that cast me out? I shall take pleasure in seeing it smashed."
― Margaret Mitchell, Gone with the Wind

Only in a neoliberal's dream.

Go Bernie!!!


peter nelson 4 Jul 2015 22:29

I wish one of Hillary's supporters would tell us what makes them think she's so smart of qualified. Her track record in public office is terrible - she's made a whole series of bad decisions, both in policy matters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Bahrain, etc) and administrative matters (security at Benghazi, emails).

And then after public life she continued to screw up - look at all the unreported foreign donations to her foundation. Even if we charitably assume these were honest oversights and not a deliberate attempt at malfeasance, they show her to be a terrible executive - not what you want in the Executive Office.

And where is her moral courage? What great issues has she ever gone to the mat or taken any real political risks to fight for? Why does she refuse to state her views on TPP?

Hillary Clinton is just plain not qualified.


peter nelson mabcalif 4 Jul 2015 22:19

of course she is! she's been first lady, senator and secretary of state.

The only public-policy effort she was involved with as First Lady was a ridiculous and unpalatable health-care plan which went nowhere. As Senator and Secretary of state she supported disastrous policies that caused great pain and suffering for huge numbers of people.

So how do you see these things as "qualifications"? To me they prove that she's distinctly UN-qualified. Hillary running on her track record in the Senate and State is like Carly Fiorina running on her record at Hewlett-Packard - a complete shipwreck.


redbanana33 TyroneBHorneigh 4 Jul 2015 21:32

Sanders is no spoiler. He's the real deal. That sounds cliche, but there is no one remotely like him. At first I sort of thought Hillary was a shoo-in, but that was before Bernie, and also we all remember how she faded fast in 2008. She just doesn't capture the imagination.

Ralph says a lot of the people that voted for him were so disillusioned with the choices at the time, that they probably would have just stayed at home and not voted, otherwise. Needless to say, he scoffs at being blamed for Gore's failure to inspire.


colacj 4 Jul 2015 21:14

NO MORE clinton or bush---been there, done that


DrJack37 4 Jul 2015 20:57

This woman's hypocrisy is already legend, let's not give her even a chance for more. She's talking about Iran's "aggressiveness"---gee, Miss America, looked in the mirror lately? "That's why I'm doing a lot of meetings and discussions about specific issues," she said, "because I want to hear from people and I also want to connect them to the campaign." Gee, all of a sudden Shillary wants to "hear from" you! And you can help her with all her dreams! UGH.

zolotoy anm834 4 Jul 2015 20:51

And exactly what did she accomplish as Secretary of State besides the destruction of Libya? She was an utter failure...except for the disaster capitalists.


foggy2 Donna Marie 4 Jul 2015 20:34

Especially via that Clinton Foundation with a 75% overhead rate and a value of over $2 billion dollars for which very little good can be found other than it's a place to give high paying jobs with great perks to her "intimate friends."


talenttruth 4 Jul 2015 19:46

The fact that Madam-Secretary Clinton HAS TO "defend" her progressive credentials is EXACTLY the point. She is (or has sounded) progressive on a number of issues in the past. But her "centrism" is the same as her husband's – centrally located in the maze of corporate and rich people's political fund-providing, and far too long a denizen of that Never-Never-Land called the Washington Beltway.

If she ever actually knew what it was like to be a regular working person, she has long since forgotten the actual experience and ramifications of it. You can't breathe in the D.C. "ozone" of hideous wealth and corrupt, boughten power – and remain either a normal person OR progressive.

So when people rightly point out Ms. Clinton's rich and deep experience (especially in foreign policy) I have to counter with her LOSS of real connection with the needs and concerns of REAL Americans – all of us who have watched our wealth pour in a TSUNAMI over to the top 1-percent – who have so skillfully rigged all political and economic decks. And that is the group with whom Hillary hob-nobs with all the time. She's in with the in-crowd, and that crowd AIN'T the rest of us.

So she can "defend" her Progressiveness, until the cows come home. I don't trust that any PR-campaign of principles (being forced on her by Susan Warren and Bernie Saunders), is real, nor that it will have ten minutes of staying power, in an actual Clinton presidency.

Bernie Saunders is the real thing. And he CAN be nominated and win, if only we IDIOT Democrats stop saying really stupid shit like: "He'd be the best president but of course he can't win." Look at yourselves in the mirror, Progressives, and stop hitting yourselves on the head with the Hammer Of Stupid Inevitability. (Or, is that too much to ASK of Democrats?)

retiredsandman 4 Jul 2015 19:35

Somehow, "I haven't been indicted for a felony (yet)!" doesn't impress me as a strong qualification for the presidency.

With knowledge of Hillary's past actions, destroying some official emails and editing whole paragraphs in ones she does turn into the state department (i.e., spoliation of evidence), that Hillary would be taken seriously as a candidate for any public office reflects very negatively on the american people.


palindrom 1iJack 4 Jul 2015 18:51

The other thing is that Sanders is deeply serious, deeply informed, and completely committed to making things better for the little guy. He connects extremely well.

But on the other hand, a secular Jew from New York, and a self-described Socialist, can easily be painted as the scary other! for much of the country. I predict that the right-wing ratfking machine will go into overdrive if Sanders starts to gain much traction.


ID9492736 MtnClimber 4 Jul 2015 18:50

Nothing like a moron with her finger on the nuclear trigger.

You have just described Hillary Clinton.


palindrom TyroneBHorneigh 4 Jul 2015 18:48

I'm reading a lot of commentary suggesting that, 'the worst Democrat [Hillary] is still better than the best Republican'. That may sound reasonable, but it's NOT.

When it comes to the general election, you better believe I'm going to vote for the Democrat, even if it's Oscar the Grouch, because the Republicans are insane reactionaries. The election of 2000 holds an important lesson -- I still blame Ralph Effing Nader, may he rot, for Bush. If he had simply pulled the plug a day or two before, and instructed his acolytes to vote for Gore, the first decade of the 21st Century might not have been the unmitigated disaster that it was.


TyroneBHorneigh 4 Jul 2015 18:38

A few of my friends are Hillary supporters. They, almost to a person, believe in the inevitability of her candidacy. I challenge them thus: if you're so cocksure of her triumphant candidacy, then where's the harm in voting for an authentic progressive in our state's Presidential Primary--they can always always vote for the corporatist, in the general, I remind them if her candidacy is as predestined as they seem so assured.

Arizona, our state, outside of pockets of Democrats here and there, is solid red. Even an overwhelming showing in the Arizona primary is NOT going to be enough to put her over the top no matter what happens elsewhere.

I don't think they will because secretly they're not as optimistic as their current bravado suggests. Bernie is the ONLY Presidential candidate that is not SCHMOOZING it up with the leisure/investing mega-donor class, begging for money. Senator Sanders' average donation is $33.00. Over 99% of his donations are less than $250.00. Unlike Hillary, Sanders does NOT have a SUPERPAC shaking down billionaires for money.

I'm reading a lot of commentary suggesting that, 'the worst Democrat [Hillary] is still better than the best Republican'. That may sound reasonable, but it's NOT. REMEMBER, those very generous campaign donations MUST be paid back with interest after the election. Those big money donors aren't giving the presumptive Democrat nominee all those millions without expecting some, A LOT, of payback.

Bernie won't need to pay back the billionaires, he's working for ALL the people, NOT all the plutocrats.
Exercise your Democrat vote in the Primary for Bernie.


palindrom 4 Jul 2015 18:34

I don't think HRC is all that corrupt, any more than anyone else in politics (though Sanders is indeed pure as the driven snow, having enjoyed the luxury of standing for election in a tiny state with a minuscule media market).

Perceptions of HRC have been shaped by the vast right-wing noise machine for too long. She and Bill were the focus of one ratfker after another; Benghazi BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!! is just the latest chapter in this sorry affair.

Now that she's running, and no longer tied to the eternally-triangulating Bill, I think she's letting her progressive instincts show, and I tend to take her on her word.

As a Vermonter, I do tend to prefer Bernie, who is genuinely different and exciting. But I'll take HRC over any of the Republicans, who are basically all insane reactionaries. And, yes, it does matter -- imagine where the country would be today if 10,000 disputed votes in Florida in 2000 had not been handed to Bush.


Lee Junn 4 Jul 2015 18:00

Dear Hillary,

It's not progressive to:

1.) Take the vast majority of your campaign funds from Wall St and banks.
2.) Wait for over 20 years to claim you're for marriage equality after everyone else has already done so.
3.) delete all of your work related emails off of a server in your own home.
4.) Claim you're broke, when you are anything but.
5.) be for women's rights and take money for your foundation from the most female repressive countries on the planet.

You're progressive? You're owned by Wall St, the banks, and big millionaire donors that have paid for your "influence." That's not a progressive, that's an everyday pawn for the duopoly.


livingstonfc 4 Jul 2015 18:00

Killary is a war-mongering, corrupt fraud...vote Sanders! the only option


funnynought 4 Jul 2015 17:57

Democrats can choose between the people and the power elite. Hillary Clinton talks in vagaries which obfuscate the enormous control of the super-rich, and the elected officials beholden to their money. She talks the sweeping language of big politics. Bernie Sanders talks in specifics which start to demystify that language. Notice how often in his career he has cited statistics and made arguments to put them together. Sanders wants you to see the numbers and see his reasoning. Clinton prefers broad pronouncements.


peter nelson Jimmy Rose 4 Jul 2015 17:51

Much of the support `for Bernie Sanders is simply a "NO" vote for Hillary

I don't think so. Bernie Sanders is one of the few politicians out there with any real principles and I agree with more of his positions than any other announced candidate.

But he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning and the way his naive supporters can't see this is so adorably cute that someone ought to put them up on Daily Squee with all the other little kittens and puppies and baby rabbits.


Lester Smithson 4 Jul 2015 17:35

Clinton's problem, as I see it, is she isn't now, nor has she ever been a progressive. She has leaned very far to right most of her career. Her love of Israel, and failure to fault Netanyahu when he indiscriminately pummeled Gaza (yes we can criticize our friends) was cynical and revealing. Her lifelong association with investment bankers is emblematic. And, her attempts to hand billions to insurance companies renders her singularly disqualified as a 'progressive' candidate. Even her stance on same sex marriage has been backwards until recently.

A President Clinton will: lead us into another Israeli war, probably with Iran; facilitate a further erosion of personal liberties; and allow us to be controlled by the 1%, with whom she exclusively associates; Clinton will never stand up for a progressive agenda. Ever.

I'll vote Sanders.

aethelraed 4 Jul 2015 17:32

NAFTA did not arise from progressive values, nor does the TPP, about which she is being so coy. War mongering is not a progressive value, nor is half arsed health care reform instead of single payer. She can ride in the front seat of fancy cars with all her corporate friends, but she still has a rather dicey progressive record, at least on economic matters. Gay marriage (and I say this as a gay man) is just not as important as making sure working citizens can support themselves. Progressive on social issues and a Neanderthal on economics won't do Hilary. She play up the historical breakthrough of having a woman as president would be; it's all she has to offer. Though come to think of it, having our first socialist President would be an even more significant breakthrough.


peter nelson eileen1 4 Jul 2015 17:25

Bernie Sanders is not George McGovern.

Not yet he isn't. Wait until 2016. He might win Massachusetts and Vermont but there's no state in the South the midwest or the west that will vote for him in a general election.

The US is a conservative country and the GOP will make mincemeat out of anyone who's an avowed socialist. They'll also go after his age. Not to mention that there's no way he can raise the big bucks you need to mount a nationwide campaign.

Bernie Sanders' supporters are cute and quaint and adorably naive.


peter nelson TheWholeNineYards 4 Jul 2015 17:17

No. Some progressives may reluctantly vote for her as a lesser-of-two-evils but none of them will turn out to volunteer for her campaign - she'll have no energy or enthusiasm to support her.

Meanwhile, to the right, she's the Great Satan; they've been itching for a shot at her since Bill was in the White House. So they will turn out in droves to defeat her. And in the end the GOP will put up a plausible governor like Walker or Bush so they can hit her with executive experience, which she doesn't have. Plus she's a terrible debater so she'll lose there, too. And then they'll bring up all the scandals like the emails and the donations to her foundation and she'll be toast.

JAD207 4 Jul 2015 17:07

She is pro Monsanto, voted for the Iraq war, was pro NAFTA, and rakes in the big bribe bucks from everyone from too big to jail banks to corporate internationals... Bernie Sanders_ none of those. She doesn't take a back seat, she's not even in the same vehicle on the same highway.


peter nelson MiltonWiltmellow 4 Jul 2015 17:04

One of the reasons America is so dysfunctional is media coverage like this

Don't blame the media - they go where the markets are. Celebrity drama is what most Americans want so the media provide it. If there was a big market in America for detail and statistics and charts and graphs then CNN and Fox would look like The Economist or an LSE lecture.

I live in America and I don't watch TV news. We have access to everything in the world via the internet so American voters are perfectly capable of being richly informed - if they want to be. They don't. Get over it.


elaine layabout 7cowlicks 4 Jul 2015 16:19

A classically evasive Clinton response.

She is failing to draw crowds because, no matter how many times her campaign describes itself as "grassroots," it is focused almost exclusively on raising funds from and listening to wealthy donors.

But Bernie Sanders has been listening to and advocating for the unheard-from majority for 30 years. And that is why, when/if the debates come, he will shred Hillary Clinton. No question avoidance required.


Haigin88 4 Jul 2015 15:36

"....."I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values,"......".

From the 'L' to the 'O' to the 'L'. Then why allow your hatchet man, or hatchet woman, Claire McCaskill to go onto 'Morning Joe' last Friday to badmouth Bernie Sanders and, incidentally, to make a terrible job of it too? Search for the video. Every time I hear about Sanders, I hear that he's a socialist but, according to McCaskill, no one knows so she kept dropping it in, essentially in words of 'people don't know that he's a socialist'. Yes they do, Claire, because they understand the English language.

McCaskill - with a (D) after her name, remember - accused Sanders of being "too liberal". Mark Halperin broke the habit of a lifetime and asked an excellent question: "So what policy areas of Bernie Sanders are too liberal? Name three.". McCaskill foundered badly, tried to backpedal and say that she was no here to comment on her "colleague" Bernie Sanders but about Hillary Clinton but Halperin quite rightly pressed her on it. She mentioned that Sanders wants to expand medicare for all, as if that was a bad thing, and Halperin said: "That's one, two others?" before that slimy, pompous, no-mark, Joe Scarborough rode to her rescue and called off the excellent Halperin.

It was a crystallization of the idea of there being an establishment party: the Republicrats. Sanders is a thorny problem for the Clinton people. They can't use Sanders age against him because that leaves the door open for the Republicans to use that unfair argument against her and they can't use any of Sanders' positions against him because: he doesn't deviate so there's no hypocrisy there; it's his positions that are leading to him drawing such big crowds and enthusiasm; and, even if people are independents or self-identify as Republicans, Sanders comes across as truthful, as a straight-shooter, as someone who never indulges in flim-flam. This could all get very interesting.


gunnison MiltonWiltmellow 4 Jul 2015 15:16

One of the reasons America is so dysfunctional is media coverage like this -- as if politics is a race or a sporting match

Yes, and that's a feature not a bug.

The more an electoral contest can be portrayed as a close race, with strong feelings on all sides possibly boiling over into high drama, the more money will be sluiced into political advertizing as one or another candidate's campaign seeks to open up some kind of decisive lead.

So it's in the interests of media conglomerates to focus on the drama rather than the actual issues at stake, and also in their interests to promote confusion and uncertainty to keep the drama levels high, rather than combating them with well-researched articles which introduce clarity and context.

This is another extremely toxic byproduct of the way our elections are funded, and it's a feature not solvable without reversing Citizen's United. The electoral space is the very quintessence of public space, and if the term "democratic republic" is to have any substantive meaning at all, elections must be 100% publicly funded.

As it is, I fear we're headed for an election season which sets new records yet again for transparent venality.


ExcaliburDefender 4 Jul 2015 14:59

Unfortunately we have redefined "progressive" in relationship to Tea Party politics, and Reagan policies would look progressive today.

Don't know who the democratic nominee with be, but they have my vote.

No more Tea Party and do not want to imagine all the appointments if we have a Walker/Rubio win. Chief Justice Santorum and Secretary of State McCain.

#allvotesmatter


MiltonWiltmellow 4 Jul 2015 14:57

"I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values," Clinton told an audience in Hanover, New Hampshire, on Friday.

Yet not one single policy word in the entire article.

Lots on polls but nothing about policy.

One of the reasons America is so dysfunctional is media coverage like this -- as if politics is a race or a sporting match and celebrities (with name recognition) deserve the attention they get.

When media start explain policies and including candidates' statements and records, American voters will make more informed decisions. Instead, like this article, we get mentions of leading candidates as if they're ice cream flavors.

Hillary Clinton does not support progressive values. She offers herself as an alternative to an oligarchical austerity preached mean spirited Republican.


TheWholeNineYards 4 Jul 2015 14:42

Sanders will get the far left of the Dem party, Clinton will get most of the rest. In a general election Clinton by far garners more votes than Sanders. Sanders and Warren have the effect of pulling Clinton to the left which will only make her nomination more assured. In the general no one on the other side matches up, no one on the other side has Bubba getting out the vote. Bubba did more for Obama in his Dem convention speech than anyone, he is the top as a campaigner.

Falanx

4 Jul 2015 14:23

56

Clinton means "progressive placebos" — as for instance her long standing standing up for children's issues.

This is a long-standing trick of the DNC "liberal" establishment: appearing to be politically and economically progressive by espousing some charitable or socio-cultural cause.

There is nothing wrong with "children's rights" or "women's rights" or "gay rights" or "black rights." Nor is there anything wrong (IMO) with fighting for more nutritionally balanced school lunches or better labeling on cosmetics. But this cornucopia of worthy issues falls into the category of symptoms rather than causes.

They provide a cheap and easy way for ambitious sell-outs like Clinton to appear to be fighting the good fight for "ordinary" people. They are cop-outs.

History. The fundamental problem with the United States is that it is, at its core, a Calvinist nation which deeply and pervasively ascribes to the notion that "God helps those who help themselves" and thus that those who have helped themselves to the most are blessed and those who have not are not.

If you are poor; it's your damn fault.

Around the middle of the 19th century, some "liberal" (i.e. latitudinarian) Calvinists began to make softening exceptions for the "deserving poor" — those poor who had done nothing to bring misfortune upon themselves and whom we, "the more fortunate" (i.e. "blessed"), might excuse for their victimization. It was OK to help those.

Mind you; they were not talking about government help but about the "proper focus" of private charity. This "liberal" attitude was pithly stated by Justice McRenolds back in 1937 when the Supreme Court invalidated Social Security,

"I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want and to disease of body or mind; but I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States

Eventually Roosevelt extracted an admission from the Court that Government could, in some worthy cases, be the "great almoner" of the nation. But the whole conceptual construct was still Calvinistic and has since given rise to the parade of "innocent victims" (and weepy rhetoric) that are trucked out to "justify" some form of charitable government intervention.

The systematic and institutionalized allocation of wealth upwards is never questioned.

It is this skewed construct which allows Hillary Clinton to claim the mantel of "liberalism" — not even by advocating any significant trickle-down — but by running around the country "embracing" victims and "listening" to their concerns.

It's all simply Calvinist Vaudeville.


stunted George Juarez 4 Jul 2015 14:19

David Petraeus, head of the CIA at the time, is the one responsible for the safety of the CIA annex which would have known nothing about the Ambassador's movements or safety precautions that were his responsibility. There was no embassy outpost in Benghazi, there was an information office and a CIA annex a mile away that was facilitating the transfer of weapons gathered in Libya in the aftermath of Gaddafi's fall to rebels in Syria fighting Assad which included ISIS. If you wish to pursue the pastime of being irate because people working for government agencies, civilian or military, die overseas in the chaos that the government has unleashed in pursuing ill-advised regime change, at least direct the ire at those responsible.

It's clear you don't like Hillary; made-up bullshit to justify that dislike is dumb. Because someone in government employ dies in a war zone does not make them great, it just makes them dead.


Joe Smith 4 Jul 2015 13:59

Electing a democratic President gives you only about 25% chance of passing any sensible policies. Electing majority in Senate increases the chances to 51% (SC Justices!). To have some democratic platform actually being implemented one needs 60 Senators and the House.

So hold your horses people, supporting Sanders to win nomination will not guarantee anything. I love sen. Sanders and think his campaign is EXTREMELY important because it forces many issues to be talked about.....


roundthings 4 Jul 2015 13:44

I don't think Sanders has a hope in hell of winning the primary. But it is almost a pity. As with Corbyn in the UK, people wake up when they hear Sanders, because they suddenly recognize the real but all too uncommon article: a politician with some actual ideals. Clinton, like most of us, probably had them once; but politics is a strong solvent of such things, and most politicians are washed so clean of them by the time they achieve any power that some of them forget even what ideals are like.

Clinton remains the only realistic alternative to the nut-house line up on the other side of the trenches. Indeed one is tempted to say it really doesn't matter whether a machine-like professional like Clinton gets up, or Sanders, with his freshness and honesty; because Priority Number One, and in fact considerably further down the list as well, is to make certain sure none of those weirdo right-wing fruitcakes gets a sniff of the Oval Office. Let's avoid utter disaster first, then worry about how comfortable the furniture is later.


Hunca Munca 4 Jul 2015 13:33

Hillary may have once been progressive, but she sacrificed most of her principles long ago to the interests of corporate America. For her, there is no other way to attain power. As far as I can tell, Bernie has an uninterrupted record of progressive policies. He's only grown more fervent with age.


macktan894 4 Jul 2015 13:13

"I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values," Clinton told an audience in Hanover, New Hampshire, on Friday.

Just what is that record of fighting for progressive issues? Is she referring to her tenure as attorney at Rose Law Firm, as Arkansas governor's first lady? Her active support of Bill's NAFTA bill? His Zero Tolerance bill that helped incarcerate hundreds of thousands of black people for petty drug crimes? She and Bill found Progressives and union leaders so annoying that they drove them out of the Democratic Party into the Green Party and refashioned Democrats as Republikrats.

Did she or Bill support Occupy? Fight for income equality? Dark money out of politics?

What's so progressive about running a private and top secret email server because transparency was just too inconvenient for her job? Or taking millions of dollars from foreign governments that don't know what the heck progressive is?

Name some specifics.

ID9492736

4 Jul 2015 12:57

1819

Clinton? Progressive poliies? What Clinton "progressive policies"????

THE WOMAN NEVER MET A NEOLIBERAL, NEOCONERVATIVE BANKER, HUMANITARIAN BOMBING, ANTI-ENVIRONMENT CORPORATIST, 1% ELITIST OLD BOYS' FRAT CLUB, OR SAUDI WOMAN-HATING HEADCUTTER SHE DIDN'T LIKE!!! TO NOW SELL US HERSELF AS A "PROGRESSIVE" MUST BE THE PINNACLE OF THE CLINTON SWINDLERISM AND BAMBOOZLERY.

American people would probably be better off voting EVEN for an idiot like Sarah Palin than for this noxious and nefarious piece of incompetent and manipulative polyvinyl.

[Jul 04, 2015] Sanders, O'Malley race to be the Clinton alternative

Will the establishment of the Democratic Party play "Howard Dean" trick with Sanders ? Could Webb's sudden entrance into the race now have been a strategy by the Clintons to detract. It is obvious that Hillary is very worried about Sanders.
.
"..."The greed of the billionaire class and corporate America is destroying this great country," Sanders said Friday night, offering one of a few dozen lines that produced sustained applause from a crowd that included many Nebraskans from across the river."
.
"...Scores of interviews suggest Sanders has clearly tapped into the anxieties of recession-weary voters, many of whom feel completely alienated from Washington."
.
"...It was clear from the outset of the race that there would be a bloc of non-Clinton voters, and polling suggests that Sanders — at least for now — has managed to corral most of them. That includes Democrats who were pining to see Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a darling of the left, get into the race. She has suggested recently that she might campaign for Sanders."
.
"...The MSM labels him as "left" or "ultra-liberal". That means nothing to the average voter who hears what he has to say. Bernie speaks to those who are disappointed and angry that the promises of the Obama presidency have been fulfilled in some measure but not nearly enough. Those voters see Hillary as just Obama 2.0 with a woman in charge who is even more a too-typical smart politician than Obama. Those voters see the growing gap in American society that requires some serious remedies that Sanders is proposing, and they know that Bernie is not going to shift his priorities because of some corporate, Wall Street advisor or from lobbyist pressure. And they know he's not a flashy personality but what you see is what you get."
Jul 04, 2015 | The Washington Post

During his swing, Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, drew more than 2,500 people to a convention center here — a record-size crowd for Iowa to this point. Supporters leapt to their feet and screamed as he decried the "grotesque level" of income inequality in the country and the outsized influence of the "billionaire class" on its politics.

... ... ...

Presidential politics are replete with candidates who get hot during the summer only to fizzle in the fall. But the early rise of Sanders — a self-described democratic socialist — underscores how hungry the progressive base of the Democratic Party is for a truly authentic alternative to Clinton.

... ... ...

As his crowds have swelled in recent weeks, Sanders's poll numbers have jumped in both Iowa and New Hampshire. O'Malley and the other more mainstream Democratic hopefuls, meanwhile, have stalled in the low single digits. Former senator Jim Webb of Virginia, who formally jumped in the race Thursday, and former Rhode Island senator and governor Lincoln Chafee, have also stepped forward to challenge Clinton.

Scores of interviews suggest Sanders has clearly tapped into the anxieties of recession-weary voters, many of whom feel completely alienated from Washington.

... ... ...

Much of Sanders's hour-long stump speech focuses on issues that could affect the wallets of workers like Pinegar. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. He wants to guarantee family leave, sick time and vacation time — Americans are working too long, he says. He wants to make college free. And he promises as president he would make corporations and the wealthy pay more in taxes while trying to cut them for those in lower brackets.

"The greed of the billionaire class and corporate America is destroying this great country," Sanders said Friday night, offering one of a few dozen lines that produced sustained applause from a crowd that included many Nebraskans from across the river.

Building on momentum

Some of Sanders's largest audiences lately have been in states without early nominating contests, including in Madison, Wis., where he attracted 10,000 people Wednesday.

It was clear from the outset of the race that there would be a bloc of non-Clinton voters, and polling suggests that Sanders — at least for now — has managed to corral most of them. That includes Democrats who were pining to see Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a darling of the left, get into the race. She has suggested recently that she might campaign for Sanders.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed Clinton drawing 52 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, with Sanders at 33 percent. O'Malley lagged with 3 percent, followed by Webb and Chafee, with 1 percent each.

Sanders's numbers have been higher in New Hampshire, where voters are more familiar with him, given his representation of neighboring Vermont. A recent poll from the Granite State showed Sanders trailing Clinton by only eight percentage points.

... ... ...

"If you're going to run a campaign based on 'I'm further to the left of the establishment,' there's a ready-made audience," said Trippi, who ran the 2004 presidential campaign of former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

Dean surged in that race based on anti-Iraq war sentiment only to collapse as voting began, and then Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a candidate with more establishment support, emerged as the Democratic nominee. Trippi said part of the reason Dean lost support is people began to question whether he was the strongest candidate to beat George W. Bush in the general election.

... ... ...

"People feel like big money has subsumed, taken over, their politics, and they're frustrated by it," O'Malley said. "People feel like their voices don't matter. People feel like they're not being heard, and right now, they want to protest about that. I'm not running for protest candidate, I'm running for president of the United States."

Eugene6, 3:32 PM EDT

All the Democrats so far are serious and constructive. It's going to be a good series of debates, while the GOP will have a circus trying to tame Donald Trump, and everyone else being harmed by the Donald's presence. Bernie has been steadily hitting these issues for years. It should be a great race, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie can pull this off because he appeals to a broad range of voters.

The MSM labels him as "left" or "ultra-liberal". That means nothing to the average voter who hears what he has to say. Bernie speaks to those who are disappointed and angry that the promises of the Obama presidency have been fulfilled in some measure but not nearly enough. Those voters see Hillary as just Obama 2.0 with a woman in charge who is even more a too-typical smart politician than Obama. Those voters see the growing gap in American society that requires some serious remedies that Sanders is proposing, and they know that Bernie is not going to shift his priorities because of some corporate, Wall Street advisor or from lobbyist pressure. And they know he's not a flashy personality but what you see is what you get.

[Jul 03, 2015] Grassroots movement working: Bernie Sanders gains on the Clinton machine

"...Hillary represents the same dynastic political elite that has sold the US population down the river over the last 30 years. Alongside many others in Congress her pockets are bulging with "donations" in particular from the insurance biz. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense, speaks the truth and is not bought and paid for by corporate interests..."
.
"...Last year, Bernie Sanders and his wife made $200,000, $174,000 of which was Bernie's hard-earned Senate salary. The balance was their combined, hard-earned Social Security benefits."
.
"...Sanders has the ability to draw Libertarian and Republican voters, his policies are that appealing. Hillary is unelectable for several reasons: the right loathe her, many Democrats see through her and dislike her, she voted for the Iraq invasion, she's beholden to her rich backers. She's a disaster waiting to happen for the Dems."
.
"...Wait for the propaganda onslaught that'll try to throw people off from the only candidate who is worth a damn; the only candidate who doesn't try to bullshit the people: Bernie Sanders. That should be his campaign slogan: Bernie Sanders: I don't bullshit."
.
"... Harry Truman said, "Anyone who gets rich in politics is a God Damned crook." That is applicable to Hillary and Bush"
.
"...First, I'm sure Bernie is a "nice fella," but that's not my reason for voting for him. In fact, I find your suggestion mildly insulting. His niceness is a nice bonus trait, but it's his position on a Wall Street tax on derivative trades, income inequality, health care, education, the environment, and the fact that his positions haven't changed in 40 years that resonate with me. Not his niceness.
Second, I'm also not going to vote merely for a pair of ovaries. Like you, I eagerly await our first woman president, but having the right person in office is so much more important than what parts the person sports in their pants. Hillary is false, is subject to vote where the winds blow, is for sale to the highest paying interest group, and is not a good choice for our nation's first woman president. "
.
"...On Wednesday, Clinton's campaign announced that she has raised an estimated $45m since declaring her candidacy in April. "Many people doubted whether we could build an organization powered by so many grassroots supporters," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a note to supporters on Wednesday. "Today's announcement proves them wrong." No, it proves that Hillary Clinton will take whatever money she can get. Or as Donald Trump might say with his usual oblivious, foot-in-mouth bigot-charm: "She's a whore.""
.
"...I've never considered Hilary Clinton to be some feminist icon anyway. She's achieved so much of her success from being Bill Clinton's wife and not on her own. Would she have been a NY senator without being First Lady? No. She's not Elizabeth Warren or any of the other female politicians that have made it on their own merit."
.
"...As usual, the Clintons are sleeping with the enemy (corporate campaign cash and all its strings) so soundly that they become difficult to distinguish from the enemy."
.
"...Neither the GOP nor the DEMs have a credible, electable candidate as yet. His Royal Jebness and Queen Hillary both have the same problem; more people will vote against them than for them. "
Jul 03, 2015 | The Guardian

Richard Gross 3 Jul 2015 11:50

If history is indeed cyclical, it is 1972 in the U.S., Bernie Sanders is George McGovern and any Republican opponent is Richard Nixon (all with the similarly tainted moral standing but absent the foreign policy expertise). Corporate money owns America as surely as class owns England. Bernie probably can't win a general election in a country that votes for style over substance, but derailing Clinton - leading the polls simply because she is a she - and keeping the Philanderer out of another bacchanal in The White House will be enough for me. Go Bernie!

Nicko Thime -> Vilnius Blekaitis 3 Jul 2015 11:49

The elder Bush was the ex head of the CIA. He is the capo of the Bush crime family.


elaine layabout -> numapepi 3 Jul 2015 11:48

You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

Last year, Bernie Sanders and his wife made $200,000, $174,000 of which was Bernie's hard-earned Senate salary. The balance was their combined, hard-earned Social Security benefits.

sammy3110 3 Jul 2015 11:47

Those worried about Sanders' age might remember that HRC is no spring chicken herself.

Anthony Yarnall -> Lester Smithson 3 Jul 2015 11:44

Define dead, Lester. Our current governing system, funded by bankers and venture capitalists and run by broken, sellout politicians surely makes a whole lot of down home American sense...if you're willing to bury your unfortunately named head in the sand.

raggedbandman -> numapepi 3 Jul 2015 11:41

Bernie Sanders has a net worth of $450,000. Stop making shit up and start bothering to look shit up instead. There are lots of hypocritical liberals out there but Bernie isn't one of them.

galaicus -> aethelraed 3 Jul 2015 11:35

I had problems with the "populist" word applied to Bernie. He'd be a center-left politician in any European country. In the USA he'll be cast as extreme left, but that tells more about the USA than about Bernie.


kerfuffler -> Vilnius Blekaitis 3 Jul 2015 11:32

You mean the party bosses will sabotage him the way they sabotaged Howard Dean in 2004? That worked out well for them (and us) didn't it? another 4 years of Bush.
The party bosses should pay attention to the people, if they care.

Sanders has the ability to draw Libertarian and Republican voters, his policies are that appealing. Hillary is unelectable for several reasons: the right loathe her, many Democrats see through her and dislike her, she voted for the Iraq invasion, she's beholden to her rich backers. She's a disaster waiting to happen for the Dems.

Haigin88 3 Jul 2015 11:31

Wait for the propaganda onslaught that'll try to throw people off from the only candidate who is worth a damn; the only candidate who doesn't try to bullshit the people: Bernie Sanders. That should be his campaign slogan: Bernie Sanders: I don't bullshit.

Nicko Thime -> Justlyjohn 3 Jul 2015 11:28

If you think Bernie is a marxist then you don't know Chico from Groucho.

mbidding -> WillMorgan 3 Jul 2015 11:27

By running as a democrat, Bernie is ensuring his message is heard on a national stage ... He is a pragmatist and realist who is truly concerned about the future of this country and recognizes that third party candidates neither get the press coverage of their views/policies and have a snowball's chance in hell at winning in the general.

Win or lose the nomination, his participation in the two party system will ensure that progressive viewpoints will receive far more coverage and consideration than any third party candidate ever garners. And, he recognizes that even Republican light is preferable to the full fledged Tea Party/religious right extremism of today's GOP. Supreme Court majorities hang in the balance and he is unwilling to split the more liberal vote by running as third party - yet another sign of his principled approach for doing what's right for the country, not what's most ego boosting for him personally.

Sydney Chandler -> alexandernevesky 3 Jul 2015 11:34

I wouldn't want to take the risk of Cruz even getting a chance to win! He is living proof that intellect and education do not counter ignorance. The last thing this country need is a TP president. Give Palin a Harvard education and a brain and you have Ted Cruz.

curiouswes -> elaine layabout , 3 Jul 2015 11:13
Remember: The way that Clintonomics (AKA Republican economics) works is that the wealthy assume all profits and the working class assumes all the losses.

We agree regarding the crime that was committed. However we have a difference of opinion regarding who is ultimately responsible. I just bought a book. It's thicker than I imagined it would be when I heard about on the internet. It's gonna take a while to get through it.

If you want change, you're going to have to deal with the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Most posters on the guardian don't care about facts, but you do. Did you watch the movie the takedown of Glass Stegall?

Sydney Chandler -> Carol Rogers, 3 Jul 2015 11:08
Bernie is not 'too' old and his ideas are spanking brand new compared to everyone else's. Have you not been keeping up with what the 14 GOP candidates are promoting? Have you ever (probably not) read the Republican Party Platform? If you HAVE read it and still want to vote Republican then you are the fool. Don't know how old you are but you obviously haven't been paying attention or you would not have posted such a ridiculous comment.

The GOP platform in the days of Eisenhower was the polar opposite of what they represent today. I think you need to do some research and soul searching. Unless you can come up with intelligent, thoughtful comments you should stop trolling liberal minded sites. It's rude at best.

Vilnius Blekaitis -> Cam Davis, 3 Jul 2015 11:07
The elder Bush was a relatively moderate Northeast Republican compared to the rabid right wing nuts we have now. Like his son he had a speech impediment, but I like any Republican who had the guts to once call Reagan's economic policies "voodoo economics." And he meant it, though he recanted only so that he could secure the nomination as the vice president under Reagan.

His son, though misguided and manipulated by Cheney on foreign policy issues, practiced "compassionate conservatism." That meant bigger government. You won't see that with most of the new Republicans.

JAD207 3 Jul 2015 10:59

Most of those who dismiss Bernie Sanders as modern day Eugene McCarthy spoiler with limited support, fail to realize how disenfranchised and betrayed middle American voters feel about the political economic system that bailed out back stabbing banks but destroyed our jobs, and took away our homes in the process. You can't outsource Bernie Sanders campaign, like Hilliary's or Jeb's. The debates will prove interesting.

namora -> Mauryan 3 Jul 2015 10:58

The last time she ran she lost to Obama and he turned out to be a corporate tool as well. She hasn't suddenly become the populist she is trying to sell us.

eminijunkie -> davidmn 3 Jul 2015 10:57

Be careful about how you register in terms of party. If you live in an area predominantly gerrymandered to the benefit of one party, you might find that if you need an out of state ballot sent to you somewhere else that it won't come in time for the election unless you register with the majority party, whichever it is.

Such has been my experience.

gloriaha -> Jim Philbrick 3 Jul 2015 10:57

First, I'm sure Bernie is a "nice fella," but that's not my reason for voting for him. In fact, I find your suggestion mildly insulting. His niceness is a nice bonus trait, but it's his position on a Wall Street tax on derivative trades, income inequality, health care, education, the environment, and the fact that his positions haven't changed in 40 years that resonate with me. Not his niceness.

Second, I'm also not going to vote merely for a pair of ovaries. Like you, I eagerly await our first woman president, but having the right person in office is so much more important than what parts the person sports in their pants. Hillary is false, is subject to vote where the winds blow, is for sale to the highest paying interest group, and is not a good choice for our nation's first woman president.

Point being, please for the love of god vote on views rather than externals like gender ;)

davidmn 3 Jul 2015 10:52

I am 17 years old and am voting in my first election in 2016. I can't wait to vote for Bernie Sanders. I really hope that people see through Hillary. Hillary says she wants to reduce the influence of money in politics, yet her campaign hopes to eventually raise $2 billion! Bernie doesn't have a Super-Pac and doesn't accept billionaires' money, while Hillary does. Hillary voted for the Iraq War; Bernie voted against it. Bernie wants to regulate the banks. Hillary accepted $250,000 a speech to speak at Goldman Sachs. Hillary makes more money off of one speech than the average American makes in a year. Yeah, she knows about the struggles of the middle class. Sure. Right. Bernie supported marriage equality 40 years ago, when it was an unpopular political move. Hillary just started supporting marriage equality in the last few years when it helped her politically to do so. Bernie opposed the TPP and other bad trade deals. Hillary initially supported the TPP and then refused to take a firm position. Hillary is pro-war and pro-surveillance. Bernie prefers diplomacy and less intrusive surveillance. Other aspects of Bernie's platform: raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, overturn Citizens United to reduce the influence of money in politics, free tuition at public colleges, universal health care, police reform, reduce income inequality, close tax loopholes exploited by billionaires and corporations, strong action on climate change, equal pay for women, common sense gun reforms, expand social security, reduce interest rates on student loans.

Bernie is my top choice for 2016. What more could people want in a candidate? He gives me hope for America's future and I can't wait to vote for him in 2016 (and 2020) !

elaine layabout -> curiouswes 3 Jul 2015 10:48

If you are thinking that Hillary is being funded by charity cases, guess again. For one, Citigroup pulled in revenues of $19.7 Billion for the First Quarter of 2015, after having a banner year in 2014.

Remember: The way that Clintonomics (AKA Republican economics) works is that the wealthy assume all profits and the working class assumes all the losses.

L0ki86 -> gilstra 3 Jul 2015 10:45

Sorry but as someone from the US i really appreciate the guardians coverage. They cover the important things the American mm doesn't wanna report on. Not because it isn't news worthy, it's not ratings worthy. I actually find it sad that i have to read a European based news agency to learn about the important things going on in my country. Also in the browser do you go to the Uk page or US page? Sometimes the homepages are the same yes, but not always

VonHuman -> Mauryan 3 Jul 2015 10:43

"I'd love to see Hillary as a President for two reasons - the first woman President and the better of the two evils"

Both reasons are fallacies, and many are saying exactly the same as you.

To choose a president based on gender is a kind of disguised chauvinism, because instead of looking for the qualities she has, the only criterion is gender. I would like to vote for someone, whether a woman or a man with a sense of reality combined with intelligence and ethics. Voting for "the less of two evils" is accepting the status quo, instead of fighting for what is good.


HobbesianWorld -> njglea 3 Jul 2015 10:43

Plain and simple, Hillary is a corporatist. Her five top donors are:

Citigroup Inc: $782,327
Goldman Sachs: $711,490
DLA Piper: $628,030
JPMorgan Chase & Co: $620,919
EMILY's List: $605,174

Except for Emily's list, which I like, the rest know exactly how much bang they will get for their buck with Hillary. Sander's Wall Street donations: -0-. He is being supported by individuals like me (monthly donation) and unions (the workers).

And, BTW, Sanders is running as a Democrat. If we can get him nominated--difficult as that will be--the progressives will be behind him and the liberals, well, just might grow a spine and back him as well.

If we want REAL justice to take root, then we need to get Sanders nominated and vote for progressives for Congress to back him up.


Dan Heins Herr_Settembrini 3 Jul 2015 10:27

If Sanders wins the democratic nomination, he will lose to Jeb? That is horse hockey! To democrats H= yawn & S= wow. To republicans J= yawn & {0}= wow. Therefore: (yawn vs yawn) it's any bodies guess. But (yawn vs wow) wow wins.

bucktoaster 3 Jul 2015 10:27

Hillary represents the same dynastic political elite that has sold the US population down the river over the last 30 years. Alongside many others in Congress her pockets are bulging with "donations" in particular from the insurance biz.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense, speaks the truth and is not bought and paid for by corporate interests.

And that's why, unfortunately, he won't win.........

Roger Dafremen 3 Jul 2015 10:20

On Wednesday, Clinton's campaign announced that she has raised an estimated $45m since declaring her candidacy in April.

"Many people doubted whether we could build an organization powered by so many grassroots supporters," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a note to supporters on Wednesday. "Today's announcement proves them wrong."

No, it proves that Hillary Clinton will take whatever money she can get. Or as Donald Trump might say with his usual oblivious, foot-in-mouth bigot-charm: "She's a whore."

Boosam 3 Jul 2015 10:05

Never say never....stranger things have happened. The people in the US are sick and tired of the status quo in Washington because it is working against most of them. Lather, rinse, repeat. Will they band together to support a long-shot? Maybe, maybe not. One thing for certain, Bernie Sanders will help make the dialog more interesting. Hillary running uncontested would just be extremely boring. The Republicans can't have all the fun in their primary...


ID736503 -> Jim Philbrick 3 Jul 2015 09:55

I've never considered Hilary Clinton to be some feminist icon anyway. She's achieved so much of her success from being Bill Clinton's wife and not on her own. Would she have been a NY senator without being First Lady? No. She's not Elizabeth Warren or any of the other female politicians that have made it on their own merit. She's just another Jeb or George Bush or one of the Kennedy's, nepotism in U.S. Politics has to end whether it's male or female!

Creek Chris -> Iversen 3 Jul 2015 09:30

Thanks to the Guardian for giving some relatively good coverage of Sanders' grassroot movement which is stronger than Obama's was. However the biggest obstacle to bringing people into the movement is overcoming the ubiquitous media washing telling them not to follow their own enthusiasm about Sanders and the common sense he presents because, for example, it's just a "summer fling", (or people won't vote for a socialist, or he's not connected enough to moneyed power brokers etc etc). I would ask The Guardian to be more careful about boosting specious talking points such as "summer fling" without making a case for their legitimacy. They add to the corporate-influenced media's message that people should abandon their instincts when a candidate rings true to them, and just go with the one that the wealthy and their lackeys have ordained as the candidate that can win.

bcarey 3 Jul 2015 09:03

Could Webb's sudden entrance into the race now have been a strategy by the Clintons to detract. It is obvious that Hillarious is very worried about Sanders.

We all know that Webb is not a real candidate. (Kinda like the Republican clown car candidates who are there to run interference for Jebbie.) So, Webb runs and is promised a cabinet post in return if Hillary wins, perhaps?

atlga -> CaptainWillard 3 Jul 2015 08:39

Unfortunately, you are going to be proven wrong. As far as Republicans are concerned, they are going to clobber each other. Jeb will have to radically change his positions of education (core curriculum is non-starter), immigration position, etc., which staunch republicans are 100% against. The game that he is married to hispanic (Mexican) getting hispanic votes is a pipe dream. Also realize the fact, most cubans in Miami are mostly republicans anyway.

Other than that, hispanic votes are not monolithic. Besides, Republican debates are going to be very interesting with Trump, Cruz, Rand, Rubio and Christie, et. al. If I was running the Republican party, I would sell tickets to raise money.

Justthefactsman 3 Jul 2015 08:32

Interesting to see how the writers of the article label Sen. Sanders as a "rabble rousing Senator" and his supporters as a "rabid fan base".
Such labeling can be expected to stick and it will certainly appeal to the Clinton machine.
Can we have a little more actual reporting rather than opinionated pieces ?

CaptainWillard 3 Jul 2015 08:06

Neither the GOP nor the DEMs have a credible, electable candidate as yet. His Royal Jebness and Queen Hillary both have the same problem; more people will vote against them than for them.

So both parties are hostage at the moment to people a majority of Americans do want as President.
Bernie Sanders if nothing else, is a breath of fresh air on the Democrat side.
The air on the GOP side is stale at best, and unbreathable on most days.

spartacus41 3 Jul 2015 07:58

"Clinton will also get help from the Priorities USA Super PAC, which is backing her candidacy despite a pledge by the candidate to combat "uncontrolled money" in politics, and announced Thursday that it has raised $15.6m – bringing the coffers of her campaign and its allies beyond $60m so far".

This is another reason democrats should vote for Senator Sanders in the primaries. He will not tell voters one thing and then do something else. An honest and decent man. May he win!

capitalismsucks1 3 Jul 2015 07:41

As usual, the Clintons are sleeping with the enemy (corporate campaign cash and all its strings) so soundly that they become difficult to distinguish from the enemy. Sanders should win based on merit and integrity alone, but we all know that cash rules our corrupt system at this point, so the entire corporate world will be dumping tons and tons of it on their pre-selected sellout candidates: probably Bush and Clinton, the two puppets for the .001%.

[Jun 28, 2015] US Department of Imperial Expansion

Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
by Tony Cartalucci

Believe it or not, the US State Department's mission statement actually says the following:

"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system."

A far and treasonous cry from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."

That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states" within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.

Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive, when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from a 1997 policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.

....


The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a statement.

Recently she issued a dangerously irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran. While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."

It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
"color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
State herself phones in during the youth movement confabs
her department sponsors on a yearly basis.

If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.

CANVAS: Freedom House, IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
and has trained protesters from 50 other countries.


As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch" runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly a secretive operation, its website, Movements.org proudly lists the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded CANVAS of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the Ukraine and Georgia, to Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned April 6 Movement. There is also the Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.

2008 New York City Summit (included Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement)
2009 Mexico City Summit
2010 London Summit

As previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."

Before & After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are covered here.

Funding all of this is the tax payers' money funneled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House. George Soros' Open Society foundation also promotes various NGOs which in turn support the revolutionary rabble on the ground. In Egypt, after the State Department's youth brigades played their role, Soros and NED funded NGOs began work on drafting Egypt's new constitution.

It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall agenda of this color revolution army.

Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the Iran Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color revolution in Egypt through to the end, money was appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.

Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations, the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). They include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough, the current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the US government.

Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
rational sense or interpretation.


Judging from Radio Free Europe's latest headlines, such as "Lieberman: The West's Policy Toward Belarus Has 'Failed Miserably' " and "Azerbaijani Youth Activist 'Jailed For One Month,'" it appears that hope is still pinned on inciting color revolutions in Belarus and Azerbaijan to continue on with NATO's creep and the encirclement of Russia. Belarus in particular was recently one of the subjects covered at the Globsec 2011 conference, where it was considered a threat to both the EU and NATO, having turned down NATO in favor of closer ties with Moscow.

Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House, NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush in 2002.

Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.

The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an attempt to match globalist minion Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.

Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan opposition, and describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active. Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree," -something that Washington itself has set the standard for- AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.

Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."

The "Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.


Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always, boycotting and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.

Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.

[Jun 27, 2015] Warmongering vs Economic Progress

Jun 25, 2015 | Biblicism Institute
C H U R C H   R E F O R M    S E R I E S

By Biblicism Institute

"And you, son of man, will you judge, will you judge the bloody city? Then cause her to know all her abominations." Ezekiel 22:2

All Empires throughout history have their foundation in war and blood.

The American Empire is no different.

With more than 1,000 military bases and installations spanning the globe and a foreign policy that causes almost every nation on earth to cower to its will, the United States of America is the most powerful Empire the world has ever known. But instead of being an Empire of benevolence and peace, the US has been at perpetual war and expansion since its creation.

Unfortunately for the imperial citizenry, warmongering and economic progress are anathema to each other. If economic progress leads to empire-building, sooner or later empire-building leads to economic catastrophe and bankruptcy; said woes are usually the upshot of foreign entanglements and unholy alliances that lead to unsustainable expansions and wars.

However, in the absence of such imperialistic formula, the opposite usually takes place.

When WW2 caused the irrevocable dissolution of the Japanese and German Empires, the then emerging American hegemon quickly shackled these defeated countries with the trammel that paralyzed (and eliminated) their military machines which had facilitated their expansions. The happy result was that Japan became the economic power of Asia and Germany that of Europe.

Today these two countries have more robust economies than that of the US. Both are major centers of technological achievements, years ahead of their American jailer.

Even China managed to surpass the US by becoming the No 1 economy in the world. That's because China is not (yet) building an Empire. Its focus is on profit, not war.

As the 21st century dawned, America thought it wise and necessary to embark upon war after war by aiming to destroy the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region.

The deluded Promised Land of the Israelis

The delusional Promised Land of the Israelis

"… we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran," revealed Gen. Wesley Clark in 2007 referring to America's war plans drawn before the invasion of Iraq.

But why wage war on all these Arab and Muslim countries that wished and caused no harm to the US Empire? To benefit Israel and its plan of conquest (i.e., the delusional Greater Israel or Promised Land). See Israel is the Problem

In order to eliminate all opposition to Israel's Machiavellian design to steal more Arab lands, the more powerful and influential Arab and Muslim countries of the region (not firmly in the US orbit) had to be weakened to the point of exhaustion through war and the so-called Arab Spring's color revolutions (orchestrated by the Jewish neocons in Washington, DC).

Given that the Israelis could not start such an ambitious project by themselves, let alone bring it to fruition in its entirety, the only solution was to wag the American dog to implement most of it. After all, the dog couldn't possibly decline since AIPAC has it by the groin. So far, all these conflicts have drained trillions upon trillions of dollars from the US Treasury, hatched an economic depression, and resulted in over 5 Million refugees and 2 Million dead including Christians. See The War on Christianity

As if that were not enough, the American Eagle swooped down into the Russian Bear's cave and ensnared it into a whole new conflict. Now why did the Eagle that's less than a mouthful to a Bear risk such a move?

When the Imperial tsunami was about to hit Syria's shores, Syria called on its Russian patron for help. Russia of course intervened and halted the American war on Syria which was planned by AIPAC for the benefit of Israel. The end result is the current tug-of-war in Ukraine as payback (and more). See The Truth about the Conflict with Russia. This contrived dispute with Russia, if it were to get out of hand, could start WW3.

So while the American Empire is warmongering overseas, thereby wasting valuable resources that could have been directed toward its depressed and flailing economy, China has been steadily encroaching on and even surpassing America as the world economic hegemon while siphoning every industry that used to call America home.

For such a catastrophe, Americans only have Israel and its whorish minions in Congress to thank.

"Woe to the bloody city!" Ezekiel 24:9

[Jun 27, 2015]Trump for President

"...In the current issue of Trends Journal, Gerald Celente describes the eight candidates (at the time he went to press) for the US presidential nomination as "Liars, cowards, freaks & fools.""
.
"...In actual fact, Trump might be our best candidate to date. By all accounts, he is very rich. Thus, he doesn't need the office in order to become rich by selling out America to interest groups."
.
"...Trump's ego might even be strong enough for him to stand up to the Israel Lobby, something my former colleague, Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said publicly that no American President was capable of doing."
.
"...Money, lots of it, has one great virtue. Money in sufficient amounts conveys INDEPENDENCE. Trump, if press reports are correct, has money. This means, if correct, that Trump, unlike every other candidate, has independence from the ruling handful of private interest groups. "
.
"...If Trump is our best choice, imagine how deplorable our situation is."
June 20, 2015 | PaulCraigRoberts.org

Perhaps it has occurred to you as it has to me that the United States is no longer capable of producing political leadership. In the current issue of Trends Journal, Gerald Celente describes the eight candidates (at the time he went to press) for the US presidential nomination as "Liars, cowards, freaks & fools."

Celente put it well. If you look at the sorry collection that aspires to be the CEO of what continues to be described as the "exceptional, indispensable, most important country with the largest economy and military, the world's only Superpower, the Uni-power," you see a collection of nobodies. America is like the last days of Rome when contenting factions fought to put their puppet on the throne.

There is no known politician in America who measures up to Vladimir Putin's ankle, or to the knee of China's leaders, or to the waist of Ecuador's, Bolivia's, Venezuela's, Argentina's, Brazil's, or to the chests of India's and South Africa's.

In Europe, the UK, Australia, and Canada, the natural leaders are also frozen out of the corrupt system.

In the US, "leadership" positions depend on financial support from the ruling economic interests. American presidents and politicians represent about six powerful private interest groups and no one else.

After Celente went to press, Donald Trump announced to much mirth. A "con man" they say, but what else is the President of the United States? Do you think you weren't conned by Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama? What universe do you live in?

In actual fact, Trump might be our best candidate to date. By all accounts, he is very rich. Thus, he doesn't need the office in order to become rich by selling out America to interest groups.

By all accounts, Trump has a healthy ego. Thus, he could be capable of standing up to the powerful interest groups that generally determine the governance of the American serfs.

Trump's ego might even be strong enough for him to stand up to the Israel Lobby, something my former colleague, Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said publicly that no American President was capable of doing.

As Celente makes clear in the current Trends Journal, all politicians are con men or con women. We are going to have them regardless, so why not try a rich one who might decide to break with tradition and serve the interests of the citizenry. This would be a unique accomplishment, affording Trump the elevation in history books that would satisfy his ego. When a person reaches Trump's state, does he need another couple of billion dollars or is historical recognition as the savior, however temporary, more valuable?

This is not my endorsement of Trump for President. It is merely my speculations on how we might think of how large egos might be brought into our service. When we put the Clintons in office, they decided to make money so that they could outdo Hollywood and show their arrival with the $3 million they spent on their daughter's wedding.

For Trump, $3 million is pocket change.

The rich are everywhere demonized, but no action follows. So, let's consider voting for Trump. Some of the better Roman emperors were rich. Their riches allowed them to maintain the stability of the state and to think about its long-run survival. They could outbid the private interests that wished to overthrow them for their own purposes of immediate and highly selective gain.

It would take a lot of money to outbid Trump, although if he neglects the Secret Service and the CIA, he could go the way of John F. and Bobby Kennedy. He would have to make certain he was well protected if he cuts the budget of the military/security complex.

Money, lots of it, has one great virtue. Money in sufficient amounts conveys INDEPENDENCE. Trump, if press reports are correct, has money. This means, if correct, that Trump, unlike every other candidate, has independence from the ruling handful of private interest groups.

If Trump can assemble independent thinkers as his advisers, thus keeping himself out of the hands of the usual interest groups, should he be able to get elected, his administration could succeed in taking America in a more promising direction.

An important question is: can a really rich person find and be comfortable with peers who are not themselves really rich? If not, then Trump is not our man. But if Trump wants to save our country, he has the money and the ego, and he can find enough people to help him.

This opportunity doesn't mean that it will be seized or that it would pan out. If Trump is our best choice, imagine how deplorable our situation is.

[Jun 25, 2015] Bernie Sanders Gains on Hillary Clinton in Bloomberg Early-State Polling

In the USA polls are powerful method of influencing the voters. Independent political polling is a myth. In reality in all countries, but especially in the USA polls are used as an important opinion making instrument, not so much as opinion measurement tools. Among methods used are tricks with the selection of respondents, force-feeding of respondents with opinions masked as questions, slanting the wording of questions to get the necessary response, and so on and so forth.
"...In Iowa, Clinton leads Sanders 50 percent to 24 percent, and in New Hampshire, 56 percent to 24 percent. That's a six- to eight-point increase in his support since those states were polled by Bloomberg Politics and partners in May."
.
"...In both states, he gets higher marks than Clinton on authenticity and willingness to take on Wall Street and financial elites."
Jun 25, 2015 | Bloomberg Politics
Bernie Sanders is gaining on Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, with an appeal as an issue-oriented protest vehicle potentially capable of slowing any coronation of the popular front-runner.

In simultaneous surveys, the U.S. senator from Vermont received nearly a quarter of support from likely Democratic caucus and primary voters in the states that host the first presidential nomination balloting early next year, cutting sharply into Clinton's still-huge lead.

The polls suggest substantive and symbolic support for the socialist, as well as a craving among some Democrats for a Clinton rival to rise.

"I want to try to get him along as far as I can," said Democratic poll participant John Murphy, 74, a retired railroad worker in West Des Moines, Iowa. "He's going to bring up some issues that she may not want to talk about."

The surveys were commissioned to test sources of strength for Sanders, who has seen audiences at his campaign events swell in recent weeks. The polls were conducted June 19-22 by West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co. in Iowa and Washington-area Purple Strategies in New Hampshire, the latter done in cooperation with Saint Anselm College. The margin of error on the full samples—401 in Iowa, 400 in New Hampshire—is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

... ... ...

In Iowa, Clinton leads Sanders 50 percent to 24 percent, and in New Hampshire, 56 percent to 24 percent. That's a six- to eight-point increase in his support since those states were polled by Bloomberg Politics and partners in May.

With nearly identical support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the polls suggest Sanders' rise isn't just because he enjoys New England neighbor-state status. In both states, he gets higher marks than Clinton on authenticity and willingness to take on Wall Street and financial elites.

[Jun 22, 2015] The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

"...Rubio is just about as crazy as Donald Trump – and what a delight it is to hear that he will be running again for President – leading to a question as to whether there are any sane political figures left in the United States. Rubio is a weathervane, pointing in whatever direction he believes will get him the most votes"
Fern , June 22, 2015 at 2:20 pm
The crazies are on the loose again in Washington – flushed with the success of sanctions against Russia, they now itching to take a pop at the Big One, China:-

The US government must impose economic sanctions on China at this week's inter-government meeting in retaliation for China's alleged role in the giant data hack of federal employees, Senator Marco Rubio said in a letter to President Barack Obama on Monday……..

Rubio demanded that Obama impose real world consequences on China for its actions around the world and demanded Beijing take steps to reduce tensions in the South China Sea region.

http://sputniknews.com/us/20150622/1023714729.html

marknesop , June 22, 2015 at 2:31 pm
Rubio is just about as crazy as Donald Trump – and what a delight it is to hear that he will be running again for President – leading to a question as to whether there are any sane political figures left in the United States. Rubio is a weathervane, pointing in whatever direction he believes will get him the most votes – a strategy with which it is hard to disagree, since the object is to win, but the contest has devolved into a win-at-any-cost goal.

I can't believe Rubio actually believes now would be a good time to take on China as well, since China only has to call in its debt to make the USA either default or collapse. Or maybe it's just all out of choices, and it's now because it has to be now.

Northern Star, June 22, 2015 at 2:58 pm
This clown has ZERO credentials w.r.t international political dynamics….If by chance he WERE-God forbid-to become POTUS.. it would be one foreign policy clusterF-up after another….probably leading to a nuke holocaust….

[Jun 21, 2015] Why Bernie Sanders is a Dead End

Problems with "lesser evil" policies in the context of the current sold out to Wall Street Democrooks.

Jun 03, 2015 | CounterPunch

'Tis the season once again. You should know it well by now: a "progressive" Democrat running in the primaries for president of the United States. We've seen it all before, from Jesse Jackson to Dennis Kucinich, left-leaning voters have time-and-again been asked to support candidates that are working to transform the corrupt and war-hungry Democratic Party from within. And each and every time this strategy has failed — not only to elect a progressive Democrat into the White House, but to alter the party that offer themselves up as a lighter shade of neo-con.

...in order to radically alter the system in favor of workers, the Democrats must be abandoned altogether — for it's their neoliberal policies, from Bill Clinton on down, that exacerbated the sell-out of the American workforce.

...Bernie doesn't oppose U.S. power, nor does his campaign do a single thing to build independent politics in the country, perhaps the last chance to salvage any democracy we may have left. In the end, Bernie Sanders will play the lesser-evil card and plea for us all to hold our noses and vote for Hillary Clinton, who guarantees a future of more war and economic inequality.

[Jun 21, 2015] Americans need President Trump. He is their spirit animal of extremes

"...Indeed, he distills so many qualities of the modern Republican party that I briefly wondered if he is actually an elaborate satire"
"...The only problem I have with Trump is that he makes Hillary Clinton look almost good."
"...Jon Stewart described Trump this week as "America's id". I'd describe him more as America's spirit animal, the feral creature that exemplifies the country's extremes."
"...Trump may be a complete joke with no chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination but, as the article states, there's actually very little that he says that hasn't been vocalized in some form by the rest of the field."
"...she has detected in the behaviors and statements of this charlatan, so typical of the upper echelons of today as empire."
The Guardian

The property billionaire has announced his candidacy but needs endorsements. Here is mine: Trump! The worst of America!

hen I was a kid, growing up in New York in the late 80s, Donald Trump just seemed part of the deal if you lived in the city, like bed bugs or head lice. All that hair, all that wealth and the obligatory trophy wife – he seemed like a natural part of the landscape of 80s Manhattan. So it is one of the weirder phenomena of my life that, 30 years on, Trump is still, somehow, a presence when other figures from that era have long since faded away: junk bond king Michael Milken, say; or former Salomon Brothers boss John Gutfreund, whose wife, Susan, once allegedly shut down a whole street to lift a giant Christmas tree by crane into their apartment.

... ... ...

I hate to see a man looking lonely so I'd like to add my own very strong endorsement to Trump's campaign "to make America great again" – the US equivalent of Britain's "hard-working families", a phrase now apparently obligatory for all campaigning politicians to mention. Oh sure, some people might bring up the many, many, personal issues that come with this man. But in Trump we have the perfect presidential candidate. Indeed, he distills so many qualities of the modern Republican party that I briefly wondered if he is actually an elaborate satire, like Al Murray was of Ukip in Britain's last general election. It does seem the logical explanation for a man who on Tuesday listed his qualifications for being president as: "I'm in competition with Isis – they just built a hotel in Syria!" and "I just sold an apartment for $15 million to somebody from China."

Jon Stewart described Trump this week as "America's id". I'd describe him more as America's spirit animal, the feral creature that exemplifies the country's extremes.

jisames 18 Jun 2015 14:19

Oh c'mon, think of the laughs we'll all have if he's pressy!!

Talking of laughs, could he have Palin as his running mate? She deserves another go-round fer-sure.


Barong 18 Jun 2015 11:01

Brilliant. The only problem I have with Trump is that he makes Hillary Clinton look almost good.
Bernie Sanders for President.


Jimmyfagan1991 18 Jun 2015 10:39

Trump may be a complete joke with no chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination but, as the article states, there's actually very little that he says that hasn't been vocalized in some form by the rest of the field. His slurs against Mexico were just less tactful way of saying what most of the other candidates believe, even the Hispanic ones like Cruz and Rubio.

Listening to Trump say that he's going to defeat ISIS by finding the "new Patton" really goes to show how the Republicans are no longer a serious political party in any meaningful sense. Unfortunately the Democratic side doesn't look any more uplifting with Queen Hillary looking like she's going to gain the nomination that's her "birth right" despite being a vacuous politician without ever having a sincere political conviction in her life.

paulwalter -> paulwalter 18 Jun 2015 09:55

No, it's actually a good article.. she is like Alice in Wonderland, mouth open wide at these hirthoe inconceivable and jarring contradictions she has detected in the behaviors and statements of this charlatan, so typical of the upper echelons of today as empire.

This is the product of billions of years of evolution, the crowning moment of achievement for creation, and precisely the sort of individual that draws scorn from feminists, or any thinking folk for that matter. Hadley has put up an irrefutable case this time and who would I be to cavil when I can be grateful for such a delicate surgery.


AQuietNight 18 Jun 2015 08:13

I still recall all the wonderment over Barack Obama, a most smooth and polished guy.

[Jun 21, 2015] Meet the new Bush, same as the old Bush

"... If you consider the fact that Bush recently stated that "I love my father and my brother...but I am my own man," perhaps having a foreign policy team in which 19 of the 21 members are from the three former Bush administrations is not the best way to demonstrate that. "

http://stopimperialism.org/meet-the-new-bush-same-as-the-old-bush/

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.

...By March 2015, a full three months before he even announced his candidacy officially, Jeb Bush was already a superstar of the fundraising circuit, with projections reaching $100 million for the first quarter of 2015 alone. A close examination of some of the key donors reveals that Jeb, like his brother George W. and father George H.W., is a willing recipient of massive contributions from Wall Street, major corporations and foreign interests.

As The Intercept reported, Bush's Super PAC, known as Right to Rise, has received significant contributions from a number of key donors including lobbyists for Saudi Arabia, as well as those for Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil and other major corporations. In addition, a major contributor has been Glenn Youngkin, managing director of the Carlyle Group, the firm which owns Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the world's top defense contractors.

The Carlyle Group, a secretive investment group comprised of many powerful political and financial elites, has a longstanding relationship with the Bush family. As The Economist noted in 2003: "The Carlyle Group [is] a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some Bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs [former President George H.W.] Bush and [former Bush administration Secretary of State James] Baker."

So it seems that all the usual players are involved in bankrolling Jeb, including longtime Bush political machine apparatchiks from a variety of fields. Not to be forgotten are the Wall Street hedge fund titans, including Lewis Eisenberg and Henry Kravis, who hosted a posh fundraiser in New York where the Bush machine had previously held $100,000 per plate fundraisers. The Bush camp has also received major financial backing from influential tech world figures in Silicon Valley and other important corporate donors.

Taken in total then, far from being the one to transform the "club of pampered elites" in Washington, Jeb Bush is, in fact, catering to those very same elites, the ones who finance both sides of the presidential elections. For it should come as no surprise that Hillary Clinton is raising serious money from many of these same interests, with only slight differences of names and figures. So, anyone believing the rhetoric flowing like expensive wine at the Jeb celebrations must simply not be paying attention.

But corruption and corporate greed aside, a potential Bush presidency poses extreme dangers for the US, and indeed the world. Bush's foreign policy, predicated on aggressiveness and "strength," is likely to exacerbate already complex and tense situations around the world.

Bush's foreign policy: the Usual Suspects

...When one looks at the roster of powerful and influential figures on Bush's foreign policy team, so many of the names are eerily and painfully familiar: Wolfowitz, Negroponte, Chertoff, Hadley, Baker, Shultz, Zoellick, Hayden, Dobriansky, and many others.

... If you consider the fact that Bush recently stated that "I love my father and my brother...but I am my own man," perhaps having a foreign policy team in which 19 of the 21 members are from the three former Bush administrations is not the best way to demonstrate that.

And of course that raises very serious questions about how Jeb Bush would act in regard to some of the major challenges in the world today. His recent comments during his European trip certainly do not bode well. His assertion that "Putin is a bully" demonstrates yet again that he and his neocon ilk still have not grasped the fundamental point that US aggression is not going to solve any of the issues in Eastern Europe: the conflict in Ukraine, the continued aggressive expansion of NATO, the escalation of military materiel and forces in the region, US missiles being pointed at Russia, and many other issues.

The Russian position has always been and remains today that it would like to address any issues through dialogue, but only in a climate in which the interested parties sit at the table as equals, not one in which Washington dictates to other countries as if they were subordinates. This sort of arrogance and hubris is precisely the rhetoric that tinges nearly every public pronouncement about foreign policy from Jeb Bush and his team.

Speaking to reporters in Europe, Jeb Bush recently explained that: "There are things that we could do given the scale of our military to send a strong signal that we're on the side of Poland, the Baltics and the countries that truly feel threatened by the 'little green men,' this new cyber warfare and these other tactics that Russia now is using... I think we ought to consider putting troops there for sure."

... ... ...

[Jun 20, 2015]Jeb Bush - Profile

"...No Republican will enjoy credibility as a deficit hawk unless he or she acknowledges that George W. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited. "
.
"...The National Review piece went on: "Adelson sent word to Bush's camp in Miami: Bush, he said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson as "rips***"; another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor 'a lot of money.'" (At around the same time the rupture with Adelson was reported, Bush publicly disavowed Baker, saying that he would not be a part of his foreign policy team.)"
.
"...In March 2014, Bush and several other potential candidates were also received by Adelson at a Republican Jewish Coalition gathering at a Las Vegas hangar owned by Adelson's Sands Corporation, which papers dubbed the "Adelson primary." According to attendees, Bush gave a speech largely focused on domestic issues but also criticized the Obama administration's foreign policy—a key issue for Adelson, who is fiercely "pro-Israel." In his foreign policy remarks, Bush warned about the dangers of "American passivity" and, according to Time, "cautioned the Republican party against 'neo-isolationism' … a line universally understood as a shot at [libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand] Paul. Bush also pushed back on Democratic attacks that whenever a Republican calls for a more activist foreign policy that they are 'warmongering.'"
Jun 20, 2015 | Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
Foreign Policy Views and Clues

Although he rarely comments on foreign policy, Bush has appeared to embrace neoconservatives who supported his brother's administration, inviting them to serve as his advisers, parroting their complaints about the Obama administration, promoting their current policy objectives, and defending many of their past debacles, like the Iraq War.

He has said that he does not think that "the military option should ever be taken off the table" with respect to Iran and that Obama administration policies on Iran had "empower[ed] bad behavior in Tehran."[8]

Bush has repeatedly defended the decision to invade Iraq. He told CNN in March 2013: "A lot of things in history change over time. I think people will respect the resolve that my brother showed, both in defending the country and the war in Iraq."[9]

More recently, in May 2015, when asked by Fox News pundit Megyn Kelly if he would have authorized the Iraq War "knowing what we know now," Bush replied: "I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got."[10] This statement spurred widespread criticism, including among conservatives. Radio host Laura Ingram, arguing that Bush's weakness on this issue could be exploited by an election opponent, quipped: "We can't stay in this re-litigating the Bush years again. You have to have someone who says look I'm a Republican, but I'm not stupid." She added: "You can't still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you," she added.[11]

Many writers have argued that Bush's national ambitions will inevitably suffer from his association with his brother, whom Jeb has pointedly refused to criticize. Saying he didn't believe "there's any Bush baggage at all," Jeb Bush predicted in March 2013 that "history will be kind to George W. Bush." This led The Daily Beast's Peter Beinart to quip, "Unfortunately for Jeb, history is written by historians," who have generally given the Bush administration poor reviews. "That's why Jeb Bush will never seriously challenge for the presidency," Beinart concluded, "because to seriously challenge for the presidency, a Republican will have to pointedly distance himself from Jeb's older brother. No Republican will enjoy credibility as a deficit hawk unless he or she acknowledges that George W. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited. No Republican will be able to promise foreign-policy competence unless he or she acknowledges the Bush administration's disastrous mismanagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. … Jeb Bush would find that excruciatingly hard even if he wanted to."[12]

Bush has made several explicit gestures indicating his commitment to continue his brother's track record, particularly on foreign policy. In February 2015, his campaign announced 21 foreign policy experts who will guide him on foreign policy issues. The vast majority were veterans of the George W. Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Michael Chertoff, John Negroponte, Otto Reich, and [13] George W. Bush Deputy National Security Adviser Meghan O'Sullivan has been mentioned as a possible "top foreign-policy aide."[14]

"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush … is seeking to distinguish his views on foreign policy from those of his father and brother, two former presidents," reported the Washington Post, "but he's getting most of his ideas from nearly two dozen people, most of whom previously worked for George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush."[15]

Many observers have surmised that Bush's emphatic support for his brother is the result of him attempting to win the support of Sheldon Adelson. Bush is believed to have received the ire of Adelson after he included in his list of foreign policy advisers former Secretary of State James Baker, a realist who has been critical of Israel on several occasions.

"The bad blood between Bush and Adelson is relatively recent," wrote the conservative National Review in May 2015, "and it deepened with the news that former secretary of state James Baker, a member of Bush's foreign-policy advisory team, was set to address J Street, a left-wing pro-Israel organization founded to serve as the antithesis to the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."[16]

The National Review piece went on: "Adelson sent word to Bush's camp in Miami: Bush, he said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson as "rips***"; another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor 'a lot of money.'"[17] (At around the same time the rupture with Adelson was reported, Bush publicly disavowed Baker, saying that he would not be a part of his foreign policy team.[18])

During the April 2015 Republican Jewish Coalition-hosted "Adelson primary" in Las Vegas, Salon reported, Adelson "devoted a night to honoring Bush's brother George W. for all he'd done for Israel and the Middle East." Salon added: "The Las Vegas mogul and Israel hawk thus took Bush's biggest political problem—his brother—and made him an asset."[19]

In May 2015, at a meeting with wealthy investors hosted by "pro-Israel" billionaire Paul Singer, Bush unequivocally expressed his attention to follow his brother's advice on issues related to Israel and the Middle East. "If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it's him," Bush said at the event.[20]

In March 2014, Bush and several other potential candidates were also received by Adelson at a Republican Jewish Coalition gathering at a Las Vegas hangar owned by Adelson's Sands Corporation, which papers dubbed the "Adelson primary." According to attendees, Bush gave a speech largely focused on domestic issues but also criticized the Obama administration's foreign policy—a key issue for Adelson, who is fiercely "pro-Israel." In his foreign policy remarks, Bush warned about the dangers of "American passivity" and, according to Time, "cautioned the Republican party against 'neo-isolationism' … a line universally understood as a shot at [libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand] Paul. Bush also pushed back on Democratic attacks that whenever a Republican calls for a more activist foreign policy that they are 'warmongering.'"[21]

The remarks—which the Washington Post described as "muscular if generic"[22]—appeared to be well received by the attendees and seemed to demonstrate that Bush identified more with the party's interventionist wing than with its rising libertarian faction on foreign policy.[23]

At one point in the late 1990s, Bush seemed to have been considered a potentially more influential political ally than his brother by the neoconservatives who founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Commenting on the signatories to PNAC's 1997 founding statement of principles, Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn wrote: "Ironically, virtually the only signatory who has not played a leading role since the letter was released has been Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who in 1997 apparently looked to [William] Kristol and [Robert] Kagan more presidential than his brother George."[24]

[Jun 19, 2015]Inside the mind of Bernie Sanders: unbowed, unchanged, and unafraid of a good fight

"...The McMega-Media here in the USA seems determined to promote the coronation of Hillary Clinton. This article does prove Sanders views have been long term and he has the courage of his convictions. The Real Left in America has been sidelined or sidetracked and some were deluded by "Folks" Obama and his phony Hope and Change.

Sanders vocalizes the issues of income equality, and stacked deck in favor of multi-national corporations that export our jobs. Sanders correctly reveals the fact you can have first class health care in America or you can go college if and only if you can afford it.

Sanders would demolish any Republican or Hillary in a debate."

Jun 19, 2015 | The Guardian

gwpriester 19 Jun 2015 12:05


If only... Bernie is the only candidate on either party who is more or less for the people. And probably more than less.


Scuppie bcarey 19 Jun 2015 12:04


He's running as a Democrat so he won't be a "spoiler" as Nader was. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

OurPlanet 19 Jun 2015 11:39

Bernie Sanders The only really authentic non corruptable candidate on the Democrat ticket. Probably the last of his kind. Obama was and is a corporate good corporate mouthpeace ,this time with a Black face who hoodwinked many and still does with his silver tongue. We all know the the totally corrupted Clinton. She is facing a crypto fascist carpet bagger opposition. Should be an easy election for her, with the corporate money behind her.


Christopher Weakley Falanx 19 Jun 2015 11:32


As someone born and raised in Vermont, where decency still counts for something, I've come to the same conclusion. Voting for Sanders is the only decent thing to do.


MonotonousLanguor 19 Jun 2015 11:30

The McMega-Media here in the USA seems determined to promote the coronation of Hillary Clinton. This article does prove Sanders views have been long term and he has the courage of his convictions. The Real Left in America has been sidelined or sidetracked and some were deluded by "Folks" Obama and his phony Hope and Change.

Sanders vocalizes the issues of income equality, and stacked deck in favor of multi-national corporations that export our jobs. Sanders correctly reveals the fact you can have first class health care in America or you can go college if and only if you can afford it.

Sanders would demolish any Republican or Hillary in a debate.


Falanx 19 Jun 2015 11:21


Sanders is not a true socialist but rather a Gotha Socialist more commonly known as a social democrat. He believes in regulating capitalism so as to enhance trickle-down, providing socio-economic benefits and security to working people.

It is indicative of how far right the United States has moved that a New Deal Democrat (1933) would be styled a "socialist."

Of course a difference in degree can produce a difference in kind. At some point regulation of production and distribution of wealth can tip over into effective public control over the economy. But nothing Sanders proposes comes close to that tipping point.

In my view, Sanders' policies will fail because they are not radical enough. The two encyclicals by Pope Francis are actually far more radical in scope and depth than anything Sanders espouses.

Sanders's campaign will fail because the system is designed to snuff out democratic impulses. That was the entire point of the Federalist (aka conservative) coup d'etat of 1789. Any democratic initiative which survives the system's structural deadlock will be vetoed by the Supreme Court in one fashion or another.

Sander's counter-weight will not be able to pull Hillary Clinton to the "left" because a blob cannot be pulled. Again, degrees. LBJ was ambitious but truly held core beliefs. Clinton is simply craven. She will appear to adopt any policy which she calculates will serve to "put a woman (herself) in the White House." But only parse her puff an you will see that it says nothing of substance on anything of importance.

For all that I support Sanders. Why? Because it's the only decent thing to do. It's as simple as that.


ckramer2 Mckim 19 Jun 2015 11:21

I've got my grimy bag of money held in case a "decent" politician happened to come along. I'm sort of hanging onto it to keep Sanders going when he is in a dead heat against the super PAC politicians (all others).

There are also progressive coalitions that were snubbed by Hillary-the-Wall-Street-Goldman-Sachs Clinton, that will probably back Bernie, too. I don't know why the average citizen would waste their money on politicians who are having their campaigns and careers paid for by super PACs, and who will obey their needs on command. It's just wasted money.


ckramer2 Mckim 19 Jun 2015 11:21


I've got my grimy bag of money held in case a "decent" politician happened to come along. I'm sort of hanging onto it to keep Sanders going when he is in a dead heat against the super PAC politicians (all others).

There are also progressive coalitions that were snubbed by Hillary-the-Wall-Street-Goldman-Sachs Clinton, that will probably back Bernie, too. I don't know why the average citizen would waste their money on politicians who are having their campaigns and careers paid for by super PACs, and who will obey their needs on command. It's just wasted money.


ckramer2 elaine layabout 19 Jun 2015 11:02

Hillary also supported Nixon. She is more hawkish than any Republican. She proudly follows the Communist-hating tradition of her family: Get those Commies. She's got some definite unhealthy issues/baggage. We don't need paranoid Hillary with hate issues for our president.


ataylorusa RiotGrrlUSA 19 Jun 2015 10:36

@RiotGrrlUSA: You are exactly right, just to add that public ownership of utilities went much further back than the 1970's; rural electrification allowed for electricity to be provided (at an actually reasonable rate) to rural communities throughout the US as early as the 1930's and 40's. I grew up on the high plains of ND, our electricity was provided by the Rural Electric Association (REA); to all of us, it was a given that (government) provided a necessary assist to everyone where needed, it was part of what we believed society was about - people working together to help everyone. I also grew up with the recognition that there were opposing opinions and ideas, but they were all part of the greater goal, or greater good - you argued, but you respected other arguments. How terrible to see how much we have lost, and I am just over 65 years old, such a short time to fall so far. Mr. Sanders is a shining light.

[Jun 17, 2015] Jeb Bush hires two new foreign policy advisers

The National Interest
Jun 17, 2015 | The Washington Post

Bush has tapped Robert S. Karem and John Noonan to join his growing policy shop, according to aides familiar with the hires.

Most recently, Karem was a top policy adviser to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). He also worked for former vice president Dick Cheney as a researcher on his memoir and as a member of his national security staff.

Noonan is leaving his role as spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee, and once advised Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign on defense policy.

... ... ...

One of the most sensitive tasks Karem and Noonan are expected to tackle is facilitating conversations with Bush's 21-member advisory team of veteran GOP foreign policy experts.

The team, which he unveiled in February,, reflects a broad cross-section of GOP thinking, including two former secretaries of state, George Shultz and James Baker; two former CIA directors, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden; former attorney general Michael Mukasey and Paul Wolfowitz, a former deputy defense secretary and lead architect of the Iraq war.

[Jun 17, 2015] Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush Foreign Policy Adviser, Plays Up Reagan Influence

Feb 22, 2015 | Bloomberg Politics

Paul Wolfowitz, who is advising former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as a foreign-policy expert, is seeking to deflect criticism that Bush is overly influenced by figures from his father and brother's administrations by pointing out many Bush advisers' ties to former President Ronald Reagan.

In an interview airing Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, host Gloria Borger asked Wolfowitz how Bush could "be seen as his own man when the people who are advising him promoted a foreign policy that in retrospect has largely been regarded as flawed and unpopular."

"You're painting [with] an awfully broad brush there," said Wolfowitz, who served as deputy defense secretary under George W. Bush and also worked under the senior Bush and Reagan. "A lot of people in that group, and actually including myself, who participated in the Reagan administration, which I think was a very successful foreign policy: Secretary [George] Shultz, Secretary [James] Baker—there's a pretty wide range of views there but in any case he is his own man."

... ... ...

Five of his foreign-policy advisers worked with Reagan, six worked with his father, and 17 worked with his brother, according to the Post. The lone fresh face: Former Florida Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

[Jun 16, 2015] The Gordon Gekko Effect The Role of Culture in the Financial Industry

Jun 16, 2015 | Economist's View '
Andrew Lo:
The Gordon Gekko Effect: The Role of Culture in the Financial Industry, NBER Working Paper No. 21267 Issued in June 2015: Culture is a potent force in shaping individual and group behavior, yet it has received scant attention in the context of financial risk management and the recent financial crisis. I present a brief overview of the role of culture according to psychologists, sociologists, and economists, and then present a specific framework for analyzing culture in the context of financial practices and institutions in which three questions are answered: (1) What is culture?; (2) Does it matter?; and (3) Can it be changed? I illustrate the utility of this framework by applying it to five concrete situations—Long Term Capital Management; AIG Financial Products; Lehman Brothers and Repo 105; Société Générale's rogue trader; and the SEC and the Madoff Ponzi scheme—and conclude with a proposal to change culture via "behavioral risk management."
anne said...

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

September 13, 1970

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
By Milton Friedman - New York Times

When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free en­terprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing em­ployment, eliminating discrimination, avoid­ing pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of re­formers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preach­ing pure and unadulterated socialism. Busi­nessmen who talk this way are unwitting pup­pets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

The discussions of the "social responsibili­ties of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.

Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means in­dividual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.

In a free-enterprise, private-property sys­tem, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct re­sponsibility to his employers. That responsi­bility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while con­forming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for exam­ple, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.

In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.

Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he rec­ognizes or assumes voluntarily–to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He may feel impelled by these responsibilities to de­vote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corpo­rations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. If we wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as "social responsibilities." But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are "social responsibili­ties," they are the social responsibilities of in­dividuals, not of business.

What does it mean to say that the corpo­rate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expendi­tures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the cor­poration or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" un­employed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.

In each of these cases, the corporate exec­utive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsi­bility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money....

anne said in reply to anne...

Milton Friedman understood just how important "culture" is in the business community and in 1970 wrote an essay designed to dictate a business culture that was far removed from the New Deal vision of a Franklin Roosevelt or a John Kenneth Galbraith.

anne said in reply to anne...

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/73007:naomi-klein--the-shock-doctrine

September 9, 2007

The Shock Doctrine
By Naomi Klein - Guardian

One of those who saw opportunity in the floodwaters of New Orleans was the late Milton Friedman, grand guru of unfettered capitalism and credited with writing the rulebook for the contemporary, hyper-mobile global economy. Ninety-three years old and in failing health, "Uncle Miltie", as he was known to his followers, found the strength to write an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal three months after the levees broke. "Most New Orleans schools are in ruins," Friedman observed, "as are the homes of the children who have attended them. The children are now scattered all over the country. This is a tragedy. It is also an opportunity."

Friedman's radical idea was that instead of spending a portion of the billions of dollars in reconstruction money on rebuilding and improving New Orleans' existing public school system, the government should provide families with vouchers, which they could spend at private institutions.

In sharp contrast to the glacial pace with which the levees were repaired and the electricity grid brought back online, the auctioning-off of New Orleans' school system took place with military speed and precision. Within 19 months, with most of the city's poor residents still in exile, New Orleans' public school system had been almost completely replaced by privately run charter schools.

The Friedmanite American Enterprise Institute enthused that "Katrina accomplished in a day ... what Louisiana school reformers couldn't do after years of trying". Public school teachers, meanwhile, were calling Friedman's plan "an educational land grab". I call these orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events, combined with the treatment of disasters as exciting market opportunities, "disaster capitalism".

Privatising the school system of a mid-size American city may seem a modest preoccupation for the man hailed as the most influential economist of the past half century. Yet his determination to exploit the crisis in New Orleans to advance a fundamentalist version of capitalism was also an oddly fitting farewell. For more than three decades, Friedman and his powerful followers had been perfecting this very strategy: waiting for a major crisis, then selling off pieces of the state to private players while citizens were still reeling from the shock.

In one of his most influential essays, * Friedman articulated contemporary capitalism's core tactical nostrum, what I have come to understand as "the shock doctrine". He observed that "only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change". When that crisis occurs, the actions taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. Some people stockpile canned goods and water in preparation for major disasters; Friedmanites stockpile free-market ideas. And once a crisis has struck, the University of Chicago professor was convinced that it was crucial to act swiftly, to impose rapid and irreversible change before the crisis-racked society slipped back into the "tyranny of the status quo". A variation on Machiavelli's advice that "injuries" should be inflicted "all at once", this is one of Friedman's most lasting legacies.

Friedman first learned how to exploit a shock or crisis in the mid-70s, when he advised the dictator General Augusto Pinochet. Not only were Chileans in a state of shock after Pinochet's violent coup, but the country was also traumatised by hyperinflation. Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy - tax cuts, free trade, privatised services, cuts to social spending and deregulation.

It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a "Chicago School" revolution, as so many of Pinochet's economists had studied under Friedman there. Friedman coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic "shock treatment". In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or "shock therapy", has been the method of choice....

* http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

pgl said in reply to anne...

OK - we get it. You hate Milton Friedman. Your reasoning is tiresome as it is dishonest.

likbez said in reply to pgl...

It does not matter whether you love or hate Milton Friedman, but the fact is that he served as a "agent of influence" of financial oligarchy and a tool for enforcing neoliberal model on the society. This conjecture is provable with facts.

His "Capitalism and Freedom" was/is essentially a manifest of neoliberalism the way "Communist manifesto" was for Marxism.

Seth Edenbaum

Call it econocentric logic. It makes as much sense to name it after Gordon Gekko as it would be to name it after Brad Delong

Assuming self-interest reinforces self-interested behavior; measuring to the mean puts downward pressure on the mean. Democracy is a virtue ethic. "Value-free" science, especially social science, is a dangerous fantasy.

"Liberalism is amenable to fans of science since it can claim reasonably or not to be without priors. Republicanism is a virtue ethic and priors are explicit: burdens precede freedoms, making hypocrisy more difficult to hide, from yourself at least.

Liberal objectivity: If her interests have the same value as his, then my interests must have the same value as yours.

The opposite of virtue."

Gordon Gekko begins there.

[Jun 16, 2015] Hillary Clinton's Campaign Rollout Speech

Notable quotes:
"... without defending their right to have their vote counted ..."
June 14, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

...here's the text of Clinton's speech (as delivered).

As we might expect from the speech's location on Roosevelt Island, Clinton explicitly claims FDR's mantle. From the introductory portion of her remarks:

[CLINTON: It is wonderful[1]]To be here in this beautiful park dedicated to Franklin Roosevelt's[2] enduring vision of America, the nation we want to be.

Moreover, she not only claims FDR's mantle, she claims Roosevelt's Four Freedoms (history; text):

You know, President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms are a testament to our nation's unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad. His legacy lifted up a nation and inspired presidents who followed.

And quoting directly from FDR's Four Freedom's speech:

CLINTON: President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and every American answered. He said there's no mystery about what it takes to build a strong and prosperous America: "Equality of opportunity… Jobs for those who can work… Security for those who need it… The ending of special privilege for the few…(cheers, applause.) The preservation of civil liberties for all… (cheers, applause) a wider and constantly rising standard of living."

(Interestingly, Clinton's quotes are not the actual Freedoms; we'll get to that in a moment.) After some buildup, she then goes on to structure her speech around four policy areas (which I've to say is refreshing, although not refreshing enough, as we shall see). Here they are, organized into a single list instead of being scattered through the speech:

CLINTON: If you'll give me the chance, I'll wage and win Four Fights for you.

  1. The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.
  2. Now, the second fight[3] is to strengthen America's families, because when our families are strong, America is strong.
  3. So we have a third fight: to harness all of America's power, smarts, and values to maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity.
  4. That's why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.

Before l take a look at the talking points that Clinton places under these four heads, let me quote Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, so we can compare and contrast them to Clinton's. The context is different; Clinton's is a campaign speech, and Roosevelt is addressing Congress, as a re-elected President, in his State of the Union speech, in 1941, before our entrance into World War II (hence the references to "everywhere in the world," and "translated into world terms"). Here's FDR:

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of[4] speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

Notice the extreme specificity and material basis of FDR's language: Freedom from want; freedom from fear. You know, today, in your very own life, whether you are in want or in fear. You don't have to ask anybody else, and it doesn't take some sort of credential plus a processing fee to figure it out. Now contrast Clinton: "[M]ake the economy work for everyday Americans." What the heck does that even mean? Certainly nobody knows what "everyday Americans" means. This is focus-grouped bafflegab emitted by Democratic consultants who are slumming it on the Chinese bus instead of the Acela because optics. Could we be in fear or in want after the economy "works"? Who knows? And if Clinton believes we won't be, why not say that?

With that, let me poke holes in some of the policies under Clinton's Four… Four… Well, Four Whatever-the-Heck-They-Are, since FDR's "Freedom of" and "Freedom from" construct seems to have been disappeared from Clinton's reversioning of FDR's material. I understand that the Clinton campaign, in a White House-style policy shop operation, will be rolling out more concrete material in the next 513 days, so I'll focus only on major gaps and contradictions. (The talking points won't necessarily be in speech order, though the headines will be.)

"Make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top"

CLINTON: "I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not quick trades or stashing profits overseas. (Cheers, applause.)"

You will? Really? Article 1, Section 8 says differently.

CLINTON: "We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan."

First, I suppose it's OK to appropriate Republican rhetoric, Third Way fashion - "tax relief," "red tape" - but it sure seems odd to do so after claiming Roosevelt's mantle. Second, we've got entire industries (Uber; AirBnB) whose business model is to gain market share by breaking the law, and I'd like to know what Clinton thinks about ignoring "red tape" entirely. And that's not just a theoretical concern for small business, since the so-called "sharing economy" - Yves calls it the "shafting economy" - threatens them as well. (What does it mean for local restaurants and Farmer's Markets that food plus a recipe can now be delivered via an app?)

CLINTON: "To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."

First, note the shift from "everyday Americans" (whatever that means) to "middle class" (whatever that means) and "the poor" (I think we know what that means). Because Clinton cannot really define who her programs target, it's not possible to determine who will actually benefit from them; hence, "mean something" is vacuous. People can project, of course, but 2008 should have taught us the danger of doing that. Second, there are well-known policies that provide concrete material benefits to wage workers, and which it would be easy for Clinton to support, if she in fact does so. The first is raising the minimum wage, not to Obama's pissant $10.10, but to the $15 that so many on the ground are pushing for. Silence. More radically, we have programs like the Basic Income Guarantee or the Jobs Guarantee (or both). Programs like this would be of great benefit especially to those who have been cast out from our permanently shrunken workforce, and will in all likelihood never work again. These programs target millions, and so who benefits is easy to see. Silence.

CLINTON: "There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing."

There are leaders in finance who are walking the street but who should be in jail. It's hard to see how "confidence" can be restored for "everyday Americans" until elite criminals no longer have impunity. Of course, taking a stand like that would make life hard for Clinton with the Rubinite faction of the Democratic Party, along with many Wall Street donors, and many contributors to the Clinton Foundation, but corruption isn't my problem. It's Clinton's. So, again, silence.

"Strengthen America's families"

CLINTON: "I believe you should look forward to retirement with confidence, not anxiety."

First, note again how abstract Clinton's words are. Where FDR says "freedom from fear," Clinton says "not anxiety." Where FDR says "freedom from want," Clinton (with Wall Street) says "confidence." Second, and as usual, what do Clinton's words even mean? Let me revise them: "I believe Social Security benefits should be raised, not lowered, and that benefits should be age-neutral. It's unconscionable that the younger you are, the worse off you will be when you're old. I also believe that Social Security benefits should begin at age 60, so more can retire from the workforce, and more young people enter." This is not hard. It doesn't take a think tank to work out.

CLINTON: "[I believe] that you should have the peace of mind that your health care will be there when you need it, without breaking the bank."

What does that mean? Well, we know what it means. It means tinkering round the edges of ObamaCare, keeping the sucking mandibles of the health insurance companies firmly embedded in the body politic, and not bringing our health care system up to world standards.

CLINTON: "I believe you should have the right to earn paid sick days. (Cheers, applause.)"

Given the above, we're in school uniform territory now.

"Maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity"

CLINTON: "I've stood up to adversaries like Putin and reinforced allies like Israel. I was in the Situation Room on the day we got bin Laden."

'Nuff said. (On Bin Laden, "got" is nice. And see here, here, here, and - for grins - here.) SMH, but maybe somebody should ask Clinton, just for an opener, if she supports a grotesquely expensive fighter aircraft with buggy software that randomly catches on fire, and if she doesn't, what she'd do with the money.

"Reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy"

CLINTON: "We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people. (Cheers, applause.)"

So wouldn't it be very appropriate Clinton I to stop influence-peddling giving paid speeches right now, instead of hedging his bets, and saying he'll stop only under a Clinton II administration? To be fair, this is good:

CLINTON: "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. (Cheers, applause.)"

However, the shout-out to a specific policy advocated by Move to Amend might make one reflect on the curious lack of specificity so prevalent elsewhere in the speech.

CLINTON: "I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That's why I've proposed universal, automatic registration and expanded early voting. (Cheers, applause.)"

This is good, but bizarre. Trivially, the Democrats are at least a decade late on this, the sign of a sclerotic party that can't defend its putative constituents on even the most basic level. Critically, Clinton is defending people's right to vote without defending their right to have their vote counted. This is especially weird after after Jebbie tried to steal Florida 2000 for Bush II - although 308,000 Florida Democrats voting for Bush and not Gore swung the election - and after all that weird stuff that happened in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in 2004. Why not bring America up to world standards at the ballot box, too, and prevent election theft? Silence.

Conclusion

There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level. (For example, on immigration, she does support "a path to citizenship," though curiously not an end to mass incarceration, or reforms to policing.) But over-all, I think any grand vision disappears in a welter of bullet points, vague language, and a resolute unwillingness to present policies that would visibly benefit all Americans, instead being tailored to the narrow constituencies of the sliced up version of America so beloved by the political class.

Here's a random factoid you can use to frame whatever policy options a candidate presents. I keep track of #BlackLivesMatter shootings on my Twitter feed, and most of them come with pictures of the scene. The pictures come from all across the country, as we might expect, and I have started looked at the backgrounds: Invariably, there are signs of a second- or third-world level of infrastructural decay and destruction: Cracked sidewalks, potholed roads, sagging powerlines, weed-choked lots, empty storefronts, dreary utilitarian architecture just as soul-sucking as anything the Soviets could have produced.

... ... ...

ekstase, June 14, 2015 at 3:57 pm

"To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."

Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way into it"? It is supposed to be a fair system, not one in which some people have been crippled by cheaters, and therefore need to work their way out of the unfair position they have been put in. The logic seems off.

tongorad, June 14, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way into it"?

"Have a chance:" The old "skin in the game" routine. Everyone deserves the chance to risk their skin. Nice, eh? "Work their way into it:" Divide and conquer. The deserving poor and middle class vs undeserving.

jrs, June 14, 2015 at 11:53 pm
one also has a chance to win the lottery if one plays it. Well one does … not a good chance but a chance.
Lexington, June 15, 2015 at 1:26 am
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way into it"? Because in America some win and some lose, but the losers deserved it because they lack ability, persistence, a strong work ethic, or otherwise have some serious character flaw that prevents them from succeeding. In American everyone who deserves success gets it. Or in the shorthand of American political discourse, it's about equalizing "opportunity", not "outcome".

Hillary isn't promising that under her presidency everyone in America will have economic security and some basic allotment of human dignity – that would have after all be defiling the altar of "meritocracy" at which America's elite worships – but those who deserve it will.

As for the others, well America will always need fast food workers, convenience store clerks and Walmart greeters. In any case those sorts of people have no right to aspire to a station in life higher than the one for which one providence suited them.


craazyboy, June 14, 2015 at 4:49 pm

Might be interesting to compare it to Senator Obama speeches. Many parts seem hauntingly familiar, but 8 years and 500 plus days does overly tax my memory. Then maybe compare it to a Reagan speech. Maybe it's my long term memory kicking in.

But that may be more work than it's worth.

Oh geez. Today is gym day. The Fox News TV is there. I can smell the fumes bubbling up from the swamp pit already. Hillary Clinton has embraced FDR and gone bungee cord jumping completely off the far, far, left cliff. Gawd help us.

Bernie, don't let Hillary sit in your lap. Let's try and keep this believable.


OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, June 14, 2015 at 6:45 pm

We have 1400 billionaires in this country (up from 700 when the "Crisis" began) and we can't find one, NOT ONE, with a functioning moral compass who is willing to do the least little thing for the actual *people* in this country by supporting a real alternative candidate to Fascist War Monger 1 (Hilary) or Fascist War Monger 2 (Jeb).

Forget Grandpa Buffet and his homely homilies while he steals off with insider deals on Goldman preferred, or BillG, who does some good things but then goes and leads the Better Than Cash Alliance (an attempt to get everyone in the developing world to run up debts on a MasterCard). Mark, Elon, Peter…don't you have even one remaining moral bone left that will make you save us from these charlatans?

David, June 14, 2015 at 6:49 pm

"…hatchet-faced austerity enforcer.."

In the links this morning, you castigated someone for making sexist comments about Hillary. You said,

"..it's dumb, because emphasizes the personal characteristics of candidates as opposed to their political ones."

Other than that, I enjoyed the article.


Blue Guy Red State, June 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm

Bernie Sanders resonating with some very Tea Party friendly members of my extended family, along with various traditional lefties like me (aging Boomer and former Independent who move right to join Democratic Party in 1980s) and Millenial offspring. Summer family camping trip might get interesting!

Sen. Sanders is making more sense to more people because we've tried trickle-down, tax-cutting Reaganomics for 35 years, and it's been a disaster across the board unless you're filthy rich. (And the filthy rich live on the same planet as the rest of us, breathe the same air and drink the same water too.)

People are ready for REAL hope and REAL change; this will give Sen. Sanders a lot more traction than the MSM and both GOP and Democratic bigwigs expect. Good.

Synoia, June 14, 2015 at 8:25 pm

S.S. Clinton, the beginning of a Titanic voyage.

I cannot perceive of anything concrete coming form a second Clinton presidency, except more and more constituents thrown under the bus, the space already crowded with groups so discarded by President Obama.

I'm for Bernie.

craazyman. June 14, 2015 at 8:48 pm

Now that Hillary is officially running for President, it's time to ask the tough questions. The tough questions separate a vanity candidate who just want media attention from the hardened policy field marshall who has to make the tough decisions in the face of strenuous opposition. If Hillary is for real, she might get elected, so its not too early to think of the Top 10 Questions for President H.R. Clinton at her first press conference.

... ... ...

Question #6: This is a multiple choice question!

How many hedge funds does it take to destroy society?
a) less than 100
b) just one
c) they can't take you anyway, you don't already know how to go
d) what kind of question is that?

Question #5: Are Republlcans completely crazy or do they just seem like it?

... ... ..

drum roll please . . . .

Is Bruce Jenner still a roll model for America's athletic youth and if not, why not?

^ ^ ^
Holy smokes those are tough questions for any body, much less a US president. but they need to be clever if they're the President don't they!

Ed Walker, June 14, 2015 at 10:10 pm

Fun factoid. Sunday Paper has different headline than current article up on web. Here's the headline from the paper:

Sounding Populist Themes, Clinton Pledges to Close Gap in Wealth.

And here's the headline from the web right now:

Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap

And note the title in the URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/hillary-clinton-attacks-republican-economic-policies-in-roosevelt-island-speech.html

Just can't quite make up their minds about what happened.


timbers, June 15, 2015 at 12:27 am

Hillary is Sarah Palin but with better grammar. Just like Obama is Sarah Palin but with better grammar. Read this and say I'm lying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/14/us-drug-companies-that-_n_7581818.html

"Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said drug companies that would benefit from a Pacific trade pact should sell their products to the U.S. government at a discount in her strongest comments yet on an issue that has divided her party."

"Clinton's comments amount to an implicit rebuke of President Barack Obama's efforts to secure the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a nod toward liberal critics of the deal as she campaigns to win the Democratic nomination for the November 2016 presidential election."

"I have held my peace because I thought it was important for the Congress to have a full debate without thrusting presidential politics and candidates into it," she said at a campaign stop in Burlington, Iowa. "But now I think the president and his team could have the chance to drive a harder bargain."

"Clinton did not say whether she would support or reject the deal. But she criticized several aspects of the agreement…"

"Our drug companies, if they are going to get what they want, they should give more to America,"

Sanctuary, June 15, 2015 at 1:51 am

I was in Cuyahoga County in 2004 and I can tell you unequivocally, they (the Republicans) played every dirty trick in the book and stole that election. They were calling people up and telling them that Democrats vote the next day, Republicans vote on that day and/or calling people up and "informing" them of the incorrect polling location to go to, closing down polling locations or not starting them for several hours past the mandated time.

The 2000 morass I blame on Gore, since by no stretch of the imagination should that election have even been close enough that a few million votes undercounted or prevented would have swung the election. That he chose to buy into the Republican memes about Clinton, act guilty, and run away from him, was his own bad judgment.

When you act guilty in the US, you ARE guilty. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Say what you want about the Clinton's, that is one lesson they always understood.


Jerry Denim, June 15, 2015 at 2:55 am

"There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level."

Seriously?

"We need more from Clinton - more from all candidates. Much, much more. "

Really?

I know Hillary once again is the front runner, the presumed nominee and the only Democratic candidate for "serious" respectable grown-ups and as such must receive her share of the horse race coverage. I also know the tone of this post was basically critical and skeptic.

That said, I find such an earnest micro-parsing of Clinton's utterly meaningless, consequence-free campaign rhetoric by a respected, important and principled site such as this does Clinton an undeserved service by lending her legitimacy at a time when she should be shouted down and shamed for being the lying, compromised, money-grubbing, scruple-less corporate sock puppet that she is.

If the political elites learned anything from Obama (a.k.a. Bush 3.0) it's that you can lie through your teeth on a daily basis and along with some help from our red vs. blue propaganda machine media still convince gullible voters who identify with team blue's brand to continue to support a team blue Prez, and vote for him/her even if he/she betrays regular Americans and kicks them on a daily basis as long as he/she smiles and says he/she is committed to popular and happy things on camera. Hillary can say whatever the hell she wants right now and it doesn't mean a thing. She doesn't hold elected or appointed office.

She can make socialist, FDR type promises till the cows come home while still raking in billions in corporate money, foreign money, and libertarian billionaire asshole money because they know just like Obama she will break every populist campaign promise before she's even sworn in as President. A President Hillary and her entourage would continue business as usual because they has a proven track record of being pro-establishment, pro-Wall Street, Washington-consensus, Neo-con hawks. Believing anything else is utter madness.

Save your analysis and commentary for a Socialist with a better track record like Bernie Sanders or some other long-shot, third party candidate. Carefully parsing the words of a lying pol like Clinton is about as sane and as useful as trying to divine meaning in a pile of dogshit and then claiming you have a legal and binding contract with your bank. We don't need more from Clinton we need less. Way less. We need her to shut up and go away, we know who and what she really is. Since Clinton doesn't look like she plans on shutting up or going away anytime soon I think she should either be – a.) Ignored, or (b.) Shouted down and shamed. Just like Obama I can't take a single word she speaks seriously with her track record.


TedWa, June 15, 2015 at 7:45 pm
I just wish posters here would stop thinking about and posting about Bernie Sanders as if he's a 3rd party candidate. I'm old enough to remember when progressive democrats like Bernie ran things. He's more of a traditional democrat than Hillary can even dream about being. There is no throwing the race to the Republicans by voting for and supporting Bernie – he's running as a democrat and running as a challenger to neo-liberal Hillary and neo-liberal politics and only 1 of them can make it to the final democratic nomination. Get it? Only one of them. This is not going to be a 3rd party race! I know wrapping your head around Bernie as a democrat is hard for some of the younger among us that don't remember a time when neo-liberalism didn't rule the roost, but that is what he is and that is how he's running. There is no 3rd party candidate
Thank you for your time.
Blurtman June 16, 2015 at 2:20 am

How does Hillary's level playing field rhetoric work in her own life? Let's look at how her daughter has fared in her own struggles to live a middle class life.

Lord Butler of Brockwell, the Master of University College, said: "Her (Chelsea's) record at Stanford shows that she is a very well-qualified and able student. The college is also pleased to extend its link with the Clinton family."

In 2003, Clinton joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in New York City.

In the fall of 2006, she went to work for Avenue Capital Group, a global investment firm focusing on distressed securities and private equity.

In 2010, she became Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation.

In November 2011, NBC announced that they hired Clinton as a special correspondent, paying her $600,000 per year. Clinton memorably interviewed the Geico Gecko in April 2013.

Since 2011, she has also taken a dominant role at the family's Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has had a seat on its board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton

Yep, just your average citizen who received no breaks or hands up in her slog through the trials and tribulations of making it in the USA.

FunknJunk June 16, 2015 at 1:23 pm

Just thought I'd add a link to Professor Harvey Kaye talking to Bill Moyers about FDR's Four Freedoms. http://billmoyers.com/episode/fighting-for-the-four-freedoms/ So inspiring. The opposite of HRC. I appreciated this article very much … I don't see how anyone who watched or read the HRC text and has a passing familiarity to the Four Freedoms speech can see any relationship between the two whatsoever except at the most superficial level, meaning HRC used the word "Four".


[Jun 16, 2015]The Strongest Deal Possible

"...My comment there: If that is truly how Clinton feels, then I think we have our answer. It's the corporatist version of the dog whistle. Whistling to the money lords. Such an answer is what one would expect from a DLC/New Dem who is trying to convince the citizens she is for them. It should have been a non-acceptable answer to the host. Still not getting that people are more awake today than when she ran last time. 2 Dem candidates presenting themselves as progressive, populist, liberal and yet no real fight from them for the 99%... She's pedaling truthiness. Does she really think the people are not going to be fully awake by 11/16?"
.
"...One thing I strongly disagree with that many liberal Dems say about Clinton is that she's running to give her husband a third term. I think she's running because she wants to be the first woman president. And I don't think she feels wedded to any particular policy of her husband's. She's made a big effort to make that clear, and I believe her. The criticism of her that I believe is spot-on is that she mainly supports policy positions only after it becomes clear that that's the way the wind is blowing. The exceptions are policy positions on the standard women's issues."
Jun 14, 2015 | Angry Bear

"The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak [Trans-Pacific Partnership] agreement would have on our workers to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don't get it, there should be no deal.

– Hillary Clinton, speaking today in Des Moines, Iowa

I have to confess that I've been somewhat sympathetic to Clinton in her decision, until today, to avoid speaking about the TPP, mainly because she plays no role in the decisionmaking process. Unlike Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Clinton isn't a member of Congress. And she wasn't likely to persuade any Democratic members of Congress one way or another simply by weighing in publicly on it. And by the time the new president is sworn in in January 2017, Congress will have long earlier decided the issue.

Had she taken a public stand against it before last week's vote, it would have been simply a gratuitously political act.

Now that that vote is over, it's fine for her to discuss it. But not tautologically. Obama says the current deal is the strongest deal possible. That is, he says that the counterparties would not agree to any of the changes and additions that the pact's US critics (most prominently Warren, Sanders and Joseph Stiglitz) say are necessary to make the agreement a benefit rather than a detriment to the American workforce and others who would be effected (by the patent provisions that would pertain to pharmaceuticals, for example).

What does she mean when she says that Obama should listen to and work with his allies in Congress who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible? And that if we don't get it, there should be no deal? Does she mean that unless the pact's terms are what Pelosi and the other congressional critics of it say is necessary, there should be no pact?

Presumably so. The other alternative is that she means that Congress should approve the fast-track process once they're convinced that the terms negotiated are the best possible ones that the other parties will accept, but she negates that possibility when she says, "And if we don't get it, there should be no deal." But then, why didn't she just say it, outright?

She's so consumed by her strategy of never saying anything actually specific about anything that her statements come off as some combination of a Rubik's Cube and a Rorschach test for the listener. I wish she'd start speaking in straightforward sentences and paragraphs—sentences and paragraphs that lead somewhere other than a cul-de-sac.

Daniel Becker, June 14, 2015 9:31 pm

I disagree with you on whether she should have said anything prior to the vote. She's in an election and we are trying to asses what she would do if elected. The TPP was a test and she failed it in her usual way. She waited to see how the wind blew.

Now, if she had no competition who was very clear as to what they would do and why they would do it thus not waiting for the wind to blow but instead realizing that the position in contest can actually make the wind blow….

And, it still might past muster if not for this noted at C & L today:

In a separate interview, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook rejected the suggestion that his boss has been on the sidelines of the trade issue. [...]

Mook argued that it's not a problem that Clinton hasn't taken a stance since the administration hasn't made the text of the TPP deal public, and called the current dispute between Congress and the administration "about procedures and parliamentary this and that."

My comment there: If that is truly how Clinton feels, then I think we have our answer. It's the corporatist version of the dog whistle. Whistling to the money lords. Such an answer is what one would expect from a DLC/New Dem who is trying to convince the citizens she is for them.

It should have been a non-acceptable answer to the host.

Still not getting that people are more awake today than when she ran last time. 2 Dem presidents presenting themselves as progressive, populist, liberal and yet no real fight from them for the 99%. There is 1/5 years to go.

She's pedaling truthiness. Does she really think the people are not going to be fully awake by 11/16?

Beverly Mann, June 14, 2015 9:44 pm

Well, if Clinton doesn't understand that a key problem was precisely that this vote on fast-track was taking place before the text of the deal was made available to Congress, and if she really thinks the issue of fact-track approval is unimportant—"about procedures and parliamentary this and that"—then she's seriously stupid. That's a different issue than the ones I was talking about.

Beverly Mann, June 15, 2015 5:46 pm

I read a week or two ago that Hillary Clinton actually voiced serious doubts about the wisdom of NAFTA when it was under debate within the Clinton Administration, Amateur Socialist. And there's no way to know what positions she took on various parts of the TPP as Sec'y of State.

One thing I strongly disagree with that many liberal Dems say about Clinton is that she's running to give her husband a third term. I think she's running because she wants to be the first woman president. And I don't think she feels wedded to any particular policy of her husband's. She's made a big effort to make that clear, and I believe her. The criticism of her that I believe is spot-on is that she mainly supports policy positions only after it becomes clear that that's the way the wind is blowing. The exceptions are policy positions on the standard women's issues.

My post, like two or three earlier ones in recent weeks and months, was intended mainly to highlight (yet again) Clinton's strange and harmful tendency to make statements using a cliché-like phrase or analogy or comparison that actually is either wrong or misleading or irrelevant or incoherent or patently silly.

Jack, June 16, 2015 8:39 am

"….highlight (yet again) Clinton's strange and harmful tendency to make statements using a cliché-like phrase or analogy or comparison that actually is either wrong or misleading or irrelevant or incoherent or patently silly."

Maybe Hillary has noticed how well that tactic has been working for the Republicans. They're in control of both houses of Congress and the leadership, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, etc. can't seem to utter a word in public that is based on the realities of any issue.

Daniel Becker, June 16, 2015 8:47 am

". I think she's running because she wants to be the first woman president. And I don't think she feels wedded to any particular policy of her husband's

I agree with this. If there is any policy she is wedded to any degree it is because it is the party line in general which is believed to be based on the current wind direction and strength. Unfortunately, the weather report the party most relies on is the ITB broad cast, "inside the beltway".

[Jun 16, 2015]Bubble!

"...somehow the "peace dividend" attributable to the Soviet collapse, the tech boom, even the Republican Congress! were all Clinton's doing. "
.
"...I listened to the Jeb Bush speech & I could begin to sketch the GOP campaign communications strategy. They will make job creation and small business creation the top goals for the GOP. This will form the foundation for higher family incomes return the economy to higher growth rates & I suspect that they will throw in broadly shared. Of course they will not reveal how they will stimulate small business creation or how they will create livable incomes but bankers will be involved."
.
"...One does not have to be of old age to recognize the same patterns in the endless US election cycles. Candidates will promise the heavens if necessary - remember the times of "hope and change"? - only to align themselves with the interest of wealth after being elected."
.
"...Clinton -like all other candidates - will pretend to be the next champion of working Americans up to the moment in which she enters the White House.
Our election system is design so that anyone whose elected could not and would not forget where their campaign money came from."
.
"...Most Americans no longer rely exclusively on, nor trust, the corporate media for their political news. The republican (and democratic) base is getting smarter. I think republicans will see right through Jeb's "Florida miracle" if he trots it out on the campaign trail and call him on it. His Florida "leadership" will come back to haunt him. "
.
"...Yes, it's a big joke all right, but how many people are going to get it? After all, what he said was absolutely correct, but sadly there is the real story behind the numbers and that is lost on the electorate. The Right just keeps pushing their rhetoric full blast and it sounds so good to those who have an appetite for what they are saying. It doesn't matter if they are lying are manipulating the truth, just keep promoting the story and repeat, repeat, repeat. It's all about winning votes, and the truth gets lost in the muddle."
.
"...Try and find a Republican that doesn't live in Voodoo Fantasy-land- Jeb is just preaching to his fellow True Believers. They think of themselves as "people of faith", by which they simultaneously assert moral superiority and ignore or deny any factual evidence contrary to their preexisting beliefs. It's magical thinking similar to that of a medieval theologian. Ridicule is sometimes effective dealing with them; facts they just ignore or mouth some talking point. "
.
"...Even David Stockman has all but admitted it and he helped sell it. So I wouldn't put too much faith in voters realizing that Jeb is just selling snake oil when it comes to his record. Yes, I am a cynic about the how much of a role intelligence plays in how people vote but I think I have good reason."
.
"...Your numbers reflect the result of the economic disaster in 2008 caused by Bush and, yes, Clinton financial deregulation and opportunistic and criminal bank behavior."
Jun 16, 2015 | NYTimes.com

It's tempting! to ridicule! Jeb Bush! over his ludicrous campaign logo! But it would be wrong. He should, instead, be ridiculed over his ludicrous, self-aggrandizing economic claims.

Incredibly, Jeb! is running on his economic record as governor of Florida, on the claim that he knows how to create growth — 4 percent growth, no less — because of the way Florida prospered during his term in office:

We made Florida number one in job creation and number one in small business creation. 1.3 million new jobs, 4.4 percent growth, higher family income, eight balanced budgets, and tax cuts eight years in a row that saved our people and businesses 19 billion dollars.

During those years, of course, Florida experienced the mother of all housing bubbles — and when the bubble burst (luckily for Jeb! just after he left office) it promptly wiped out 900,000 of those 1.3 million jobs:

Photo

Credit

... ... ...


Tom Silver

Funny! But perhaps some day Prof. Krugman will stop using the phrase "during the Clinton years" when he looks back on that golden economic era, not too subtly inferring that Clinton deserves the credit - but without actually coming out and saying it. He knows better. Why not attribute the 1980s conquest of inflation, the huge economic growth rates and laying the groundwork for the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union - to none other than Ronald Reagan? After all, these wonders happened on his watch. Forget the negatives of Reagan's term - my example is limited to the positives. The Professor will explain in excruciating detail why Reagan was "lucky", and deserves none of the credit upon close examination. But somehow the "peace dividend" attributable to the Soviet collapse, the tech boom, even the Republican Congress! were all Clinton's doing.

Conclusion: When it's a Republican claiming credit for economic successes under his or her administration, analyze it away. When it's a Democrat, just marvel at all the great things that happened "during his [or her] years". No analysis necessary.


James Jordan, Falls Church

Dr. K,

I listened to the Jeb Bush speech & I could begin to sketch the GOP campaign communications strategy. They will make job creation and small business creation the top goals for the GOP. This will form the foundation for higher family incomes return the economy to higher growth rates & I suspect that they will throw in broadly shared. Of course they will not reveal how they will stimulate small business creation or how they will create livable incomes but bankers will be involved.

It would be wise for very serious economists (VSEs) to scope alternatives for creating broadly shared income growth that will address job creation.

... ... ...

R. Law, is a trusted commenter Texas

Jeb! would have the same problem any other GOP'er would have - the same problem of Bush 41 and 43 - the rest of the party will wag them around; the party is only looking for a new face to put on their same ol' same ol' bankrupt economic and foreign policies, attempting a(nother) sales job.

As Grover Norquist reminded one and all in 2012 at CPAC when he said all GOP'ers need is someone in the White House with enough working digits to sign what's prepared - GOP'ers aren't looking for a leader:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-...

Nothing has changed about the party since those 2012 remarks.


JD, Columbia, SC

I believe there could possibly be another housing bubble in Florida. Perhaps the consequences of it bursting isn't as bad this time, since there's a lot of cash-only deals that have happened. But one of my friends who's been a residential real estate agent not in Miami, but good ol' Jacksonville, made around $600,000 in gross commission in 2014. This person's gross commission has grown rapidly each year since 2008. I see the 1099 every year.

This year this person expects to make around $800-$900 thousand in 2015. Again... Jacksonville residential real estate. We'll see what happens I guess.

Inverness, New York 12 hours ago

Professor Krugman is correct to point out to the fantasy/lies that the next Bush in line is spreading starting of his campaign. Though it would be exceedingly naive of Professor Krugman to take the next Clinton seriously.

One does not have to be of old age to recognize the same patterns in the endless US election cycles. Candidates will promise the heavens if necessary - remember the times of "hope and change"? - only to align themselves with the interest of wealth after being elected.

President Obama once elected created his new-old economical team made from Wall Street favorites who served under Clinton the firsts' administration and used the revolving doors of Citibank. The group of 'Rubin Boys' who pushed against regulation were brought back to clean the economic disaster they caused.

It was best put by Romney's top campaign adviser, as reported by Times magazine at the time: "You hit a reset button for the fall campaign," adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said, when asked how a campaign changes its tactics from primary season to a general election. "Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again."

Clinton -like all other candidates - will pretend to be the next champion of working Americans up to the moment in which she enters the White House.
Our election system is design so that anyone whose elected could not and would not forget where their campaign money came from.


Vince Cate, Anguilla

"And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." - Paul Krugman

Paul, are you sure you can do anything more than blow another bubble?

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-create-a...

Lew Fournier, Kitchener, Ont.

Re: Vince Cate

Oh, for pity sake.

Economist Arnold Kling commented:

"He was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur."

Some people are just great at pulling quotes out of context. Republicans seem particularly good at it.

lynn, california

It is hard to believe that someone running for president today would have a platform built on the economic "gains" they made during the run up to the largest economic fiasco this country has seen since the Great Depression. How stupid does Jeb think his republican base is?

He can attract the 1% with his "Florida miracle" malarkey because they see through it and only care about their tax cuts and the government deregulation they know he will provide.

I think it is trickier, however, to run a national campaign today on the assumption that the majority of republicans will happily ignore reality and recent history and believe Jeb's schtick. Most Americans no longer rely exclusively on, nor trust, the corporate media for their political news. The republican (and democratic) base is getting smarter. I think republicans will see right through Jeb's "Florida miracle" if he trots it out on the campaign trail and call him on it. His Florida "leadership" will come back to haunt him.

Jim Kay, is a trusted commenter Taipei, Taiwan

However stupid Jeb thinks his Republican base is, they are far more stupid!

Widgetmaker, Orange, CA

Yes, it's a big joke all right, but how many people are going to get it? After all, what he said was absolutely correct, but sadly there is the real story behind the numbers and that is lost on the electorate. The Right just keeps pushing their rhetoric full blast and it sounds so good to those who have an appetite for what they are saying. It doesn't matter if they are lying are manipulating the truth, just keep promoting the story and repeat, repeat, repeat. It's all about winning votes, and the truth gets lost in the muddle.

Woof!, is a trusted commenter NY

Why blame poor Jeb ?

From the NY Times (2002)

Paul Krugman:

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment.

And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

And so he did.

If you are a Nobel Prize Winner, people take what you later claim to be merely an observations for advice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

Reality Based, Flyover Country

"Jeb is living in a world of pure fantasy, in which supply side policies produce economic miracles despite abundant evidence that they do no such thing."

Try and find a Republican that doesn't live in Voodoo Fantasy-land- Jeb is just preaching to his fellow True Believers. They think of themselves as "people of faith", by which they simultaneously assert moral superiority and ignore or deny any factual evidence contrary to their preexisting beliefs. It's magical thinking similar to that of a medieval theologian. Ridicule is sometimes effective dealing with them; facts they just ignore or mouth some talking point.


Dan H, Denver, CO 14 hours ago

The problem is getting the average voter to realize that Jeb's economic castle is built on sand. As Dr. Krugman has pointed out before, most voters are too busy trying to earn a living and survive to pay any attention to politics and the various players.

How many realize Chris Christie is nothing but a vindictive blow-hard and a bully who would come close to matching George W. Bush's incompetence if he were elected president. Ask most voters and they only remember the Ronald Reagan was supposed to be the president who brought morning to America. They don't understand that his disastrous policies set the stage many of the country's struggles today such as the ever increasing inequity in this country.

Even David Stockman has all but admitted it and he helped sell it. So I wouldn't put too much faith in voters realizing that Jeb is just selling snake oil when it comes to his record. Yes, I am a cynic about the how much of a role intelligence plays in how people vote but I think I have good reason.

Defector, Mountain View 10 hours ago

None of that is true. Your numbers reflect the result of the economic disaster in 2008 caused by Bush and, yes, Clinton financial deregulation and opportunistic and criminal bank behavior. Since then we have not only regained lost ground but have continued to grow both labor participation and manufacturing.

True, we should have and could have done better, but we'd have done far worse had Romney or McCain won respective 2012 and 2008 elections. Of that there is no doubt.

[Jun 16, 2015] Hillary Clinton ducks questions on trade deals during New Hampshire visit

Notable quotes:
"... But, listen, lets review the rules. Heres how it works: the president makes decisions. Hes the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ..."
"... The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. ..."
"... She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea. ..."
"... Lets face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - middle class means anyone whos in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasnt made it into the top 1% because theyre too damned lazy. ..."
Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

FugitiveColors 15 Jun 2015 23:52

She can talk til her pantsuit turns blue.
I have already decided that my ballot will have Bernie Sanders on it one way or another.
I don't believe her. I don't like her, and I damn sure won't vote for her.
She is a blue corporate stooge and not much different than a red corporate stooge.
Bernie is honest and after all of those years in politics, he is not rich.
You can't say that about a single other candidate.


libbyliberal -> Timothy Everton 15 Jun 2015 23:47

Yo, Timothy, Paul Street recently reminded his readers of part of Colbert's speech at the Correspondents' Dinner way back in 2006 (time flies while we're sinking into fascism):

"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

Timothy Everton -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 22:36

Sorry Not-so-enlightenedgirl. WE don't elect government officials, and we don't pay them for "not putting the screws to us". They get elected, paid, and influenced by lobbyists for the wealthy one percent, and by the corporations, who both fund their campaigns for future favors rendered. Those with the most funding for the prettiest and most abundant campaign ads are those elected. And yes, they DO put the screws to us, the American public. This woman is more a puppet for those interests than some Republicans.

Timothy Everton -> libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 22:11

"The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates."

Sorry libby, I don't see them crowding around Bernie Sanders, the only viable candidate FOR the AVERAGE American. In fact, I believe he had more "press time" before he became a candidate.

That is the way it goes here though. Get an honest candidate who speaks her/his mind, and you get no press coverage - way too dangerous for those who actually control our government through lobbyists.


libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 21:42

What is this business about Hillary NOT "taking the bait" of a reporter's questions? Hillary needs to be challenged and not be the one in control with her gobsmackingly well-funded pr info-mercial steamrolling her presidential challenge.

The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. This is what THEY say their policy is and will be. Not critical thinking of the journalist, no connecting of the dots, to be applied?

Their talk sure is cheap and seductive. Obama gave us major lessons in that in 2008 and again in 2012. More nicey-nice sounding bull-sh*t that is vague or downright mendacious to the realpolitik agenda.

Hillary wants to talk about what is convenient and safe for her. Identity politics. Generalized populist feel-good rhetoric. Nothing substantial with the globalized and corporatized trade deals OR the massive violent US-sponsored or direct militarism around the globe.

Hillary's NYC Four Freedoms Park speech: lack of mention of foreign policy except for some threats on China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. No mention of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan. No mention of drone warfare. No mention of NSA surveillance. No mention of police violence.

She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea.

Hillary skipped addressing the inconvenient and the media and her fan base had no problem with such gobsmacking omissions. Hillary decides that the US citizenry doesn't want to focus on foreign policy and she ramps up vague populist rhetoric like Obama did back in 2008 to convince the citizenry she is their champion even though she personally has amassed over $100 million from her financial elite cronies over the decades and if you think that fortune has no influence on who she is championing there's a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn you should look into buying.

Let's face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton.


Vladimir Makarenko -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 19:19

"diplomacy so badly needed after the disastrous term of Bush and Cheney and their destruction of the Middle East." If anything she extended B & Ch policies by destroying Libya and turning it in a murderous breeding ground for Islamic ultras. She was at helm of arming Syrian "opposition" better known today as ISIS.

Her record as a Secretary is dismal - line by line no achievements, no solved problems but disaster by disaster.

talenttruth 15 Jun 2015 18:34

If the Democratic party nominates the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, rather than someone real who ACTUALLY represents the middle class, tells the truth and is NOT part of the "corporately bought-and-sold" insider group, then it will be heads-or-tails whether she wins or one of the totally insane, whack-job Republi-saur candidates wins.

If she keeps on doing what she's been doing, she will LOOK just like those arrogant "insiders" the Republicans claim her to be (despite the fact that they are FAR FAR FAR worse, but much better at lying about that than any Democrat). Hillary is a VERY VERY WEAK candidate, because the huge "middle" of decent Americans is looking for real change, and not -- as well -- a Republican change WAY for the worse.

This Election is the Democratic Party's to LOSE. Hillary could make that happen (no matter how much worse ANY Republican victor will likely be). What a choice.

sour_mash -> goatrider 15 Jun 2015 18:09

"...why doesn't the disgusting American media ask the Republicans who support it to explain themselves too. Why are they so eager to join Obama in destroying the American middle class?"

After +6 years of the then Republican Party, now known as the Christian Jihad Party or CJP, making Obama a one term president it smells to high heaven that they now agree on this single issue.

Yes, where are the questions.

Whitt 15 Jun 2015 18:03

Because they're not "destroying the American middle class". You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - "middle class" means anyone who's in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasn't made it into the top 1% because they're too damned lazy.

[Jun 16, 2015] Jeb Bush's campaign debut: protester showdown met with chants of 'USA'

Notable quotes:
"... sandra oconnor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected. ..."
"... All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who dont want change. All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant. ..."
"... Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful. And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions. There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while its institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful. ..."
"... The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee. ..."
"... Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that hes the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite. ..."
Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

eileen1 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:48

Neither a Bush nor a Clinton. They're both poisonous in different ways.

eileen1 -> WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 23:47

There is no difference between Bush and Obama, except Obama is smarter and more devious.

redbanana33 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:27

"are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance?"

No, I never said I believed there was corruption and connivance. Those are your words. Your personal opinion. MY words were that if more voters had wanted Gore as their president, he would have won. As it was, he couldn't even carry his home state. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and so we make excuses for what we perceive as injustice, when, in reality, more people just didn't think like you did in that election. But blame the court (bet you can't even clearly state what the case points they were asked to consider, without googling it) and blame the Clintons and even blame poor Ralph for your guy's lack of popularity. If it makes you feel better, go for it. It won't change the past.

And, speaking of presidents winning by a hair's breadth, shall we talk about how Joe Kennedy bribed his way to electing his son? Hmmmm? Except that even the crook Nixon had enough class to concede rather than drag the country through months of misery like your hero did.

mabcalif -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:50

there have been more than one excellent president who's won that office only by a hair's breadth.

are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance? particularly when the outcome was so disastrous for the country and the world?

it wasn't a question of being more popular, it's a question of being overwhelmed by the clinton scandal, a brother governor willing to throw the state's votes and by a supreme court that was arrayed against him (sandra o'connor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected.) not to mention a quixotic exercise in third party politics with a manifestly inadequate candidate that had no foreign policy experience

Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:43

Yes some people need to be reminded, especially about the falsification/lies completing the 2009 voter-registration form.

bishoppeter4 15 Jun 2015 22:39

Jeb and his father and brother ought to be in jail !

Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:38

His point is that "No more president with the name BUSH" in the White House. He can change his name to something like Moron or Terrone. Let him drop that name because Americans have NOT and will NOT recover from the regime of the last Bush.

redbanana33 -> Con Mc Cusker 15 Jun 2015 22:30

Then (respectfully) the rest of the world needs to grow some balls, get up off their asses, define their vision, and strike out on their own as controllers of their own destinies.

After that, you'll have the right to criticize my country. Right now you don't have that right. Get off the wagon and help pull it.

ponderwell -> Peter Ciurczak 15 Jun 2015 22:25

Politics is about maneuvering to get your own way. In Jebya speak it means whatever will
lead to power. Hillary sounds trite and poorly staged.

Jeez, now Trump wants more attention...a big yawn.

WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 22:24

His brother should be in prison for war crimes and crimes against Humanity. Jeb violated election laws to put his brother in office so he is also responsible for turning this nation into a terrorist country.

ExcaliburDefender -> Zenit2 15 Jun 2015 22:03

No $hit $herlock, he met his wife when they were both 17, in MEXICO. Jeb has a degree in Latin Studies too.

Just vote, the Tea Party always does.

:<)

ExcaliburDefender 15 Jun 2015 22:01

Jeb may very well be the most qualified of the GOP, and he can speak intelligently on immigration, if his campaign/RNC would allow it.

Too bad we don't have other GOPers like Huntsman and even Steve Forbes, yes I enjoyed Forbes being part of the debates in 96, even voted for him in the primary. And not because I thought he would win, but I wanted him to be heard.

Debates will be interesting, Trump is jumping in for the 4th time.

#allvotesmatter

fflambeau 15 Jun 2015 22:00

The USA presidential campaign looks very much like a world wrestling match (one of those fake ones). Only the wrestlers are more intelligent.

MisterMeaner 15 Jun 2015 21:59

Jebya. Whoopty Goddam Doo.

ponderwell 15 Jun 2015 21:52

Jebby exclaimed: 'The country is going in the wrong direction'. Omitting the direction W Bush sent the U.S. into with false info. and willful intention to bomb Iraq for the sake of an egotistical purpose.

And, the insane numerous disasters W sponsored. The incorrigible Bush Clan !

benluk 15 Jun 2015 21:49

Jeb Bush, "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," Jeb Bush

But not as improbable as letting another war mongering Bush in the White House.

gilbertratchet -> BehrHunter 15 Jun 2015 21:42

Indeed, and it seems that Bush III thinks it's a virtue not a problem:

"In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," began Bush. "And that's from the guy who met his first president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was brought home from the hospital..."

No Jeb, that would be improbable for me. For you it was a normal childhood day. But it's strange you're pushing the "born to rule" angle. I guess it's those highly paid consultants who tell you that you have to own the issue before it defines you.

Guess what... No amount of spin will change your last name.

gorianin 15 Jun 2015 21:35

Jeb Bush already fixed one election. Now he's looking to "fix" the country.

seasonedsenior 15 Jun 2015 21:29

Stop calling him Jeb. Sounds folksy and everyman like. His name is John E. Bush. And he's from a family of billionaires. Don't let him pull a what's-her-name in Spokane. He was a rich baby, child, young man, Governor ...on and on and is completely out of touch with the common man.

He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his sensibilities are built of money gained off the backs of the workers of this country. He is big oil to his core.

Caesar Ol 15 Jun 2015 21:27

Jeb is the dumbest of all the Bushes. Therefore the most dangerous as someone will manipulate him the way that Cheney did with Bush.

ChelsieGreen 15 Jun 2015 21:27

Interesting thing is that Bush is old school Republican, spend big, be the power to the world.

Since his brother/father left office the party moved on, Tea Party may have faded slightly but they are not big spenders, they are small government. Jeb will have trouble making a mark in the early states to be the nominee, he is considered center-right.

The right wing of the party thinks where they slipped up was not nominating someone right-wing enough, they will portray him as weak on immigration and chew him up.


Brookstone1 15 Jun 2015 21:11

America has been wounded badly by the reckless and stupidity of the Republicans under the leadership of G. W. Bush. And now it would be a DEADLY MISTAKE to even ponder about voting Republican again, let alone voting for another Bush! The Bush family has nothing in common with ordinary Americans!

NO MORE BUSH!!!

nubwaxer 15 Jun 2015 21:03

i heard his punchlines about "fixing" america to get us back to free enterprise and freedom. dear jeb, we know what you mean and free enterprise is code for corporatism run wild and repeal of regulations. similarly when you say freedom you mean that for rich white males and right to work laws, union busting, repeal of minimum wage laws, no paid vacation or maternity leave and especially the freedom to go bankrupt, suffer, and die for lack of health care insurance. more like freedumb.

Xoxarle -> sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:33

All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who don't want change.

All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS.

All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant.

All candidates are promising bipartisanship and yet are part of the dysfunction in DC, pandering to special interests or extreme factions that reject compromise.

ID6995146 15 Jun 2015 20:33

Another Saudi hand-holder and arse licker.


OlavVI -> catch18 15 Jun 2015 20:24

And he's already got Wolfowitz, one of the worst war mongers (ala Cheney) in US history as an adviser. Probably dreaming up several wars for Halliburton, et al., to rake up billions of $$$$ from the poor (the rich pretty much get off in the US).

concious 15 Jun 2015 20:20

USA chant is Nationalism, not Patriotism. Is this John Ellis Bush really going to get votes?

sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:02

Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful.

And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions.

There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while it's institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful.

OurPlanet -> briteblonde1 15 Jun 2015 19:34

He's a great "fixer" Him and his tribe in Florida certainly fixed those chads for his brother's election success in 2000. A truly rich family of oilmen . What could be better? Possibly facing if inaugerated as the GOP nominee to face the possibly successful Democrat nominee Clinton. So the choice of 2016 menu for American election year is 2 Fish that stink. Welcome to the American Plutocracy.

Sam Ahmed 15 Jun 2015 19:23

I wonder if the state of Florida will try "Fix" the vote count for Jeb as they did for Georgie. I wonder if the Republicans can "Fix" their own party. You know what, I don't want the Republican party to think I'm bashing them, so I'll request a major tune up for Hillary Clinton too. Smiles all around! =)

Cyan Eyed 15 Jun 2015 18:48

A family linked to weapons manufacturers through Harriman.
A family linked to weapons dealing through Carlyle.
A family linked to the formation of terrorist networks (including Al Qaeda).
A family linked to an attempted coup on America.
The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee.

davshev 15 Jun 2015 18:43

Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that he's the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite.

[Jun 15, 2015] How Corporations Control Politics

"...conservatives are leading a revolution, in which national governments are being usurped by the big government of the international corporate oligopoly."
June 7, 2015 | crookedtimber.org
In my Salon column today, I look at new research examining how corporations influence politics.
Money talks. But how?

From "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to Citizens United, the story goes like this: The wealthy corrupt and control democracy by purchasing politicians, scripting speech and writing laws. Corporations and rich people make donations to candidates, pay for campaign ads and create PACs. They, or their lobbyists, take members of Congress out to dinner, organize junkets for senators and tell the government what to do. They insinuate money where it doesn't belong. They don't build democracy; they buy it.

But that, says Alex Hertel-Fernandez, a PhD student in Harvard's government department, may not be the only or even the best way to think about the power of money. That power extends far beyond the dollars deposited in a politician's pocket. It reaches for the votes and voices of workers who the wealthy employ. Money talks loudest where money gets made: in the workplace.

Among Hertel-Fernandez's findings:
1. Nearly 50% of the top executives and managers surveyed admit that they mobilize their workers politically.

2. Firms believe that mobilizing their workers is more effective than donating money to a candidate, buying campaign ads, or investing in large corporate lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce.

3. The most important factor in determining whether a firm engages in partisan mobilization of its workers—and thinks that that mobilization is effective—is the degree of control it has over its workers. Firms that always engage in surveillance of their employees' online activities are 50 percent more likely to mobilize their workers than firms that never do.

4. Of the workers who say they have been mobilized by their employers, 20% say that they received threats if they didn't.

My conclusion:
When we think of corruption, we think of something getting debased, becoming impure, by the introduction of a foreign material. Money worms its way into the body politic, which rots from within. The antidote to corruption, then, is to keep unlike things apart. Take the big money out of politics or limit its role. That's what our campaign finance reformers tell us.

But the problem isn't corruption. It's…

Phil 06.07.15 at 3:43 pm

That's a disgusting state of affairs, and one which I hope is confined to the US. I've never seen anything remotely like that – never had a hint that my boss wanted to influence my vote – at any of the places I've worked, including the ones with no pension scheme and no union recognition.
.2

Metatone 06.07.15 at 3:44 pm

I think in terms of campaigning (letter writing) etc. these abuses have clear effects.

I'd argue though that in terms of the overall discourse, "the bosses" have won without even resorting to anything so crude.

At least here in the UK it's palpable that people soak up attitudes about economics and trade policy from work. And those policy preferences aren't designed around their prosperity…

They aren't being threatened, it's simply a matter of culture – of lionising the "private sector" and bashing the "public sector" and those out of work. The identity comes out of water cooler moments and the lunch break. It takes a strong outside-work identity not to want the halo of "private sector wealth creator" and thus disdain a union, or a strike or a dole recipient…

Josh Jasper 06.07.15 at 4:38 pm

cassander : Seems to me that coal miners and coal mine owners have a lot of interests in common.

You might want to mention that to someone who's worked for Massey energy at the Upper Big Branch Mine. Suggest to him that he really ought to be giving his wages to the PACs if Massey tells them to.

I suggest having your dentist on speed dial.

For that matter, it's evident that the lot of interests Murray and his labor force have in common exclude worker safety as well

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/coal-baron-digs-a-deeper_b_4714139.html

But hey, it's not him getting black lung or dying in a mine collapse. It's his workers. The ones he's been fined repeated times for ignoring safety regulations to save a buck here and there.

Does mobilization to vote Republican affect coal workers? Yes. It makes it very likely that the industry will get away with ignoring safety regulations to save money, because destroying mining safety regulations for major donors is a Republican party practice.

Sasha Clarkson 06.07.15 at 6:45 pm

Much conservative rhetoric, especially in the US, is caught up in an anachronistic big-government/small-government debate. But real government is not where the nominal authority lies, but who has the real power!

Like it or not, conservatives are leading a revolution, in which national governments are being usurped by the big government of the international corporate oligopoly. This of course is barely accountable for its actions, nor subject to democratic oversight, and hence can ride roughshod over the broad mass of humanity. Of course, like the Star Wars Trade Federation, the oligopoly also subverts/coerces the loyalties of employees from the wider community to itself.

I suspect that the trend is that national governments will be important only in that they will provide the armies to enforce the will of the corporate elite. Eventually even this may become unimportant as other means are found to suppress us!

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/…/images/6/68/TF-DCS-ST.jpg

Bruce Wilder 06.07.15 at 7:08 pm

. . . the problem isn't corruption. It's capitalism.

So simple, then. So obvious.

More than a century of organizing work in hierarchy was all just a big mistake, but no worries, we'll just exchange it for "economic democracy" at the service desk at Best Buy.

Ronan(rf) 06.07.15 at 8:11 pm
Not to display a put on world weary cynicism , but I'm surprised people are surprised by this. It isn't "capitalism" , it's politics. People have always been pressured into how they vote, whether by domineering individuals in their family, notable families in their community , factions in their village, political machines in their towns and cities , so on and so forth. In workplaces of all sizes, from small shops to local factories, individuals have been coerced, whether implicitly (through peer pressure) or explicitly (threats of dismissal) into supporting political positions a dominant faction wants them to. (Is this not part of what trade unions do, or have done?)
It is a fallacy of WEIRD thinking to imagine away such pressures historically. Obviously this situation in the OP isn't ideal, but it is politics , as it has existed since time immemorial. (Or at least a date I can't place)
Alex Hertel-Fernandez 06.07.15 at 8:24 pm
Cassander: I've looked at workers' self-reports of whether employer messages changed their behaviors. About half of all workers who have been contacted by their bosses report a change in at least one of their political behaviors or attitudes, and 15% report that employer messages affected their vote choice. Is this a lot or a little? I think the answer depends on whether you think it is an appropriate role for managers to play in the political lives of their employees.

You're definitely right that the economic interests of workers and managers are often aligned on things like trade and regulation. But many times they are not — as in the cases of working conditions (e.g. minimum wage) or redistributive policies. And independent of the content of employers' political messages, we might be worried about the power that managers have over their workers. For instance, I find that about 28% of contacted workers reported that their employers' messages either made them uncomfortable or included threats of economic retaliation. I think whether you are troubled by these statistics or not depends on whether you are concerned about power differentials between employers and their employees.

Barry Freed: Many of these employer tactics used to be illegal, for the most part, before Citizens United. And some states have taken action to curb the most coercive practices (NJ and OR). But most states haven't.

hix 06.07.15 at 8:40 pm
Well, I associate such behaviour with defect democracy – which is how id think of most historical democracies. So for me it is shocking to see this kind of mechanism in a modern long established rich democracy (ok not that shocking, considering all the other fingerpointers towards that direction with regards to the US).
gianni 06.07.15 at 8:46 pm
Not to mention the ways in which American corporations especially have worked to diminish the employee's time for political activity. Some workers are terribly underpaid, forcing them to work extra hours/job; some are subject to capricious scheduling, and irregular hours; others in prestige jobs intentionally overworked, makes for easier conditioning. All around the 40hr/week standard persists despite massive productivity gains. At least the French get August off to take a proper trip to the beach.

Added to this our antiquated infrastructure and sprawling residential geography make the simple fact of getting to work a huge time investment. While in your car you are more likely to be fed the political opinions of well-funded media figures than to those of your peers. Don't forget that this is in the country that invented the internet – how many of those people could just be telecommuting anyway?

Ronan(rf) 06.07.15 at 8:55 pm
@13 – I don't know if I'd see the US as an institutionally mature democracy akin to what exists in Northern Europe, more as a hybrid of areas that are economically and politically developed, and others that are more comparable to weak states or emerging democracies (at best the European 'periphery', Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland- perhaps in the 80s more than now) You can see this in the weak state capacity, corrupt militia like police forces and late agrarian style of politics.
Also, perhaps I'm wrong.
Bruce Wilder 06.07.15 at 9:44 pm
Rich Puchalsky @ 11:

I appreciate that when you're going against an established story, you have to emphasize that what's really going on is a whole different story.

That's what I'd take "the problem isn't corruption. It's capitalism." to be.

But really I'd assume that it's both.

[Jun 14, 2015] Bush and Hawkish Magical Thinking

Notable quotes:
"... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative
Jeb Bush made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:

Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.

"When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right now."

Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security, and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia. It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.

This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.

One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.

[Jun 14, 2015] An Inconvenient Truth The Bush Administration Was a Disaster

Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative

Most Americans remember the Bush years as a period of expanding government, ruinous war, and economic collapse. They voted for Obama the first time as a repudiation of those developments. Many did so a second time because most Republicans continue to pretend that they never happened.

[Jun 14, 2015] The Hillary Promise

Notable quotes:
"... ( apart from those dastardly Wall Street types that keep donating to her campaign and Foundation ) ..."
"... everybody will have a better time, ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Zero Hedge

Following Hillary's first official campaign speech yesterday, promising everything to everyone (apart from those dastardly Wall Street types that keep donating to her campaign and Foundation) so that "everybody will have a better time," we thought it worth reminding 'voters' of another promise...

NoWayJose

The Clinton's and Obama may not know how to run a country - but you have to admit that they are masters at deflating scandals and at running Presidential campaigns. With all these scandals, I am shocked that Hillary is not only still in this, but is running ahead! Are Americans really this stupid?

Caleb Abell

More than 300 million people in the US, and the best two candidates the country can come up with is a choice that will probably be between a treasonous neocon warmonger (bush) and a corrupt warmongering grifter (clinton).

I wonder if Roman citizens put with stupid shit like this when their republic was collapsing.

sunkeye

Hey c'mon now. Hil's just a good ol' gal tryin' to make things better for y'all. She's running for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for "you people." This aren't about her no way. An insanely maniacal grab for power aren't got nothin' to do with it. (Insert Slick Willy wink here.)

[Jun 13, 2015] What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Really All About?

June 4, 2015 | The Baseline Scenario

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States and 11 other countries. It is comprised of two main parts: reductions in tariffs (and related non-tariff barriers), of the kind typically seen in trade agreements; and new rules for foreign direct investment and intellectual property rights, which have not previously been prominent in FTAs.

The new rules part has become controversial. The case for introducing an investor-state dispute settlement seems less than compelling – this would favor foreign investors over domestic investors, not an idea that sits well with the standard idea of equality before the law (going back at least 800 years) and a direct contradiction to the usual principles of FTAs (emphasizing non-discrimination across types of investors). As currently formulated, it would also be open to considerable abuse. And the precise rules under consideration for patent protection appear likely to reduce access to affordable medicines in both our trading partners and potentially also in the United States.

As a result, advocates of TPP are now emphasizing the benefits of tariff reductions in terms of boosting US exports. But the administration's claims in this regard are greatly exaggerated and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is unfortunately refusing to fully discuss the broader trade impact, including the precise impact of higher imports into the United States.

  • 2016 | June 4, 2015 at 6:35 pm |

    Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn't have much an opinion one way or the other regarding TPP? While serving as Secretary of State, did she not help craft some of the Agreement's general precepts? Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggests that she herself would need to see more of the TPP Agreement language before taking a position. I don't know how MSNBC can continually support Hillary Clinton's candidacy with a straight face; or, perhaps it has come more to light to say that MSNBC is a part of the corporatist structure that provides Hillary, in part, her free, low-cost campaigning advantage. Hopefully, Hillary Clinton will implode, then forcing MSNBC to scrabble and then, continuing to cheer-lead an alternative to Bernie Sanders.

    It's truly sickening to watch the president and the lamestream media trash first Senator Elizabeth Warren, and now presidential candidate Bernie Sanders because they know they do not just speak in words, but in their actions (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/politics/challenging-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gains-momentum-in-iowa.html?_r=0 ). Hillary Clinton is trying to catch up to the rhetorical skill of the president but hasn't found her voice because her truer policy positions are more moderate and counter to the base of the political party she says she wants to champion.

    After Congress outsourced manufacturing to China, China now owns about 7.5% of U.S. assets, so the remedy seems to be the TPP to act as global leverage. Even if the TPA passes by one vote, the TPP WILL NOT PASS. The president continues to bribe and twist arms in the House of Representatives but he's not going to get enough votes because there are enough Republicans labeling it as Obama-trade and not enough corporate Democrats to be corrupted into voting for a Trojan horse of an Agreement (https://wikileaks.org/pledge/).

  • Stan Sorscher | June 5, 2015 at 5:26 pm |

    Most disturbing is that a decision this big is being sold under such disingenuous terms. Secret or not secret? Imports but not exports. Labor and environmental standards when this administration has refused to enforce existing rules. This makes the snake oil industry look good.

  • 2016 | June 5, 2015 at 7:13 pm |

    Polls continue to show Americans favor increasing taxes on the One Percenters, campaign finance reform, reigning in Wall Street, wanting Congress to vote "No" on XL Pipeline and "No" on the TPP, wanting gun control, etc… but what does Congress do instead…… vote against the interest of the majority. The solution: how about "outsourcing" Congress and make them work on contract, for $7.85 an hour with one-week paid vacation as their only benefit.

    The worst offenders, you ask….the Democratic Party. At least the Republicans are coming around to the notion that they don't need to continue to pretend they're bidding on behalf of "hard-working Americans," rather instead, for the wealthy as noted by the 2012 presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

    If you want to see the day of light after Nov 2016, it may be best to get behind a presidential candidate like Bernie Sanders - the best and full-proof reason to do so is here: http://huff.to/1FClVPf, and in particular, this paragraph from the article:

    "But, as I have noted elsewhere, Hillary Clinton honors her deals with the billionaires who hire her, however indirectly, even if her very public and heralded words that are spoken to adoring crowds at her political events are of no higher value than whatever is imposed upon all the toilet paper that gets discreetly flushed away unheralded to regions unknown and unnoticed. See, for examples, this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this."

    I found Thom Hardmann's "enthusiastic" support for Hillary Clinton/partner-in-crime, in these hyperlinks indicated in the above, last sentence "this….and this, and this, and this…….":

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/wall-street-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama ,\ ;

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-106070.html ;

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nomi-prins/the-clintons-and-their-banker_b_7232636.html ;

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/more-about-hillary-clinto_b_4907395.html ;

    However, I would guess that Thom (like MSNBC) would (still) rather have a phony Liberal than a phony Conservative in the White House, thinking instead, that a Hillary Clinton presidency would probably do less damage to the economy, less erosion on civil rights/liberties–the Constitution, and project less hubris on other high-minded intellectual and economic privileges of the political class.

  • 2016 | June 7, 2015 at 2:17 pm |

    ….why, yes, repetitive but worth repeating, albeit paraphrasing the above notes:

    Why is the New York Times dismissing Sanders, O'Malley, and Chafee by giving them a few lines on the front page, and then pivots immediately back to Hillary's campaigning within a day, if not, within hours.

    Polls continue to show Americans favor increasing taxes on the One Percenters, campaign finance reform, reigning in Wall Street, wanting Congress to vote "No" on XL Pipeline and "No" on the TPP, wanting gun control, etc… but what does Congress do instead…… votes against the interest of the majority. And the johnny-come-lately media like the NYT then wonders why voter participation is so low in this country. The above-mentioned issues are not Left/Right issues, rather, views shared by a majority of citizens reflected across many polling platforms.

    The worst offender, I would argue is with the Democratic Party. At least the Republicans are coming around to the notion that they don't need to continue to pretend they're bidding on behalf of "hard-working Americans," rather instead, bidding on behalf of billionaires.

    Hillary equals more of the same, status quo, corporate stooge, trying to sound "Black" in South Carolina 'cause she thinks they're not very bright nor White nor ivy-league material like herself; otherwise, why, the fake souuuthern talk, Hillary?

    Why isn't the New York Times hitting harder on Hillary's silence on the TPP, XL Pipeline, foreign governments that benefited from their contributions to the Clinton Foundation ($2 billion +) while Hillary was serving as Secretary of State?

    Desperate times require desperate blogggging.

  • Annie | June 7, 2015 at 3:39 pm |

    Since 911, the hysteria and excuse for every criminal assault on the individual in USA by the REVOLUTIONARY CABAL (Foreign "Firsters") has been "national security"….they PROTECT themselves – everyone else was raped and looted by these HOOLIGAN predators who had unfettered access to the individual's LIFE thanks to The Patriot Act – they proceeded to steal JOBS, property, savings, even social clubs like Amateur Astronomy and, the most iniquitous, the infiltration of CHURCH!

    Every time one of the CRIMINALS embedded in D.C. as a "representative" of the people speaks about MY "security", I yell back at the screen – "where were you when my JOB, HOME, AND SAVINGS were stolen"?!

    I have no government in my corner as a USA born and bred citizen.

    The evidence for that FACT is overwhelming.

    And there is no force of law that will allow us to DIVORCE ourselves of the Hooligan Cabal of fortune telling and STEALING CLOWNS that are begging to be the Joker sycophant in the White House.

    7 billion and counting and the CLOWNS have bent their knees to GLOBAL War, Drug and Slave Lords for MY "security"….??!!

  • Anonymouse | June 7, 2015 at 5:38 pm |

    It was more for their security disguised as "yours". Works for them every time too.

  • Annie | June 8, 2015 at 3:23 pm |

    They will be learning what "get the fck OUT" means.

    JUST WAR

    DEBATE has been FORBIDDEN about the TPP – did you all know that?

    They LIED us into war, same cabal making deals with the vein of the human species who takes the biologic-roach approach to power – overpopulation.

    from wiki – "Thomas Aquinas[edit]

    Nine hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas - an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism - used the authority of Augustine's arguments as he laid out the conditions under which a war could be just:[14]
    First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end-God.)
    Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace.)
    Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[15] (Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention.)"

    If Everything is about "making money", that is a RADICALIZED and nihilistic policy…..totalitarian NIHILISM.

  • Annie | June 8, 2015 at 3:27 pm |

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hrh-the-prince-of-wales/a-magna-carta-for-the-earth_b_7504234.html

    Can't trust the future of humanity to those who loath humanity – "for the money"….

  • 2016 | June 8, 2015 at 8:42 pm |

    Infograph poll results, June 2015:

    The top, middle, and bottom questions:
    79% want "Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices" / 12% oppose
    58% want "Break Up e Big Banks (Message A)" / 23% oppose
    44% want "Ban For-Prot Prisons" / 37% oppose

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprogressives.org/images/Big_Ideas-Polling_PDF-1.pdf

  • 2016 | June 9, 2015 at 7:51 pm |

    Forgot to mention this but as of yesterday, Ready for Warren officially disbanded. Hanging their hopes for Senator Warren to run for POTUS for so long, became futile.

    Wonder if Senator Warren is going to back Senator Bernie Sanders. Thom is all giddy that Sanders has pulled in within nine points of Hillary in the Wisconsin straw poll. But he continues to let his ideological and political leanings cloud his better judgment by coming out with continued nonsense about not knowing where Hillary may stand on the TPP and other issues. If Hillary didn't have a "D" after her name along with name recognition, and instead had an "R" for Republican after her name, Thom would be all over that phony opportunist before you could spell out the word liar.

    They stormed Capitol Hill…waving their pitchforks with U.S. Constitution in hand. #No-To-TPP

[Jun 13, 2015]The Index Of Evil Whos The Bad Guy Now

"...Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Lindsey Graham come to mind, along with John McCain, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and all the other clownish warmongers."
Zero Hedge
Let us finish our series, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." We've been looking at how, when everybody's a lawbreaker, it's hard to spot the real criminals. (To catch up, here's Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.)

You'll recall that we imagined a conversation between two German soldiers on the Eastern Front in 1943. "Klaus, are we the bad guys here?" one might have asked the other.

Yesterday, we mentioned a few "bad guys." It was no trouble to find them. Just check the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C.

But today we move on – beyond the two-bit bullies, chiselers, and zombies – to the really ugly guys. Who are the evil ones?

It's easy to see evil in dead people. Stalin... Hitler... Pol Pot... people who tortured and killed just to feel good. The jaws of Hell must open especially wide to let them in.

But who should go to the devil today?

Counting the Bodies

It is not for us to say. But we can make some recommendations:

Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Lindsey Graham come to mind, along with John McCain, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and all the other clownish warmongers.

Of course, we want to be fair and respectful. Each should definitely get an impartial hearing… and then his own lamppost.

... ... ...

[Jun 11, 2015] Clinton might not have the intellectual capacity to discern critically important distinctions

Looks like Hillary is just another puppet.
.
"...My own antenna always goes up when I hear a politician assert as fact a generic statement that is intended to imply what I know is a falsity or that patently makes no sense. In this instance, it was both, and, stunningly, was intended to imply a false fact that supports a key line in the Republican playbook: that federal regulation is keeping middle-class folks from starting or expanding a small business."
.
"...Elsewhere in her LinkedIn letter she says that it takes longer to complete small-business federal tax forms than it is to complete multi-national corporations' federal tax forms. Maybe so, but is that because the multi-nationals keep PricewaterhouseCoopers or Deloitte on retainer and the owners of the Thai food restaurant down the road probably don't? She doesn't say. She thinks the ultimate in clever political rhetoric is to make some dramatic comparison; the accuracy and even the coherence of the comparison doesn't matter to her."
.
"...Vanden Heuvel's column, titled "A new definition of freedom in America," argues that the term "freedom" has had different meanings in different political eras, and that it's imperative now that the Democratic presidential nominee, presumably Clinton, move aggressively away from the Conservative Movement definition of freedom as economic laisse faire, and reinstitute and expand upon FDR's famous Four Freedoms."
June 10, 2015 | Angry Bear
What Worries Me Most About Clinton: That she may not have the intellectual capacity to discern even critically important distinctions. Including glaring ones.

"It should not take longer to start a business in America than it does in Canada or France. But that is the fact."

— Hillary Clinton, during a small business discussion, Cedar Falls, Iowa, May 19, 2015

Our antenna always goes up when a politician asserts a "fact." Clinton made this remark in the midst of a discussion about the "perfect storm of crisis" that she said small businesses face in the United States.

She made a similar point in an article she posted on LinkedIn on May 21, but with an additional country added: "It should not take longer to start a business in the U.S. than it does in Canada, Korea, or France."

Clinton's claim that it takes longer to start a business in the U.S. than in Canada or France, Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, May 22

My own antenna always goes up when I hear a politician assert as fact a generic statement that is intended to imply what I know is a falsity or that patently makes no sense. In this instance, it was both, and, stunningly, was intended to imply a false fact that supports a key line in the Republican playbook: that federal regulation is keeping middle-class folks from starting or expanding a small business.

Marco Rubio claimed something similar in April—to which Martin O'Malley famously responded, when asked about it in an interview, "It is not true that regulation holds poor people down or regulation keeps the middle class from advancing. That's kind of patently bulls—." And Jeb Bush hinted at it a couple of months earlier.

When I read about Clinton's statements before I read Kessler's post (I didn't see the post until about a week after it was posted), I was absolutely dumbfounded. As Kessler notes, Clinton complains about "red tape" in starting small businesses and says that the length of time in starting a business, caused by red tape, keeps people from starting businesses. The claim startled me; most red tape in starting businesses is state and local red tape, not federal, and the amount and type of red tape depends almost entirely upon the type of business and factors such as whether it requires a trade license of some sort (e.g., beautician), or a liquor license, and whether a permit of some sort must be obtained. Opening a restaurant, for example, requires local health department permits and adherence to health department rules. It also requires procuring a physical space in which to have the restaurant, and usually also means obtaining a business loan. Starting a home-based web-design business requires none of those things. The incorporation process involves filing a short filled-out form with the state Secretary of State's office and paying a fee.

Clinton doesn't know these things?

So the generic breadth of her statement was stupefying. She holds a law degree from Yale, was a partner in a corporate law firm, an active First Lady of a state and then of the country. Did she really not know that most red tape in starting a business does not touch upon anything that the federal government regulates? Or did she have something accurate and specific in mind, but rather than identifying it, indulged her penchant for talking in incoherencies apparently in order to avoid ever saying anything specific about, well, anything?

Kessler's post answered that question. She did indeed have something specific in question: average statistics for businesses that employ between 10 and 50 people within one month, having five owners, using start-up capital equivalent to 10 times income per capita and being engaged in industrial or commercial activities and owning no real estate. In Los Angeles, where it takes an average of eight days to start such a business. Whereas in Paris it takes only 4.5 days and in Toronto five days. In New York City, though, it takes only four days.

Clinton lives near New York City and represented New York state as a senator. She knows that New York City is in this country.

This information was taken from the World Bank website, which, Kessler says, provides statistics that "lets you compare the individual cities to countries, so New York ends up tied for 6th place — with Belgium, Iceland, South Korea, the Netherlands and Sao Tome." Los Angeles, he says, is in 15th place, tied with Cyprus, Egypt, Madagascar and the Kyrgyz Republic, among others. Oh, dear. But he points to another World Bank report that notes that "the differences are so large because, in the United States, 'company law is under state jurisdiction and there are measurable differences between the California and New York company law.'"

I knew that! I should run for president in the Democratic primary. Every small-business owner and aspiring small-business owner knows that, so I'd have a natural constituency. And I have the advantage of actually recognizing problems that do affect many small businesses and that the federal government can address, by regulation. Including ones that recent Democratic congresses, together with a Democratic president, actually enacted.

Kessler comments, "So what does data about starting a business in the largest city have to do with small businesses in Iowa? Beats us." It surely also beats small-business owners and people who are seriously considering becoming one. Including those who are fairly recent immigrants to this country and who don't hold a law degree from Yale.

Kessler notes that even if Clinton were accurate in her claim that it takes longer, on average, throughout this country than in the other countries she mentioned to start small businesses generally, the difference would be a matter of a day or two. He writes:

The World Bank's database lists 189 countries in terms of the time required to start a business. For 2014, in first place is New Zealand, with one day. In France and Canada, along with eight other countries, it takes five days. (South Korea, along with six other countries, is listed as four days.) The United States, with 12 other countries, is listed as six days.

First of all, one extra day does not seem like much of a hindrance — so much so that, as Clinton asserted in the LinkedIn article, the fact signified the "red tape that holds back small businesses and entrepreneurs."

This is crazy. What, pray tell, is her point? To show that she's too dumb to recognize distinctions between state and federal regulation, and between one type of small business and another? If you've seen one small business, you've seen 'em all? And if you've seen state or local regulation, you've seen federal regulation?

Elsewhere in her LinkedIn letter she says that it takes longer to complete small-business federal tax forms than it is to complete multi-national corporations' federal tax forms. Maybe so, but is that because the multi-nationals keep PricewaterhouseCoopers or Deloitte on retainer and the owners of the Thai food restaurant down the road probably don't? She doesn't say. She thinks the ultimate in clever political rhetoric is to make some dramatic comparison; the accuracy and even the coherence of the comparison doesn't matter to her.

Clinton does this conflation/sweeping-two-or-more-things-together-that-need-to-be-recognizated-as-separate-things thing regularly. In her brief comment in Iowa in April in which she said she would support a constitutional amendment, if necessary, to reverse Citizens United and get "unaccountable" money out of politics, she misrepresented that Citizens United bars election laws that would require super PACs to identify their donors, and corporations to report the recipients of their political largesse. It doesn't. No constitutional amendment is needed to permit such statutes and SEC, IRS and FEC regulations.

I had planned to post on all this earlier but didn't get around to it. But two articles published in recent days, one in the Washington Post last weekend about the 2008 Clinton campaign's gift of snow shovels to supporters in Iowa before the caucuses, the other a Washington Post column yesterday by Katrina vanden Heuvel, prompted this post. The snow shovels article, by David Fahrenthold, begins:

AMES, Iowa — In Phyllis Peters's garage, there is a snow shovel. A nice one: green, shiny, with an ergonomic steel handle. It came from Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And it plays a part in a modern-day political legend, about some of the strangest money a candidate has ever spent.

Eight years ago, Peters was a volunteer for Clinton's first presidential run. She had been an admirer of Clinton since her time as first lady. But just before Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses, her staffers did something odd: They bought shovels for Peters and the hundreds of other volunteers.

"If you're in Iowa, you [already] have a snow shovel," the article quotes Peters as saying. But she accepted the gift so as not to be rude. "For both those who gave out the shovels and those who received them," the article says, "they came to symbolize a candidate who never quite got their home state."

Clinton grew up in a suburb of Chicago, then spent four winters in Wellesley, MA. That was decades ago. But, geeez. She didn't get cold-climate folks?

Vanden Heuvel's column, titled "A new definition of freedom in America," argues that the term "freedom" has had different meanings in different political eras, and that it's imperative now that the Democratic presidential nominee, presumably Clinton, move aggressively away from the Conservative Movement definition of freedom as economic laisse faire, and reinstitute and expand upon FDR's famous Four Freedoms. She writes:

This is Hillary Clinton's historic opportunity. The greatest threat to freedom now is posed by the entrenched few that use their resources and influence to rig the rules to protect their privileges. She would do a great service for the country — and for her own political prospects — by offering a far more expansive American view of what freedom requires, and what threatens it.

Clinton should make it clear to Americans that in a modern, globalized world, we are in the midst of a fierce struggle between economic royalists and a democratic citizenry. If we are to protect our freedoms, citizens must mobilize to take back government from the few, to clean out the corruption and to curb the oppressive power of the modern day economic royalists.

But this requires a candidate who is both mentally quick enough and willing to respond, accurately and in specifics, to the Republican anti-regulation, supply-side-economics nonsense. Clinton doesn't seem like she has either of these attributes.

Clinton appears to think that all that matters is the generic ideas people have about what she stands for, and a few specific policy proposals all in good time. She's wrong. She needs to respond, in full oral statements, using clear fact-based arguments, to the anti-government policy cant of the Republican sheep herd, from which her opponent eventually will come. But I don't think she can.

—-

ADDENDUM: I posted a comment in response to a comment by Mark Jamison that says in part:

One thing that comes through loud and clear from her attempt to Sister Souljah small-business owners and aspirants, Mark, is that she thinks Democrats NEED a Sister Souljah moment for small-business owners and aspirants. Dick Durbin could educate her on that, simply by referring her to what's known as the Durbin Amendment.

Another thing that comes across is that, just as she didn't realize in 2008 that Iowans all have snow shovels, she apparently doesn't recognize that small-business owners and aspirants want solutions to problems that they actually have, and that that requires knowing the specifics of the problem, including the cause.

I want to make clear that the concerns of small-business owners are very much appropriate issues for progressive Democratic politicians to address. And that progressive Democratic elected officials do address them–the Durbin amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act being an example. What Democratic candidates and officeholders should not do is create straw men for them to swat down.

Mark Jamison June 10, 2015 4:42 pm

I could very easily imagine Mrs. Clinton having a moment similar to Poppy Bush's astonishment at the price scanners in a grocery store. With few exceptions, most notably Warren and Sanders, our politicians much above the lowest local levels are part of an elite that has no conception much less a connection with what the life of most Americans is like (I hesitate to say average because there may not be such a thing).

Her "starting a business" comment is one of those banal, off the shelf, ready made campaign vomit sentences that insults the intelligence of any thinking being. It's not even one step away from the standard Republican talking point regurgitation that salutes small business while advocating ALEC sponsored corporate policies.

I've got a Sanders sign in the front yard and it will stay there until November 2016. If Clinton is the nominee I will grudgingly vote for her because of SCOTUS but I will do so unenthusiastically. In the meantime I will work for local candidates who show promise in the hopes of building a progressive bench that can push aside .01 percenters.

Beverly Mann June 10, 2015 5:01 pm

One thing that comes through loud and clear from her attempt to Sister Souljah small-business owners and aspirants, Mark, is that she thinks Democrats NEED a Sister Souljah moment for small-business owners and aspirants. Dick Durbin could educate her on that, simply by referring her to what's known as the Durbin Amendment.

Another thing that comes across is that, just as she didn't realize in 2008 that Iowans all have snow shovels, she apparently doesn't recognize that small-business owners and aspirants want solutions to problems that they actually have, and that that requires knowing the specifics of the problem, including the cause.

She'll win because, well, the Republican nominee won't. But she could have been beaten in the primaries by, say, Sherrod Brown or Jeff Merkley. Someone very progressive who thinks and speaks like a normal person rather than an automaton and is younger than Sanders.

[Jun 11, 2015] For Jeb Bush, a Tepid Media Reception to European Trip

Jun 11, 2015 | vzglyad.ru
Jun 11, 2015 | NYTimes.com

Jeb Bush's Europe trip is intended to help bolster his foreign policy credentials for American voters, but in the countries he is visiting — Germany, Poland and Estonia — the visit appears to be making few headlines.

A commentary in the German newspaper Der Spiegel ahead of Mr. Bush's arrival argued that while the former Republican governor of Florida is more rational and careful than his brother, former President George W. Bush, his reluctance to make amends with Cuba and Iran are problematic.

Mr. Bush heads to Poland on Wednesday to meet with President-elect Andrzej Duda.

Radio Poland described the trip as an opportunity for the likely presidential candidate to "highlight the success of neo-liberal economic policies in Europe." It also referred to Mr. Bush's older brother as "naïve" on foreign affairs but said that the trip could eventually be helpful for securing military contracts between the United States and Poland.

The article noted that there are 10 million Poles living in the United States and that some Polish-American groups have been critical of Mr. Bush's stances on immigration.

Mr. Bush concludes his European trip in Estonia. While the visit has garnered little media attention so far, it has not gone unnoticed among Estonian diplomats in the United States. During a campaign stop last week, Mr. Bush praised Estonia's tax system and the fact that it takes only five minutes to file online. Estonia also uses a flat tax of about 20 percent, which might be less appealing to some Americans.

"It's always good when someone is acknowledging what we do," said Maria Belovas, a spokeswoman for the Estonian Embassy in Washington. "It's good when people notice that and cite us as an example."

[Jun 11, 2015] Bush plans to play russia card agains Hillary

"...During his trip Jeb Bush to Germany, Poland and Estonia Jeb Bush wants to kill at least two birds with one stone: to enlist the support of critical of the Russia Europeans and to demonstrate the failure of the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton – its main competitor. The weapon of choice in both cases is one of the anti-Russian rhetoric."
"...The United States opposes the policies of Putin, but the Russian people they support and consider him a "victim of the reckless behavior of their President", quotes the NYT Bush.
And he even have a plan for saving it. "The United States and Russia need to clarify the relationship. We don't want to throw Russia a generation ago. In the end, Russia must be European power. First of all we should contribute to the isolation of its corrupt leaders from their own people", – quotes his statement to the Associated Press."
"...At the end of his speech, the presidential candidate the US has urged together to combat "Russian aggression". "Showing in advance of the inevitable consequences of bad behavior, we will be able to deter possible aggression from Russia, which we all fear. But, in response, usually rather reserved, we only give Putin the opportunity to behave badly. Who can doubt that Russia will do what you like, if her aggression remains unanswered?" "asked Bush. The Germans applauded and sighed."
"...Anti-Russian component will be quite significant in the election campaign of Jeb Bush, believes in American studies, co-editor of the website Terra America Boris Mezhuev. "This is an easy opportunity to be rigid, not engaging in internal conflicts within the Bush clan""
Jun 11, 2015 | vzglyad.ru

During his trip Jeb Bush to Germany, Poland and Estonia Jeb Bush wants to kill at least two birds with one stone: to enlist the support of critical of the Russia Europeans and to demonstrate the failure of the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton – its main competitor. The weapon of choice in both cases is one of the anti-Russian rhetoric.

"Bush will not stop and will scold Russia, at least until the end of 2016. If only ISIS would break out in Jerusalem, it will force Bush to change his mind"

The call to confront Vladimir Putin will remain a Central theme throughout European tour policy, told Bush aides. At the end of the week it will be joined by his consultant, former state Department official Kenneth Juster, known for his statement that "Putin has destroyed international norms of invading Crimea and seizing the territory." "It should shock the international community," claimed jester.

"Putin is a ruthless pragmatist"

In Germany Bush noted the importance of the role of NATO. "Who can argue against that, when we see the fate of Ukraine, where the slowly unfolding tragedy?" – he turned to the audience. And moved on to the main theme of his tour – the relations with Russia. "We need to understand that Putin is a ruthless pragmatist, said Bush. – He will not stop until someone does not jerk him to a halt. And I believe that it will make NATO. It is our responsibility to protect the countries of the block, and it serves to strengthen security."

The United States opposes the policies of Putin, but the Russian people they support and consider him a "victim of the reckless behavior of their President", quotes the NYT Bush.

And he even have a plan for saving it. "The United States and Russia need to clarify the relationship. We don't want to throw Russia a generation ago. In the end, Russia must be European power. First of all we should contribute to the isolation of its corrupt leaders from their own people", – quotes his statement to the Associated Press.

After Bush outlined the main threats, and methods of dealing with them, he moved on to the next important aspect of the spending budget to strengthen NATO. It is known that very few European countries can afford the increase in the defense budget until required by the Alliance of two percent of GDP. Germany, for example, spend on the military 32.2 billion dollars, which is only 1.09 per cent of GDP.

Jeb Bush expressed concern about the observed reduction in charges. However, in saying this, he made a smart move, accusing it of not the German authorities, and the U.S. government. "Reducing our defense budget is destructive, and they were the wrong signal to our European NATO allies, whom we call upon to make their defence spending accounted for no less than two percent of GDP," said Bush, adding that the US should increase defense spending.

"One of the responsibilities of the next President is to rebuild our armed forces, to stop the automatic spending reductions which send cooling signals to our allies," he added. Note that the US military budget compared to 2014 year increased in monetary terms – with 511,2 billion to $ 513 billion, but in relation to GDP it fell from 3.6 percent to 3.4.

Estonia is now the only NATO country, which even exceeded the requirements of the Alliance – its defense budget in 2015 will amount to 2.05 percent of GDP. Poland these figures can not boast, but she increased the budget to 6.6 billion euros for 2015. In 2014 Poland spent on these needs much less of 5.6 billion euros. However, the country still does not gain the required two percent.

"As for Poland, the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe in General, I believe that NATO is taking the right steps today, however, they could be more determined, says Jeb Bush. – We need Russia to send a signal about the possible consequences. I welcome the efforts of Chancellor Merkel, her position on sanctions against Russia, taking into account the economic interests of German business in this country. This is the principled position it has consistently held", – he said approvingly.

At the end of his speech, the presidential candidate the US has urged together to combat "Russian aggression". "Showing in advance of the inevitable consequences of bad behavior, we will be able to deter possible aggression from Russia, which we all fear. But, in response, usually rather reserved, we only give Putin the opportunity to behave badly. Who can doubt that Russia will do what you like, if her aggression remains unanswered?" "asked Bush. The Germans applauded and sighed.

The main and very serious competitor Jeb Bush in the campaign for the presidency is former U.S. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Despite the abundance of criticism in its address, and also at a serious information campaign waged by Republicans against her, Clinton is still the favorite of the race.

To blacken the reputation of Clinton, the Republicans, the main candidate on which now stands Jeb Bush, is tactics: they criticize former Secretary of state for the foreign policy failures. For a long time, "elephants" tried to denounce Clinton for the failure of operations in Benghazi, when during the rally were killed American citizens, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya. To this end data were carefully examined her correspondence, which had to prove that Clinton knew about the threat, but did nothing to rescue the Ambassador. However, digging the Benghazi attack did not give the expected result, and opponents pulled out the trump card – the so-called reset button, donated to her by the Russian foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2009.

"We are beginning to understand that the reset button was not what was needed," said Jeb Bush, speaking in Berlin. Now the opponents of the Democrats lay all the problems associated with Russia, Barack Obama, since the Ukrainian conflict began in the period of his presidency. But as Obama himself for them are not potentially dangerous, it made sense that Clinton will be the main target of the Republicans in this matter, as the person who started the reboot.

The Republicans really need to make a major effort to overtake Clinton, or at least closer to its positions. Now, according to polls, she is the leader among all of the candidates for President. However, Jeb Bush is not discouraged about it. "I haven't seen these polls," he said to the journalists who spoke to him on Wednesday in Germany. "You know, it's very fun to read polls, when you win. Less fun when you're not winning. But I think it's not important. Now only June, and it is too early to cry. We have a long road ahead".

Anti-Russian component will be quite significant in the election campaign of Jeb Bush, believes in American studies, co-editor of the website Terra America Boris Mezhuev. "This is an easy opportunity to be rigid, not engaging in internal conflicts within the Bush clan" – he said to THE VIEW newspaper .

[Jun 11, 2015] The real story behind Jeb's Iraq follies The Bush Doctrine lives on in GOP

European News

It turns out that "knowing what we know now, should we have invaded Iraq?" isn't all that complicated a question for Republicans to answer, at least Republicans who aren't named Bush. After trying to evade the question the first time, Jeb Bush gave it another shot, with no more success. Now he says that "I don't know what that decision would've been," because "that's a hypothetical but the simple fact was mistakes were made, as they always are in life and foreign policy." Ah yes, mistakes were made.

But we've also heard from two other Republican candidates, and they've been a lot more clear. Says Chris Christie: "I don't think you can honestly say that if we knew then that there was no WMD, that the country should have gone to war." And when Ted Cruz was asked whether he would have invaded, he answered: "Of course not. The entire predicate of the war against Iraq was the intelligence that showed they had weapons of mass destruction and that there was a real risk they might use them."

There are few things we in the media love more than an intra-party argument (not to mention a front-running candidate stumbling), so this controversy is already getting plenty of attention and will surely get more. It's encouraging to see an acknowledgement that the Iraq War was a mistake finally become majority opinion in the GOP, given that it was probably the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in American history.

But before we make too much of that shift, we need to be clear that the actual substantive disagreements between the candidates are much smaller than it would appear if you were just tuning in now. Republicans may be criticizing Jeb Bush, but they aren't coming at him from the left, and they aren't actually turning their backs on most of what his brother represented.

That isn't to say there's no difference of opinion within the party on Iraq. Most former Bush administration officials will defend the invasion to their dying day and insist that it was a grand idea, whether there were any weapons of mass destruction or not. Those who have less of a personal stake in the war vary more in their opinions (of all the actual and potential Republican candidates, only Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum were in the Senate in 2003 and voted for the resolution approving the war).

But opinions don't actually vary all that much. All the candidates agree that we should increase military spending. With the exception of Rand Paul, all express an unrestrained enthusiasm for military adventurism. That's one thing Iraq hasn't changed: Republicans still believe that the application of military force is a great way to solve problems around the world.

The only difference of opinion comes after the first wave of bombing. Ted Cruz explicitly warns against nation-building, but he doesn't express any reservations about the use of military force. Later today, Marco Rubio will give a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations about his foreign policy views, and they sound an awful lot like George W. Bush's: increase military spending and spread American values with "moral clarity."

Scott Walker wants to dump any deal on Iran's nuclear program the moment he takes office, making military action there far more likely. So does Marco Rubio. None of the GOP candidates will say he wants to occupy Iran. But military action against the country's nuclear facilities ought to be, as any of them will tell you, "on the table."

Again with the exception of Paul, none of the candidates seems willing to grapple with the possibility that there are unintended consequences to military action that we need to be wary of. At most, they think the problems come only when you stick around too long after reducing a nation to rubble. And when you listen to them talk about Barack Obama's foreign policy record, the word they use over and over again is "weak." The problem is never that some situations we confront offer no good options, or that our decisions can backfire, or that there are places where America may not be able to set things right to the benefit of all. The problem is always weakness, and strength is always the solution.

Everyone understands why Jeb Bush is floundering around trying to answer the question of whether the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning: It was his brother's war. But neither he nor his opponents seem to have learned much from the experience, whether we're asking about concocting phony intelligence to sell a war you've already decided you want, believing that all the "bad guys" in the world must be in cahoots, seeing every foreign policy question in black and white, or putting blind faith in the idea that "strength" is all you need to succeed.

The George W. Bush years provided an emphatic refutation of the ideas underlying Republican foreign policy, but few in the party seem to have gotten the message, even if they have some minor disagreements today. They might not be looking at the invasion of Iraq in exactly the same way, but few in the party are asking anything but the most superficial questions about what lessons we might learn from it.

Paul Waldman is a contributor to The Plum Line blog, and a senior writer at The American Prospect.

Plum Line

[Jun 11, 2015] Jeb Bush, on European Tour, Opens by Rebuking Putin

A neocon is always a neocon.
.
"...Mr. Bush took pains to articulate an American foreign policy that would take aim at Mr. Putin and his allies but not alienate the Russian people, whom he cast as victims of their president's reckless behavior. "We should never do it in a way that pushes Russia away for a generation of time," Mr. Bush said."
.
"... Mr. Putin, and the need to confront him, would be a recurring focus of his trip, which will also take him to Poland and, finally, Estonia, a former Russian-controlled territory whose population has been deeply unsettled by Russian actions in Ukraine."
Jun 11, 2015 | NYTimes.com

BERLIN – Jeb Bush on Tuesday delivered a forceful rebuke of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a city once sundered by Soviet aggression, calling him a "ruthless pragmatist," demanding the isolation of the country's "corrupt leadership" and vowing to reassert American primacy in the fight to contain Russia's territorial ambitions.

Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida who is expected to announce his campaign for president next week, seemed determined on the opening day of a European tour to project resolve against a Russian foe who has increasingly rankled and baffled American leaders.

Mr. Bush invoked Ronald Reagan's plea to Mikhail S. Gorbachev, then the leader of the Soviet Union, to "tear down this wall," as well as the legacy of his own father, George Bush, who lent vital American support to the reunification of Germany once the wall eventually fell.

His criticism was directed, above all, at an American audience of Republican voters who believe that President Obama has failed to hold Mr. Putin accountable for his interventions in Ukraine, and who are clamoring for an aggressive foreign policy leader as their nominee in 2016.

"Who can doubt," Mr. Bush asked, "that Russia will do what it pleases if its aggression goes unanswered?"

Mr. Bush took pains to articulate an American foreign policy that would take aim at Mr. Putin and his allies but not alienate the Russian people, whom he cast as victims of their president's reckless behavior.

"We should never do it in a way that pushes Russia away for a generation of time," Mr. Bush said.

He extolled Berlin as a "reminder for the ages that freedom cannot be walled off," a message that resonated with the crowd of businessmen and women aligned with the center-right Christian Democrats, the party of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Ms. Merkel herself shook Mr. Bush's hand and exchanged brief pleasantries as she prepared to take the stage. But it was unclear whether, at this early stage of the American presidential campaign, she would grant him or any other candidate a private audience.

Mr. Bush was careful to summon the White House record of his father, but not his brother, who remains unpopular in Germany, calling the elder Mr. Bush "the greatest man alive" — a line that drew warm and sustained applause.

... ... ...

Advisers to Mr. Bush said that Mr. Putin, and the need to confront him, would be a recurring focus of his trip, which will also take him to Poland and, finally, Estonia, a former Russian-controlled territory whose population has been deeply unsettled by Russian actions in Ukraine.

"Putin shattered international norms by going into Crimea and grabbing that territory," said Kenneth Juster, a former State Department official who is advising Mr. Bush and will join him on the trip later this week. "That's something that should shock the international system."

"No one is seeking a conflict with Russia," Mr. Juster added. "But if someone is probing and is not getting as much resistance as he expects, then he keeps probing."

Many Germans, whose own scarred history has left them deeply reluctant to engage in military conflict, remain openly conflicted about over how to respond to Russian aggression, a mood detected in the audience Mr. Bush spoke to Tuesday night. In interviews, several of them expressed dismay with Mr. Obama's handling of his Russian counterpart, calling it an unimpressive show of American muscularity.

... ... ...

[Jun 11, 2015] Jeb Bush Gets Schooled By College Student for Spouting War Rhetoric

It is true that Project for the New American Century (PNAC) core ideas were expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The Sunday Herald referred to the report as a "blueprint for U.S. world domination." (http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html) That means that Jeb Bush is a dyed in the wool neocon.
.
"...'Your brother created ISIS,' declared 19-year-old Ivy Ziedrich."
.
"...In order to know for certain that Jeb Bush is a true neocon all one required to know is to google project for a new american century. In this web page one encounters evil incarnate Dick Cheney sight. Opening page written by notorious war monger Jeb Bush himself own words."
.
"...how do you mention JFK in the same sentence as the Bush Crime Family. Poppy said he didn't remember where he was on 11/22/63. The liar was in Dallas with the other conspirators. Jeb seems as dumb as 'the village idiot'. First he said he backed the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, Iraq. Today he said it was wrong to go into Iraq. Someone told the boob to disavow his idiot brother. Too late Jebby."
Common Dreams

'Your brother created ISIS,' declared 19-year-old Ivy Ziedrich.

Former Florida governor and potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who has been clumsily defending his brother's widely-discredited decision to invade Iraq in 2003, on Wednesday was schooled by a university student for "spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars."

During one of his much-publicized town hall meetings in Reno, Nevada, 19-year-old Ivy Ziedrich gave Bush a history lesson that was caught on video.

"It was when 30,000 individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons," she said. "Your brother created ISIS."

Seemingly unsure of how to respond, Bush replied in a dismissive tone: "All right, is that a question."

Ziedrich's response: "You don't need to be pedantic to me, sir."

"Why are you saying that ISIS was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it's pointless wars where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism?" she demanded. "Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?"

"We respectfully disagree," retorted Bush.

Ziedrich, who said she is a member of the Young Democrats at her school, reflected on the exchange in a phone interview with ABC News.

"I think he's telling the truth as he understands it," she said. "I think it's important when we have people in positions of authority we demand a dialogue and accountability."

The exchange can be viewed in the video below.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

reddbear

If it wasn't for Jeb Bush we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. We wouldn't have had the financial cash. There wouldn't had been a crisis during Katrina. No high unemployment. Possibly no 9-11 and maybe no or slowed climate change. Not to mention what he done as gov of Florida. Because he purged voters for his brother Al Gore lost the election, thus giving us the worsew president in history. Enough said

Steven

I am not a big fan of Jeb Bush, but if you are going to transcribe comments, the candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination answer should be written out so I can read that too. I am not looking to be sold a narrative. I read what she said, I want to read what he said. Journalism, not politics, please.

J_Crandell

O.K. but what he says at the end of the video - he suggests that we ought to have gone in full force to solve the threat of an ISIS ever evolving. Essentially, that would have involved nuclear weapons, the wiping out of an entire society.

The same sentiment has continually been voiced by conservatives over the Vietnam war, that we should have used full force and gotten out. THAT would have require carpet bombing of North Vietnam with nuclear weapons, which is what madman Nixon wanted to do but was blocked by more sane minds in the White House.

warrior0713

In order to know for certain that Jeb Bush is a true neocon all one required to know is to google project for a new american century. In this web page one encounters evil incarnate Dick Cheney sight. Opening page written by notorious war monger Jeb Bush himself own words. Note date well before 9/11/01. In it Jeb states need for a new Pearl Harbor. Marvin Bush an executive for firm providing security for world trade center. Therefore Bushes had access to wire complex. No buildings in history of this particular type has ever collapsed by fires even when they burned for over a day. Yet no real investigation of 9/11/01. Unless you consider the white wash an investigation I do not. Jeb answered truthfully to Kelly on fox. He is surrounding himself with the exact same neocons as had his brother. If Americans would look at this sight he ought be unelectable for dog catcher. Please avail your for a new american centuryself we do not need war mongers running america.

raydelcamino

Skeletons in the Kennedy clan closets indeed don't come close to the Bush legacy that flows from Jeb's grandpa Preston Bush being among the US 1%ers pushing for the US to go fascist during the 1930s to the extent that they contracted retired US Army General Smedley Butler to assassinate FDR. Although Butler purposely foiled the plot, the Bush family has continued to push for fascism.

thylacine

Steven,

Whatever he actually said is irrelevant, for all intents and purposes. What he was thinking is what counts. And let me transcribe what he was thinking for you: "You stupid bitch, I don't give a crap about you or about anything that you have to say. I'm just up here putting on a facade for the corporate media. I'm reading a script, and the script is part of a theatrical event which you think of as "politics," but which is really just a production of the entertainment division of the military industrial Wall Street complex."

wlawlor

WalterPewen,

how do you mention JFK in the same sentence as the Bush Crime Family. Poppy said he didn't remember where he was on 11/22/63. The liar was in Dallas with the other conspirators. Jeb seems as dumb as 'the village idiot'. First he said he backed the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, Iraq. Today he said it was wrong to go into Iraq. Someone told the boob to disavow his idiot brother. Too late Jebby.

WalterPewen

wlawlor ,

Apologies if it seems weird. The reason I bring it up is because of the endless crap we had to endure on any dirt about the Kennedys. It went on for decades, still does. Some similarity between Obama and JFK in that there's a sizable quadrant that just can't stand that they got in. I still hear shit about Joe Kennedy.

And, at 56 I am still angered that Robert did not get a chance at the presidency. Yes Joe did the liquor licensing, mistress, etc. So fucking what? The goal was for the kids to go into public service, and they did (everybody knows).

So to me comparing the two families is valid because it shows how hard it is to buck what the U.S. traditionally is at the top level. Yuk. FDR was one of the only ones who told them to shove it and succeeded.

The Bush clan need to be stopped, I myself do not know how.

BenHecht

This guy is part of a family that are war makers. they profit from war machines. the lowest of the low.

MaPol

WalterPewen

One must bear in mind, however, that Elizabeth Warren is not running for POTUS. She publicly said so.

WalterPewen

True. But importantly, Robert Reich and Move On are behind the draft Warren movement. Even if she doesn't change her mind, because of Reich the correct things are being said on a consistent basis. I see this as the biggest problem the Democrats have had since Reagan switched the dialog years ago. Because of his evasive, slimy crew money issues have not been addressed in a simple, no-nonsense way. Bill Clinton couldn't do it. Hilary has to.

[Jun 01, 2015] Rand Paul's Money Troubles

...militaristic meddling in the Middle East is what Republicans do!
May 29, 2015 | The Washington Monthly

...It looked like he was cruising into the presidential cycle having blurred his distinctive views—especially on foreign policy—enough to keep the entire GOP from anathemizing him like the Old Man, while keeping enough edge on certain issues to support his unusual electability rationale as the candidate of the Cool Kids and maybe even some African-Americans. That he did another high-profile filibuster on NSA data collection seemed a bit excessive from a purely political point of view.

But the real shocker was his gratuitous slam of virtually the entire Republican Party for "creating ISIS" by their militaristic meddling in the Middle East. It was like attacking the Keebler Elves for high diabetes rates: militaristic meddling in the Middle East is what Republicans do!

But today along comes Politico's Alex Isenstadt with a very clear explanation of why the candidate of the Cool Kids is losing his own cool and re-establishing his family's bad name in GOP circles:

In a presidential campaign defined by billionaire sugar daddy donors, Rand Paul has a problem: He doesn't seem to have one.
While his rivals cultivate wealthy backers who will pump millions of dollars into their candidacies, Paul has struggled to find a similar lifeline. It's led to considerable frustration in his campaign, which, amid rising concerns that it will not be able to compete financially, finds itself leaning heavily on the network of small donors who powered his father's insurgent White House bids.

Super-PAC does not indicate much interest in getting along with the rest of the GOP, does it?

[Jun 01, 2015] David Runciman writes something goofy about US vs. British Politicsby Rich Yeselson

Selected Quotes: "...“Why don’t people start new parties in the US to compete against the established ones?” is the same damned question as “why don’t people start new parties in the USSR to compete against the communist party?”, it’s just that the US has two parties instead of one.
"...the whole point, as imagined by men who, with certain important exceptions, were very much determined not to replicate the powers of a monarchy in their fledgling nation, was to create conditions that would force elites to compromise and to limit the power of the propertyless (let alone the slaves) to even enter into the discussion. Compromise between powerful interests, not the clarity of unitary authority, was supposed to occur not only between the branches of government, but also between the national government and those of the states (and between the North and the slaveholding sub-nation of the South). There is absolutely nothing structurally about the American system of government, either in its inception or in its current dissipated condition, that offers voters a “clear choice” regarding domestic politics. "
"...Meanwhile, the dominant political party over the past hundred years has won a majority yet again with a minority of those actually voting. ...people seem quite happy for a government to rule with the support of 22% of the population and to wait patiently for the opportunity to repeat the process in five years time."
"...These are all reasonable questions to ask at a time when the neoliberal course of policy evolution seems to be trending in a direction non-responsive to the substantive interests of the mass of people and the apparatus for authoritarian governance is being augmented. "
"..In fact, it turns out that the only country in the world with a US style two coke/ pepsi two parties and that is all you are going to get electoral system happens to be the US."
May 28, 2015 | Crooked Timber

David Runciman wrote a brief essay http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/david-runciman/notes-on-the-election in the LRB about the results of the British election. I want to focus on one peculiar passage. Runciman observes:

The two countries that have seen the greatest rise in inequality over the past couple of decades are Britain and the United States. Both have a first-past-the-post system designed to offer a clear choice between two main parties. Yet whichever of the two parties wins, the drift towards inequality has been inexorable.

... the US has a presidential model with separation of powers across three branches of government and a widely dispersed federalism, and the UK has a parliamentary model.

...The American system offers a decidedly murky choice; Because the congressional party (whose election is spread over three cycles) does not merely oppose, but also obstructs the presidential party, the US way of democracy provides the electorate with no logical party accountability — presidential “failures” can be caused by minority legislative parties because the presidential party only appears to voters—and to Runciman, apparently—to be the governing party, but is not.

... ... ...

...the whole point, as imagined by men who, with certain important exceptions, were very much determined not to replicate the powers of a monarchy in their fledgling nation, was to create conditions that would force elites to compromise and to limit the power of the propertyless (let alone the slaves) to even enter into the discussion.

Compromise between powerful interests, not the clarity of unitary authority, was supposed to occur not only between the branches of government, but also between the national government and those of the states (and between the North and the slaveholding sub-nation of the South). There is absolutely nothing structurally about the American system of government, either in its inception or in its current dissipated condition, that offers voters a “clear choice” regarding domestic politics.


Bruce Wilder 05.28.15 at 4:34 am

“The system makes them do it” enables a flight into meta, where the thin atmosphere and lessened gravity, makes all kinds of intellectual acrobatics possible, as david notes.

Technical tweaking of electoral rules may make knowledge seem like power, but, as Cersei Lannister so eloquently put it, “Power is power.”

Neither the U.S. nor Britain has an effective, popular party with committed mass support or a committed leadership. Politicians of both Parties respond pretty much only to the very, very rich and to well-organized business interests.

That’s not to say that the Parties are “the same”, because they are not. But, it is to say that the political weight to force the kinds of political compromise with the general or mass interest Runciman apparently desires is simply not there, and no clever reforms can conjure it up.

reason 05.28.15 at 7:56 am

Bruce
The problem with a two party system is that it stifles debate (at least in the major media – crooked timber is an exception of course). Politics unfortunately today is about symbolism and personalities, I’m old enough to remember a time when it was about policy (as in my view it should be).

The US presidential system unfortunately institutionalises it being about personality which I regard as an enormous mistake. voting systems are not the solution to everything, but they matter.

Omega Centauri 05.28.15 at 5:03 pm

There might be issues of subtle incentives/drives towards certain types of outcomes, which effect the dynamics of how the system evolves. Does FPP which gives uneven decision power to swing voters in swing districts, favor those political actors (or pressure groups), which can capture these swing voters? If that is indeed happening, does it favor big money, over grassroots or vice versa?

I’m not up to date on the British system with regards to financing of campaign publicity efforts. There used to be strict limits on money in UK elections, in the US -especially after citizens united, there are effectively no limits on big money spending to influence results. Surely this creates forces that effect how the overall system evolves. In the US we have one party which is openly in the pocket of big money interests, and another which is rhetorically opposed, but in fact has to raise substantial funds from big money sectors in order to remain competitive. This of course creates a bit of a dichotomy, one party can have a clear set of principles it appears to be loyal to, whilst the other is continually compromising between its ideals, and its funders desires -therefore even though its policies are generally favored, the personal integrity of its candidates can be continually undermined.

Igor Belanov 05.28.15 at 6:31 pm

The British political system is extremely conservative, some of which is no doubt due to the voting system.

Take the 2015 election as an example, but in terms of the actual representation. The UK has remained a two-and-a-half party system, as it has been since at least 1997, but with the SNP replacing the Lib Dems. Meanwhile, the dominant political party over the past hundred years has won a majority yet again with a minority of those actually voting.

This is against a backdrop of massive change when it comes to voting and political attitudes. The winning party received the same proportion of the vote as the Labour Party did in its disastrous defeat in 1979. While almost all elections involve the vast majority of seats ‘swinging’ from one party to another, this election saw a bizarre collection of swings in different areas and individual constituencies. Scotland moved decisively for the SNP and against Labour. The North and the big cities saw safe Labour seats pile on enhanced majorities but lose out in marginal seats, while in the Midlands and South Labour lost votes slightly almost everywhere to the Tories and UKIP. The only uniform factor was the drubbing handed to the Lib Dems.

Despite the vagaries of the political system, however, the real sign of the conservatism of the British system and society is that people seem quite happy for a government to rule with the support of 22% of the population and to wait patiently for the opportunity to repeat the process in five years time.


Bruce Wilder 05.28.15 at 6:44 pm

reason @ 10: The problem with a two party system . . . Politics unfortunately today is about symbolism and personalities . . . The US presidential system unfortunately . . . I’m old enough to remember a time when . . .

Are the pathologies of politics related in a substantial way to the two-party system? What is the problem with the institution of the Presidency? (Or, what is the problem with institution of the Parliament?)

Two-party systems can have a variety of equilibria, which may involve various emergent third or fourth parties or movements on the periphery, as it were. The OP is raising the question of whether the Party system presents distinct choices, or should, and whether presenting distinct choices is related to being able to hold the Parties responsible and accountable, and whether the Party system encourages or discourages deliberation in policy choice or conduct.

These are all reasonable questions to ask at a time when the neoliberal course of policy evolution seems to be trending in a direction non-responsive to the substantive interests of the mass of people and the apparatus for authoritarian governance is being augmented. Tweaking the rules might disrupt undesirable trends driven by the peculiar turn taken recently in the strategic competition of the Parties.

... ... ...

Igor Belanov @ 22: . . . people seem quite happy for a government to rule with the support of 22% of the population . . .

I assume you mean that observation ironically.


Collin Street 05.28.15 at 9:10 pm

In fact, it turns out that the only country in the world with a US style two coke/ pepsi two parties and that is all you are going to get electoral system happens to be the US. This is probably due to the fact that, also somewhat uniquely, in the US the Democrats and the Republicans jointly staff the bureaucracies responsible for running the elections and counting the votes.

The actual root of the problem is twofold:

  • the way that the requirements to be able to nominate candidates are different between established and new parties, and at a ludicrously high level for new parties, entrenches the two main parties to an undesirable degree; effort that in a normal context would be spent in setting up a new political movement is in the US better-spent taking over one or the other of the party shells
  • the way that the state dictates through the primary process who the parties will run as “their” candidate means that the parties can no longer be regarded purely as private-space organisations but essentially part of the state.

“Why don’t people start new parties in the US to compete against the established ones?” is the same damned question as “why don’t people start new parties in the USSR to compete against the communist party?”, it’s just that the US has two parties instead of one.

otpup 05.29.15 at 2:40 am

The US system has three, mutually reinforcing pillars:

  • disproportionality (i.e., a uniquely pure 2 party system),
  • super-majority requirements (Senate disproportionality and filibuster, Presidential vetos, staggered elections, etc)
  • structural demobilization (low voter turnout, registration laws, cultural pessimism/realism).

Most of this rooted in the notoriously hard to amend Constitution. Reform in the US is high gear when it’s only 50 years behind the rest of the advanced industrial nations.

Igor Belanov 05.29.15 at 7:20 am

@33

I think there is an incredible inertia within the core Labour vote, and there is such an anti-Tory feeling within a good quarter of the electorate that many of us end up voting Labour merely to try and keep the Tories out. While the present voting system exists I think this situation will endure.

That said, I suspect that the next five years will provide a useful experiment as to just how far the Labour Party can stretch the allegiance of its core vote without it snapping. I reckon that the next Labour leader will make Blair seem like Blanqui.

Main Street Muse 05.29.15 at 10:25 am

US needs campaign finance reform – stat. And they need to do what they can, if anything, to stop the revolving door. As the banks led the economy over the cliff, bankers finagled fantastic bonuses from one of their own – Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who, as CEO of $GS, had lobbied Congress in 2002 for lower capital requirements, a business practice that considerably weakened banks’ ability to weather a financial crisis. There’s huge backlash against raising the minimum wage, coming from – as you can imagine – well-coordinated lobbying efforts by companies that pay people so little they require federal assistance to survive. Corporations see huge profits but workers don’t get a raise – the profits head out the door to shareholders. We bow at the altar of the shareholders, to he$$ with all else.

It’s all very sordid and the furthest thing Madison et al. could have imagined.

otpup 05.29.15 at 1:42 pm

The US has open primaries because the 2 party system is over-determined, not the other way around.

The tendency toward fewer parties is due to (see Duverger) the tradeoff between voting for a party of one’s preferred ideology and the voting for a party that might actually be represented in the legislature (let alone wield power).

SMD’s, bicameralism, the existence and strength of a presidential office, federalism, etc. are all structural factors leading to fewer parties, mostly because they create or heighten the trade off.

In a supermajority legislature like the US, the trade off isn’t even between voting one’s ideological or policy preference because reform is so unlikely. It is between voting for one’s preference and defensively voting for a party that, at the least, can block unwanted reforms by the other side.


Sancho 05.30.15 at 1:52 pm

Being Australian, I assume The Onion is relevant in this case. And if not, well that’s my quaint antipodean misunderstanding.

http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849


Bruce Wilder 05.30.15 at 5:21 pm

Runciman’s complaint is a rather vague one, about the responsiveness of politics, and it seems to me that his big mistake is imagining that the Continental polities, where the remnant Left has been Pasokified in grand coalition governments, is in any better shape than the UK.

If you have leftist sympathies, you may look upon SYRIZA in Greece, Podemos in Spain, or even the Five Star movement in Italy with some small measure of trepidacious hope. But, even if forlorn hope gets one of these Parties elected, like SYRIZA, they may find themselves unable to formulate a useful way to lead or exercise power.

There’s been some back and forth in this thread using clichés concerning two-party competition for the generic political center or median voter. To me, the discussion just highlighted how incoherent such generic analysis has become.

Attlee may have succeeded, as the New Deal succeeded, because of the social and political solidarity forged by the experience of World War II. That sense of solidarity with the state, reinforced by a politics of mass-membership Parties, which was particularly necessary to Labour representing its eponymous constituency, gave advantages to the politicians, who sought to further the interests of the common man and the public good.

As that sense of solidarity has dissolved, the politics of self and symbolic political identity have displaced it, and the advantage has shifted to lobbyists for corporate interests, who can supply the funds for sophisticated campaigns of media manipulation and neoliberal rhetoric that can apologize for, and cover for, “reforms” that facilitate economic predation.

From my great distance, one of the more remarkable patterns in the recent British elections is the rise of a desire for political solidarity. Most British voters were, according to polls, fairly hostile to the Conservative agenda. And, though fragmented, the most effective political appeals seem to be centered on political solidarity of one kind or another. Labour found itself falling back on its historical constituencies and the voters who identify with it most strongly. Scottish nationalists of course, and English nationalists, too surged in the polls.

To the extent that politics is about who gets what, in the distribution of power and income, it is always, at its core, a potential war between the rich and poor, the few and the many, in which feelings of political solidarity are a means of reconciliation, of binding elites to followers, or, alternatively, allowing sufficient organization of the many to overwhelm with numbers the otherwise superior organization of elites pursuing their own selfish interests at the expense of the many.

In our neoliberal era, the “poor” and the many are losing, steadily and inexorably. Parties of the many — like Labour — do not seem to be able to find leaders who want to represent the genuine interests of the many or to make arguments for the interests of the many.

Arguments about consumer sovereignty in politics can obscure the import of the political losses of the many. Do people vote “against their interests”? Do they prefer racism to socialism? Why can’t people see how much better Obama is than Romney? Why didn’t people get more enthusiastic about Miliband’s austerity-lite? Why are politicians of the centre-left so shy of challenging the shibboleths laid down by the right-wing press? Why was Miliband such a tool, rejecting cooperation with the SNP or engaging in self-parody with his policy tombstone?

When the rich are not genuinely afraid of nazis or commies, many have little or no interest in genuine solidarity, and are freed to engage in the most cynical sort of manipulation. Also, they will have the good sense to do what they can to undermine, or destroy, any nascent mass-movements with economics on their minds. And, as a second line of defense, they will actively seek to put political power out of constitutional reach, so that a popular party that achieves electoral success will be without the means to put together a coherent policy agenda.

This has been a long-winded way of saying that electoral arithmetic is a distraction from the difficulty of forming and leading a mass-movement against a well-organized, well-financed economic elite determined to prevent it. It’s long-winded, because I want to get to a somewhat harder point: in the absence of a solidarity the encompasses a large part of the economic elite, the popular party has to depend on the passions of resentment and righteous anger, and contemplate the necessity of meeting violence.

Anger and resentment are not attractive qualities in political leadership. It’s a tricky business to feed these into electoral politics, to (ideally) stage-manage ripping the mask of humanity off of the Camerons of this world, revealing them for the predators and sociopaths they, and their sponsors, may be.

I think this is realistic, but it is a long way from tweaking electoral rules to bring about a glorious era of consumer sovereignty in politics, and much closer to revolution in its aims and means.

Ed 05.30.15 at 6:41 pm

Bruce Wilder makes some excellent points in his post at # 73, but I’ll add that one thing different about the 1930s and 1940s is that countries fought wars by conscripting as many working class men as they could into the army (those that could be spared from manufacturing weapons and yes, from the coal mines), and handing them rifles. This mass mobilization made it very important for the elites to actually pay attention to what the masses want, also to make sure they were well fed enough and healthy enough to do their military service.

Universal suffrage was invented in the French Revolution along with conscription, and was implement in most of Europe and North America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, right around the time of the World Wars. The US was late again here, in effect not instituting universal suffrage until after World War 2. The reason behind the rollback of democracy and the welfare state is simply due to the fact that the changes in technology means that the elites don’t need them to fight for them anymore.

Bruce Wilder 05.31.15 at 4:04 pm

Stephen @ 75: [Didn’t the New Deal happen before WWII?]

The New Deal, as a policy program and a political coalition, was initiated as a response to the Great Depression of the 1930s. By most accounts, the New Deal, policy and program, was put in considerable jeopardy by the steady march of Southern Senators and senior Representatives to the Right during the 1930s. FDR’s so-called “court-packing scheme”, though it ended the Supreme Court’s intransigent opposition to key New Deal programs also galvanized a conservative coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats in Congress in opposition to FDR, and key New Deal programs of public works spending, advance of union rights and social liberalization were in jeopardy as the Depression eased toward the end of the 1930s.

What I asserted was that the New Deal succeeded to the extent that it did, as a result of WWII. The massive national effort of the war derailed the efforts of conservatives to curtail or reverse New Deal policies and programs. New Dealers became powerful administrators of the industrial and agricultural mobilization required by the war, and many goals and policies of the New Deal were advanced far beyond what had been achieved in the 1930s. Most notably, the war ended the stalemate over income distribution, resulting in what economists have labeled the Great Compression in income distribution, and the enormous “Keynesian” stimulus spending of the war altered the distribution of financial wealth in programs of forced savings among a new, broad middle class.

[May 31, 2015] Publius: Sinking the Sanders Campaign Beneath a Wave of Silence by Yves Smith

Quotes: "After nearly 40 years in journalism, I’m still amazed at just how routinely the press violates nearly every ethical precept that is supposed to guide its work."
"...You do realize that the party machinery will cheat, if necessary? Rigging elections was the meat and drink of the big city machines – almost all Democrats. Chicago is the last survivor."
"...That dog won’t hunt. After the 1972 fiasco the Democrats specifically adopted the superdelegate rule to ensure that party establishment could exercise a de facto veto over the nomination process in order to ensure they would never again be saddled with an unelectable McGovernesque candidate by the party rank and file. From the point of view of the party establishment Sanders is McGovern with 10% of the charisma and 1000% of the ideological baggage.
Not that it’s ever going to come to that. They destroyed Howard Dean literally overnight with the meme that he was some crazed out of control freak on the basis of one boisterous post primary celebration rally – and Dean was then a frontrunner with a extensive ground organization and Obama-like adulation from young Democrats. Taking down a 73 year old senator from a small state with no organization and no constituency within the Democratic Party is almost an insult to their finely honed mastery of the Machiavellian arts. "
"...MSM are large corporations. Large corporations plump for corporate approved candidates. Sanders isn’t a corporate candidate. End of story. By the way, double-check your calendars, it isn’t 1948, nor even 1972."
"...Sanders is toxic to the establishment not only because they regard him as unelectable, but more importantly because even if he was nominated (never mind thinking the unthinkable, as in a President Sanders) the plutocracy would abandon the Democrats in droves and take their money and patronage with them. From the perspective of the establishment that would be the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory."
"...Democrat is a disgusting moniker, not Liberal/Progressive”. They (Democrats) sell their Mothers too, but it’s behind a veil of policy, that’s never brought up. Obama stunted the vote of the 18-30 year olds for possibly eternity. There was no “Change”, and almost all have lost “Hope”."
"...I sometimes think that parties are: interest groups for certain industries. And if so Sanders could be different as long as he’s the same on the issues these industries care about. And maybe that’s what could happen, he’ll be allowed some progressive economic policies that still have to pass Congress, and thus may never see the light of day, in return for steering the empire through another round, which will of course see the light of day.
The popular perception is to see parties as ideologies but to accept that is to condemn a party that will not condemn and disown Obama as having no principles, or no decent principles at any rate.
Because the Dem party is really not coherent as an ideological entity except as a champion of the worse types of things."
May 30, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

... ... ...

Ditto May 30, 2015 at 4:55 am

This article has an implicit faith in the American voter that is unearned. I’m deeply skeptical that the elites are the problem. I support Sanders. I think Americans are in denial and identify too much with the elite.

Gerard Pierce May 30, 2015 at 5:32 am

Another way of looking at it is the Americans want to be part of the winning team. At the same time, they want a candidate that they believe is on their side.

That may have a lot to do with Obama’s victory – he convinced a large number of people that he WAS on their side.

It also explains why a large number of us have no respect for what’s left of his administration, and it explains why a lot of people are less than fully optimistic about Hillary.

Bernie lacks the Wall St connections and the Wall St money. It’s hard to see him as the inevitable winner. But we do know what he stands for. I’ll vote for him in a primary and in the general election precisely because he is not the lesser evil.

The only way I would vote for Hillary would be if she convinced me that she was on my side. It’s not likely to happen because she was tightly connected to the New Democrats, and they have demonstrated over and over that they are on their own side. She used up the time when she might have demonstrated who she is. It’ a little late to start now and be believable.

JTMcPhee May 30, 2015 at 2:35 pm

Bill Clinton was on our side. He felt our pain. Reagan was on our side. We just knew it, he talked so good and trustworthy and he was a war hero, wasn’t he? Like John Wayne?

To paraphrase, no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

Lambert Strether May 30, 2015 at 4:11 pm

In general, I deprecate the “voters are stupid” trope. Basically, I file that under the heading of “Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.” (Too lazy to find the soruce of the quote; Churchill?) I deprecate it for two reasons:

1) Tactically, it’s foolish. Why insult the people you need to persuade? (And if you write them off, what then?)

2) Morally, I’d appeal to “There but for the grace of ___ go I.” After all, who among us hasn’t done something really stupid, and sometimes persisted for years? I certainly have.)

neo-realist May 30, 2015 at 2:30 pm

I also believe that with many Americans, cultural values trump good economics: Americans may not want to support broader based health care programs and or a stronger social safety net in general if they believe that those more redistributive economic policies leading to such would provide equal quality benefits to people they consider less than worthy—-poor people of color, poor people of color on federal assistance, substance abuse addicts. People who oppose abortion would vote for an anti-abortion candidate whose economic policies served the wealthy much more than a pro-choice candidate whose economics better serve the 99%.

Right Wing Corporate media has also done a bang up job over the past 3 decades “manufacturing consent” among main street Americans to economic policies that better the wealthy than themselves.

bkrasting May 30, 2015 at 7:05 am

Okay – Yves likes Sanders. But is Sanders really a viable candidate?

The man is 73 today. If elected he would be 75 when he takes the oath of office. The oldest president to take the oath was Ronnie Regan. He was 69 when he swore on a bible. Sanders will be six years older than Ronnie.

Bernie is a good guy, and he has ideas that have support – but there is no way that he is qualified to be the next Prez.

abynormal May 30, 2015 at 8:13 am

I say FINALLY…ditch the Am Idol Bierber Bops!
Sanders will have the experience and position to DELEGATE instead of being DELEGATED.

Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it. Eisenhower

Vatch May 30, 2015 at 6:19 pm

“Bernie is a good guy, and he has ideas that have support – but there is no way that he is qualified to be the next Prez.”

Just wondering: when was the last time we had a President who was qualified for the job?

Carolinian May 30, 2015 at 7:31 am

A couple of points:

If Sanders supporters ever thought that the mainstream press was going to help them in their crusade they are deeply delusional. The dismissive attitude of the political press is exactly what one might have expected.

And the Carter comparison is a bit of stretch. Carter brought the South into the Democratic fold when that was hardly guaranteed. Sanders brings…Vermont? The favorite son idea may seem antique in this media age but the last New Englander to win was JFK, and he was from the largest state in the region.

For once I actually agree with Chuck Todd and the rest. If Sanders wants to prove his political viability he’s going to have to do more than cite popularity in tiny Vermont. Might be time to start shaking hands, kissing babies.

And finally isn’t it way too early to be talking about any of this? The tea leaves are very murky.

jrs May 30, 2015 at 11:26 am

Way too early yea, I’m more with what Chomsky says in that voting should take 5 minutes, then get back to real activism. Now I think the 5 minute thing is wrong (and he uses it to defend voting for such “lesser” evils of Obama), I mean if your going to be a semi-intelligent voter do more research than that, or you really would be better off not voting, especially if your voting on referendums and things you have a direct say on. But it’s closer to the truth than starting on the Presidency, of all things (the position we have least ability to affect), now.

Code Name D May 30, 2015 at 8:22 am

... But I also say that Bernie needs to keep his eye on the real prize here – which is actually much larger than the White House – and that is the principle of change itself, something that he doesn’t need to win the presidency or even the nomination in order to achieve. He can show leadership now and make it happen.

For example, Bernie has a formidable ally with Warren, who can be his attack dog. He couldn’t have asked for a better opportunity. If he uses her right, it not only advances his own chances, but Warren’s as well, by better positioning her in congress and even making changes in the congressional races. This is nothing new. But it would be jaw dropping to see a Democrat playing political hardball like this – political competence would be awesome to see at work.

Brooklin Bridge May 30, 2015 at 10:29 am

Good comment and good question; What is Sanders going to do about it? Gaius is saying, keep the faith (long shots are not always so long), because the electorate is still looking for actual representation as illustrated by Gaius’ somewhat less than compelling examples and will manage to find it somehow. That may be true, Gaius has a way of being early to recognize things. But you are absolutely correct that Sanders has to do something to make that happen and as you also point out he is not without possibilities. It won’t be enough to simply blame the media if he fails.

The media will do a lot to hinder Sanders and silence is indeed their biggest weapon, but this is only the beginning. Personally, I’m more suspicious that wittingly or not, he is fulfilling other purposes than simply those of an enlightened choice in a democratic process – and that is the direction you will see the media, or a significant part of it, pushing things as hard as they can once the primaries get going. Will he be aware? Can he use it to his advantage?

Sanders is a deeply political person and a very capable one so he will deserve little excuse if his run turns out to be simply channeling energy into the Hillary coronation.

Vince in MN May 30, 2015 at 8:24 am

MSM are large corporations. Large corporations plump for corporate approved candidates. Sanders isn’t a corporate candidate. End of story. By the way, double-check your calendars, it isn’t 1948, nor even 1972.

In the post Citizens United world, none of this matters. Do we need a free press -yes. Do we have one – no. But then we don’t have democracy either.

jrs May 30, 2015 at 11:18 am

Yes I’ve asked, could Sanders win on small donations alone? But we are told there are rich people or corporations who mean well that will donate. Ok, lets assume that (although I’d really rather not assume it about the corporate persons at least), would we even be able to KNOW WHO is donating to him? (or to any other candidate)

Carla May 30, 2015 at 1:13 pm

No.

http://www.movetoamend.org

Jill May 30, 2015 at 9:04 am

If people truly believe in the candidacy of Sanders then they should do everything in their power to get him elected. I cannot say if other ways of person to person communication can undo the silence of the MSM, but it’s certainly worth a try.

For me, the more important question is this– what are the people getting with a Sander’s win? Just as Obama won, I would not say that ordinary people around the world or the earth itself is a better place due to his winning. His win has been an unmitigated disaster in this regard. It has also been an unmitigated, uncompromising success for his real constituents.

All I am asking is that people look not only at what Sanders says, (which like what Obama said before his election, is profound, excellent, impassioned and great), but that voters judge him on his votes. The votes are different from the speeches. Actions tell a story that voters need to understand.

We were all told it was necessary for Obama to win. Was it? Did his win help ordinary people and the earth?. Has his win accomplished the goals people sought in voting for him? I would say, absolutely not.

This country is very ready to vote for an actual left wing politician. I also see that we are again in a position of desperation, seeking a savior. That desperation, that desire for a savior can be very dangerous while trying to make a good judgment about our political class. However, if people look at Sander’s actions and want to pull for him, that is what I would do. Go around the MSM in every possible way. It may not succeed but it is still worth doing.

Jagger May 30, 2015 at 10:49 am

What was his position on the Israeli attack on Gaza or Russia and the Ukraine debacle? What about Syria and Iran? And I guess now we need to look at China as well.

Hopefully, there isn’t a neocon cloaked underneath that nice shiny anti-neo-liberal facade.

I guess I should do some homework on him.

Ned Ludd May 30, 2015 at 1:01 pm

Will Miller, an anti-war activist who fought to unionize the University of Vermont faculty, called Sanders: “Bernie the Bomber”.

Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally, Bernie has become an ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In 1992 he described Clinton as the “lesser of evils,” (a justification he used to denounce when he was what the local press called an “avowed socialist”). By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified endorsement. He has been a consistent “Friend of Bill’s” from since 1992. One student I know worked on the Clinton Campaign in 1996 and all across Vermont, Bernie was on the stage with the rest of the Vermont Democratic Party Leadership, while the unauthorized Democratic candidate for his Congressional seat was kept out in the audience.

Sanders continues to support sanctions even though the Iraqi body count has now passed 1.5 million. Just as he has supported every bombing of Iraq since 1992. When Clinton sent military units to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in October, 1994 because Iraq moved troops inside Iraq closer to the Kuwait border (apparently
about 100 miles away), Bernie supported this because “we cannot tolerate aggression.” […]

The overwhelming majority of the people present were against Sander’s [sic] support for the bombing… and his active support for every US intervention since he has been in Congress–Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.

When Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, ran as a Democrat against Sanders, she “was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs…”

Jess May 30, 2015 at 10:17 pm

So, the question is, “Do we want just more bombing and imperialism?” or “Do we want more bombing and imperialism to go along with cutting SS and Medicare, privatizing education, debt servitude, no prosecution of banksters, etc?”

Also, although MMT advocates may disagree, isn’t it conventional wisdom that to do the kinds of things at home that Bernie advocates, we’ll have to cut back on the foreign misadventures?

ran May 30, 2015 at 4:01 pm

Like the sainted Warren, he believes Israel is justified in murdering as many Palestinians as they want.

Oregoncharles May 30, 2015 at 12:43 pm

Good point. You need to start posting his voting record, or your posts get more hollow as you go along.

Lambert Strether May 30, 2015 at 4:14 pm

Yep. Worse, since the comments have no authority, they don’t propagate. No point coming back to them, no point learning new sources, etc.

Ned Ludd May 30, 2015 at 12:21 pm

The Toxically Useful Idiocy of Amy Goodman“, a response to Amy Goodman’s column on Obama’s re-election, questions the entire role of the lefty media in electing Democrats.

It’s their bread and butter to know, that, yes, the government IS bought and paid for and to remind us of that again and again in laborious, depressing and mostly disempowering detail. But it’s also built into their job to hint at the way out and this they crucially do by habitually endorsing Democrats with loose talk of ‘making [them] do it’ via grass roots agitating.

But if the government is bought and paid for and only mass uprisings will help, why squander time and money on elections at all? Why not just get straight to the shit-disturbing?

Forget about ever hearing those questions posed, or answered, by Goodman and her ilk, at least not with any seriousness. That’s not what they’re paid to do.

Elections are a sink for activist energy. After my state’s Green Party became hopelessly corrupt, I wasted far too much time electing more & better Democrats based on progressive promises and liberal voting records.

In a corrupt system, popular progressive, socialist, and Green politicians will follow the path of Joschka Fischer. Once he rose to the position of foreign minister of Germany, the former communist street fighter became a charismatic advocate for neoliberalism.

Uahsenaa May 30, 2015 at 9:57 am

This is Iowa, so take what I say with a grain of salt; people here have a tendency to overestimate the significance of being “first in the nation” (many eyerolls).

However, Hilary’s campaign trail behavior has already been deeply irritating to voters here. At Kirkwood (Community College) she basically got out of her van, walked immediately into a building, delivered a speech to a bunch of cameras (no press!), where she talked about the importance of meeting “everyday Iowans,” all the while many many flesh and blood Iowans were waiting outside, because she willfully ignored them. There was much grumbling in the crowd.

Meanwhile, Sanders is actually going to rec centers and townhalls to be bombarded with dumb midwestern platitudes, something which will almost certainly ingratiate him to the “ordinary folk” around here. I’m perfectly willing to predict a Hilary loss in Iowa even at this point in the game.

Pelham May 30, 2015 at 10:16 am

If one judges by the various candidates’ policy positions and — far more importantly — their credibility (how likely they are to foIlow through on promises), Sanders is literally the only serious candidate.

If the press were truly objective, Sanders would be the dominant figure in the race, not an afterthought.

After nearly 40 years in journalism, I’m still amazed at just how routinely the press violates nearly every ethical precept that is supposed to guide its work.

Brooklin Bridge May 30, 2015 at 12:49 pm

Can’t resist a question. I’m assuming, after 40 years in journalism, that you have contacts, friends, acquaintances among the media. Are they aware of the unflattering similarities between themselves and say Baghdad Bob, but the money is sweet, or do they really imagine they are reporting the facts?

juliania May 30, 2015 at 10:59 am

I take umbrage at the description of Obama. “Quixotic” he is not.

Steven Greenberg May 30, 2015 at 11:04 am

The point of the article is not so much, “What is Bernie going to do about it”, and more “What are you and I going to do about it?” While we still have access to the internet, this is the biggest tool we have to get things done our way. It is up to us to use it, Tweet, Facebook, Blog, MeetUp, Organize, Petition, or do whatever else you can imagine doing on the internet to overcome the lame stream media’s silence.

Don’t just sit back and say it can’t be done. How do you know it can’t be done, if you don’t try? If a 72 year old guy can muster the energy, perhaps the younger folk can find a little energy to invest, too. (Of course forcing you to have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet, is a good way for the oligarchs to make sure you don’t have too much excess energy to devote to politics.) If you are participating in this thread, then you must have some spare time on your hands.

“They” may have the money, but, at least for the time being, “we have the votes.”

grayslady May 30, 2015 at 11:20 am

Some thoughts on Bernie:

1) Regarding age: It was only 5 years ago that Bernie filibustered for a solid 8 1/2 hours against a tax cut for people earning over $250,000. He’s clearly a lot hardier than many people his age.

2) Bernie’s campaign team includes the excellent Tad Devine as senior strategic consultant. Bernie’s digital team includes Revolution Messaging, a firm comprised of many of the individuals who worked on Obama’s campaigns.

These two choices tell me that Bernie knows he needs someone with serious credentials on how to win the Democrat primary and, also, that he understands the traditional media is going to give him short shrift. I don’t personally participate in any of the standard social media platforms, but I don’t underestimate their power. Consider that recently two housewives, and a quarter of a million online supporters, successfully forced Kraft to eliminate artificial dyes in their mac and cheese product. Online campaigns can be extremely powerful in reaching audiences that newspapers and television miss.

3) Democrat opposition: Hillary still had vestiges of populism in her 2008 persona. Today, it’s difficult for anyone to imagine a woman who helps her daughter buy a $10 million co-op in NYC is anything but part of the .01%. Her refusal to condemn TPP, her brazen condemnation of Chelsea Manning, her pathetic responses on Edward Snowden, and her abnormally secretive actions–as SofS and before–also indicate a personality totally out of touch with the majority of Americans.

4) Bernie’s voting record: Bernie hasn’t always ended up voting the way I would have liked on issues, but I appreciate that as a member of Congress without a political party behind him, he has occasionally made deals that didn’t benefit the public at large even if he was still able to negotiate some small victories for his Vermonters. When first asked if he was considering running for President, Bernie said it depended on two things: he would only run if he thought he could win, and he understood that for him to win he needed a movement behind him. He understands the fallacy of a political “savior”. He’s willing to be the voice of the people if the people are finally ready to take back their government–not just hand it over to one individual and hope for miracles.

5) Voter turnout: Bernie has a potentially broader base of voters by staying away from hot-button issues such as immigration and gay rights. His platform of universal free college has to be a winner with young people, and his campaign announcement included, as part of his platform, women’s equality. He’s also a serious advocate for environmental protection. Most importantly, anyone who works can easily relate to his primary platform issue, more and better jobs.

For what it’s worth, my best friend’s 17-year old grandson, who was an active foot soldier in our local congressional campaign last fall, said recently that looking at all the current candidates for President, he liked Bernie the best. If Bernie can catch hold with the younger voters, he won’t have to worry about whether he’s picking up the ethnic, single-issue voting blocs.

No candidate for President is ever ideal, but I agree with the author that Bernie has a real shot at the nomination as long as the voters, and not the traditional press, say he has a shot and are willing to back the movement Bernie says we need to develop.

jrs May 30, 2015 at 11:48 am

Was Bernie’s filibuster real or hadn’t everyone already gone home for the weekend by then? I mean very well, he does a so called filibuster, so does Rand Paul do so called filibusters and quits at the last minute (by the way I don’t know why Rand Paul was able to insert a Patriot Act filibuster in a trade debate, but anyway.).

If we’re going to develop a movement shouldn’t it be for more than Bernie Sanders? Even a reformist movement should look toward I don’t know taking over a political party or something. What happened to all the movement Obama allegedly built, sure some were Obots, but some probably really wanted change. Nothing of course. What do those types of single candidate movements do but churn through people and demoralize them if they lose the one office that was the whole reason for being of the whole movement.

I don’t’ just believe looking for a political savior is a fallacy, I believe starting at the top of the political system (the presidency!) is a fallacy. Why do we continually focus where we have no power, but not where we might (maybe city counsel member or something). But sure spend 5 minutes voting for Sanders if it makes sense to you. I’m undecided. I know why we start at the top: because all the propaganda is aimed there, every slight of hand has us looking in that direction, we’re continually told the Presidency is what really matters (and witness voter turn out in Presidential elections versus non-Presidential), because the intoxication of so much power is seductive, because one can’t help being informed about the Presidential race by osmosis and learning some down ticket items takes real effort. But it’s not working.

grayslady May 30, 2015 at 1:04 pm

Try reading the bullet points. My point about Bernie’s filibuster wasn’t the content, or the time of day, or the day of the week. I’m a year younger than Bernie was when he filibustered and I couldn’t stand up for 8 1/2 hours with only a glass of water and one bathroom break.

As to a movement, Bernie isn’t talking about an Obama-worship type movement. He’s talking about everyday citizens taking back their government from the monied class. He’s indicated a willingness to be the governmental representative leading the charge, nothing more. Having started his political career running for mayor, I don’t think Bernie ignores the importance of local action. But when you can have the state override local action, such as recently happened in Denton, Texas, you can’t ignore the importance of changing state and Federal actions at the same time.

It’s natural to feel jaded, I suppose, after so many years of political hucksters. Being from Illinois, I knew Obama was a con man from day one. Obama was never in the news here for anything, much less helping ordinary citizens, until Emil Jones decided to start manufacturing a bogus c.v. for him. Bernie has a long, public record to examine, whether you like his record or not. Personally, I’d rather try one more shot at a legitimate political contender before opting for revolution.

abynormal May 30, 2015 at 1:37 pm

Personally, I’d rather try one more shot at a legitimate political contender before opting for revolution. taking this with me…thanks

“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
H. Zinn

Carolinian May 30, 2015 at 7:47 pm

Maybe what we need is a political savior. I think one error of the Occupy movement was thinking it could succeed without visible and charismatic leadership. After all we don’t celebrate Civil Rights day, we celebrate Martin Luther King day. The Republicans win election after election by making it all about personalities because the reality is that’s what wins Presidential elections. Even in the extreme situation of a 1930s style Depression–far worse than now–the right leader was needed and happily got elected.

What the left really needs is an Obama type figure who isn’t a gold plated phony. It’s a tough order. Some of us are just wondering if Sanders fits the bill.

Ned Ludd May 30, 2015 at 9:10 pm

Martin Luther King, Jr. was an outstanding orator, but compare the time he was given to defend his views on The Mike Douglas Show, versus the concision required by today’s news programs.

Jeff Greenfield, Nightline producer: One of the things you have to do, when you book a show, is know that the person can make the point in the framework of television… We’ve got to have English-speaking people. We also need concision.

[…]

Chomsky: The beauty of concision, you know, saying a couple of sentences between two commercials, the beauty of that is you can only repeat conventional thoughts. […]

You can’t give evidence if you’re stuck with concision. That’s the genius of this structural constraint.

Today’s media ensures that anyone with unconventional views “can’t give evidence” and will “sound like they were from Neptune.” Consequently, a contemporary dissident whose views cannot be explained in two sentences would fare better as an outstanding writer, instead of an outstanding orator.

Lambert Strether May 31, 2015 at 1:43 am

The long form is hard to do on a cellphone (or so I hear). And that’s where so many of the 18-to-35s Obama betrayed are to be found. Maybe we have to figure out how to do that two sentence thing. “Peace, land, bread” worked well for Lenin.

Paul Tioxon May 31, 2015 at 2:25 pm

SOCIAL SECURITY-SOLAR POWER-$15 AN HOUR

Anthony Kennerson May 31, 2015 at 7:38 am

How about instead we support an Independent Left built from the bottom up through local activism, lead by leaders who are viable enough to lead. Kshama Sawant, anyone??

Doug Terpstra May 30, 2015 at 12:00 pm

This is an encouraging post. But ISTM that the examples of upstart outsiders, with the partial exception of Carter, maybe Truman, really turned out to be stealth insiders, whose appeal to the 1% put them over the top. Weren’t Truman and Carter both militarists and Carter a big deregulator?

Truman’s support for the partition of Palestine and the recognition of Israel probably out him over the top in 48. Ditto for Slick Willie, the come-back kid who went all-in for Wall Street. But the prize goes to the ultimate dark-horse Trojan horse, Obama, whose fealty to Israel, Wall Street, and the MIC are unconditional. These examples turned out to be very establishment presidents, with the exception of Obama, a radical fascist.

If Sanders follows these exemplary Democrats, no thank you. He already supports Israeli crimes and he supported the health insurance racket bailout bill (Obamneycare). Will he become yet another Wall Street “water-boy” to pull off an apparent “upset”?

Oregoncharles May 30, 2015 at 12:22 pm

You do realize that the party machinery will cheat, if necessary?

Rigging elections was the meat and drink of the big city machines – almost all Democrats. Chicago is the last survivor.

If Republicans can do it, Democrats certainly can, too, unless you think they’re actually dumber.

The party apparatchiks’ grip on the kind of power they care about is at stake.

Lambert Strether May 30, 2015 at 4:16 pm

Obama certainly rigged the caucuses in Texas in 2008. So, yeah.

JurisV May 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm

I have a question I’d like to ask to ask the commenters who criticize Sanders about age, his support of particular items, and doubts about his odds of actually being elected.

How, other than his candidacy, would you suggest a better method/plan to get serious “leftist” ideas into the swarms of the Media????

  • (quote)
    -Screwing the big banks
  • -Restoring “Glass-Stiegel”
  • – Getting rid of “Citizens-United”
  • – Treating Natanyahu like the creep that he is
  • – Expanding Social Security
  • – A $15 national minimum wage
  • – NOT approving trade deals that export American blue collar jobs
  • – A single payer health system rather than the giveaway Obama care benefit to insurance companies
  • – Letting people pretend to be married in whatever manner they favor
  • – Publicly funded college for the qualified

Against him:

  • – He is opposed to developing nuclear electric power generation
  • – He is a socialist? So what. What does that even mean these days? (unquote)

The quote above is from SicSemperTyrranis by Patrick Lang.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/05/angry-old-man-supports-angry-old-senator.html

I recommend reading the whole post because it’s an example of the stirrings of recognition that we, as a country, are seriously off the tracks and that this recognition is seeping into public awareness. Pat Lang’s post and the poster “Uahsenaa” upstream.

I can’t think of a better to get real progressive ideas past the PTB in Washington and the MSM than Bernie Sanders campaigning for President.

sharonsj May 30, 2015 at 3:56 pm

On the same day that Bernie gave a speech to 5,000, Rick Santorum gave a speech to 50 people. I expect this makes the establishment very nervous…. Maybe it proves that Chris Hedges is right about revolutions and that Americans aren’t as stupid as they appear.

Gaius Publius May 30, 2015 at 4:38 pm

> On the same day that Bernie gave a speech to 5,000, Rick Santorum gave a speech to 50 people. I expect this makes the establishment very nervous….

I’m starting to agree with whoever said that Martin O’Malley will be the media’s candidate to block Bernie Sanders (from getting in Clinton’s way).

Just a thought, but watch for lots of O’Malley media love, plus lots of “Sanders language” from O’Malley, an insider who could steal the outsider’s thunder, then lose — and never have to make good on those Sanders-style promises.

Hmm. The spidey sense is twitching…

GP

Lambert Strether May 30, 2015 at 5:22 pm

Yep. If people want a sheepdog (conscious collusion) I’d look to O’Malley, not Sanders. I’m not sure I understand if there is actually a rationale for his campaign, though people in Maryland don’t seem to he very surprised he’s running. (I like the anti-Wall Street rhetoric, but… If this were a local race, his name would be “Saunders,” right?) Boy, does he have a chiseled jaw, though. It juts superbly, especially when photographed from below.

abynormal May 30, 2015 at 6:15 pm

Lambert, i just caught his am speech on npr. he was heckled pretty hard on his ‘0 tolerance’ but he sounded prepared…as in Screaming.

1999 – ” O’Malley has promised to clean up 10 drug corners in the city in the first six months of his administration and make low-income neighborhoods as safe as wealthier communities.”

cleaned 10 and got 20 more thanks to his deep understanding of poverty.

Lambert Strether May 30, 2015 at 9:23 pm

Not sure I’d trust O’Malley’s numbers on Baltimore crime. See David Simon.

ErnstThalmann May 30, 2015 at 4:11 pm

Terribly sorry but I refuse to be sucked credulously into a discussion that presupposes that Sanders – or Warren for that matter – represents a political vision that differs materially from Clinton.

Sander’s’ support for just about every defense expenditure he’s considered over the last decade or so qualifies him as every bit the crazed warmonger that is Hillary.

And Warren’s nausea inspiring support of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza last Summer recommend her more than anything else for Elsa Koch look-alike of 2014. Sanders is no alternative, he’s right out of DNC central casting. How stunningly naive it is to read trustfully a piece that treats him as anything else.

ErnstThalmann May 30, 2015 at 7:24 pm

It matters little to me, Lambert, that there will even be an election, what for all the authenticity elections for representative governments actually have. So if it’s not already entirely clear, it is to your – and others – loyalty to these institutions that I addressed my remarks.

As long as you persist in imagining that the present context can produce “better alternatives”, you remain, in my mind, the very expression of the underlying problem.

Many years ago, the Bernie Sanders version of this problem was aptly called “social fascism”. So it is by no means certain that by “telling people who pay attention things that they already know”, one is addressing people who actually do know.

Jim May 31, 2015 at 2:28 pm

Lets for a moment assume that everyone in the Thalman/Yves/Lambert back and forth has honorable motives.

From my perspective it would be extremely worthwhile if the respective political/economic/financial/cultural arrangements of each position could be sketched out.

Then we would all have something to really sink are teeth into.

TarheelDem May 30, 2015 at 5:44 pm

I get the reference to Eugene McCarthy 1968, but is that all that the great hope for Bernie Sanders amount to?

Jimmy Carter was on the map at all because in 1970 in his inaugural speech he committed as governor to ending segregation in Georgia. Bill Clinton was on the map because he, like Richard Riley of South Carolina, succeeded in getting taxes raised to fund public education in an era in which “no new taxes” was the mantra everywhere. And he did that with a conservative, if not Republican, legislature.

Barack Obama was on the map because of his 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, which made him an instant Presidential candidate like Reagan’s address in 1964 made him an instant Presidential candidate.

Sanders gains momentum if he wins in Iowa (a matter of playing the quirky caucus system properly), New Hampshire, and can prove in South Carolina that he has the potential of developing momentum in red states. It was not Carter’s and Clinton’s centrism but their ability to deliver Southern states that made them attractive to Democratic voters in 1976 and 1992.

Ideological alignments with voters are only part of the appeal of Presidential candidates. Trust that they are up to the demands of campaigning and the operation of a huge executive operation are critical parts of a candidate’s appeal. Sanders’s encouraging polling seems to indicate that he is beginning to build that sort of trust. Another is the hints that the candidates’ campaign style gives into his means of continued communications with voters, especially voters who might not agree with him all the time. Sanders goes into over-marketed campaigning at his peril; so far it looks like his team understands this.

The big question is can Sanders’s campaign end run the Wall Street media and their subsidiary local media, blog presence, and social media so as to have two-way communication with voters. If he can transform marketing-oriented politics and gain traction, winning becomes much easier.

The other issue is governing after winning, which requires having coattails in the Congress within and outside the Democratic Party so as to create the prospect of challengers to Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2018 mid-terms.

He must change the nature of the conversation not rhetorically but institutionally.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL May 30, 2015 at 5:45 pm

Let’s face it, elections are about money and power, more than ever after Citizens United. The shocking part is that with all of this nation’s billionaires (>1400 at last count, up from 700 in 2008) not a single solitary man of principle, a man (or woman) who gives even the tiniest possible damn about the actual direction of the country and the people in it, has committed *anything* to candidates like Warren or Sanders.

Instead we get Rupert’s whore, Koch’s favorite fascist du jour, ossified Cold Warriors backing (retch) Bush, and flat earthers supporting any number of clown car passengers.

Billionaires smugly calculating which utterly corrupt puppet will be best for their personal bank balances or best for their own personal nutjob fantasies is a pretty damning indictment of “civic responsibility” in this age of ours.

A groundswell of public disgust will not turn the tide in 2016 without Really Big Money behind it. Probably will in 2020, in the midst of WW III and a financial meltdown that will make 2008 look like a picnic (if they still let people vote from the FEMA camps, that is…)

jrs May 30, 2015 at 10:31 pm

Last congressional election was the most expensive ever. And it shows. But money couldn’t possible influence anything …. could it?

Jeremy Grimm May 30, 2015 at 8:35 pm

The levels of discontent are beyond anything I can recall from earlier times. Both red and blue voters are concerned and unhappy. I will vote for Sanders. He may wheel around like Obama and disdain his base. I doubt it. As for his past, he is not lily white. I am less concerned with his past than his future. As for his age he must be especially careful in choosing his vice president.

I don’t know the answer — What was FDR about before he was elected? Did he have a lily white liberal voting record?

A rhetorical question — who else might … might … lead our country in the correct (“right” direction offers too much semantic propriety to what has become a direction toward madness) direction? At least Bernie doesn’t offer any truly crazy ideas like an Adolf did in a similar period of discontent in a sibling country — so many years ago.

If you are for Bernie already, what to do about it? Send Bernie your $50 or what you can afford. Design your own Bernie Sanders for President sunscreen plastic to mount inside a rear window of your car and offer it to friends who have little kids. Talk Bernie up to your barber. Talk Bernie up at your Post Office, where you get your oil changed, anywhere many people congregate and occasionally talk and exchange opinions, anywhere a person like your barber talks to and listens to many people.

Even if you don’t especially like Bernie, vote for him in the primary as the lesser Evil — although in Truth there is no lesser Evil. BUT don’t vote for Evil lesser or otherwise in the final election — and DO vote and be counted as an undervote — at least do this if you do care and are not apathetic.

I voted for Obama, twice to my shame. I will never again vote for the lesser of Evils in the final election. But, I will vote my ballot in some way to assure it is counted as a ballot.

As for marching in the street and other such nostrums. I leave that to someone else. Direct confrontation with a vastly superior force, with absolutely no moral constraints holding them back, is simply unwise. The lessons of warfare in this and the previous century teach other far more effective tactics and strategy.

Money cannot buy votes directly. Money can buy advertising, signs, good words and bad words against enemies in the papers, radio and TV but those cannot buy your vote.

Laziness against complexity and nuance buys votes. Credulity buys votes. Disinformation and fatigue buys votes. Money only greases the transaction. Take and enjoy the bread and circuses for what they are, use them.

Remind all your friends, acquaintances and all who will or might listen — Citizenship is a sacred responsibility upon which our freedom depends. We don’t live in an English men’s club! Politics and its free and wide discussion by individuals is the vital life blood of a free and democratic nation.

Lexington May 30, 2015 at 8:47 pm

It’s too bad that Intrade is no longer functional because it appears I could make a killing on Democratic nomination futures by betting against the starry eyed dreamers that believe for even one second that there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that the Democrats are going into the 2015 campaign with Bernie Sanders as their nominee. That dog won’t hunt.

After the 1972 fiasco the Democrats specifically adopted the superdelegate rule to ensure that party establishment could exercise a de facto veto over the nomination process in order to ensure they would never again be saddled with an unelectable McGovernesque candidate by the party rank and file. From the point of view of the party establishment Sanders is McGovern with 10% of the charisma and 1000% of the ideological baggage.

Not that it’s ever going to come to that. They destroyed Howard Dean literally overnight with the meme that he was some crazed out of control freak on the basis of one boisterous post primary celebration rally – and Dean was then a frontrunner with a extensive ground organization and Obama-like adulation from young Democrats. Taking down a 73 year old senator from a small state with no organization and no constituency within the Democratic Party is almost an insult to their finely honed mastery of the Machiavellian arts.

I like Bernie Sanders but he’s a protest candidate at best whose real opportunity is to highlight issues that insiders in both parties would rather not discuss, and in so doing move the Overton Window and possibly help lay the groundwork for a future grassroots challenge to the biparty consensus.

Jess May 30, 2015 at 10:44 pm

I would tend to agree with you except that since Zero got elected in 2008 the curtain has been ripped down.

There is now much more disenchantment and resentment against the direction of the mainstream institutional Democrap party. And many grass roots conservatives are equally fed up with the Wall Street wing of their party. Much different terrain to fight this battle on than in times past.

Johnnie Fever May 30, 2015 at 11:07 pm

Oh no, that didn’t happen. The democrats insist there was no curtain, you where just a “low info” voter, dontchaknow. The campaign speeches where just hyperbole, been like that forever.

Democrat is a disgusting moniker, not Liberal/Progressive”. They (Democrats) sell their Mothers too, but it’s behind a veil of policy, that’s never brought up. Obama stunted the vote of the 18-30 year olds for possibly eternity. There was no “Change”, and almost all have lost “Hope”.

Lexington May 30, 2015 at 11:53 pm

Not disagreeing with you, but my point is regardless of how the electorate at large feels about the state of the nation and its leadership the Democratic nominee is going to be someone acceptable to the party establishment, who are the people who erected the curtain and stage managed everything that occurred behind it. That someone most definitely isn’t Bernie Sanders. Sanders is toxic to the establishment not only because they regard him as unelectable, but more importantly because even if he was nominated (never mind thinking the unthinkable, as in a President Sanders) the plutocracy would abandon the Democrats in droves and take their money and patronage with them. From the perspective of the establishment that would be the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

There was an excellent post on NC a while back about how the leaders of an organization will ultimately always sacrifice the organization’s putative objectives if this is necessary in order to preserve their own position and authority within it. Don’t have time to look it up right now but I think it’s very apropos the situation in which the party now finds itself.

CB May 31, 2015 at 4:49 am

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html

May 30, 2015 at 11:04 pm

Obama by all accounts should have lost in 2012 with the economy in the crappy shape it was but the Republican nominated Romney, who managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with incidents like having had a Swiss bank account and his remarks about the 47% who don’t pay taxes (which is untrue since everyone pays sales taxes and property taxes, either directly or indirectly through rent). So as much as the Republicans ought to win, again given the state of the economy and Democrat fatigue, they have a tone deafness as to how plutocrats play with the general public.

As to the popularity of the positions that Sanders advocates, the US polls consistently well to the left of the political center of gravity represented in the media and inside the Beltway.

Phil May 31, 2015 at 4:15 am

Lexington, you could be right, but something is changing in America. The Plutocrats are in our faces with hegemony and privilege, and using their elevated position of power to decimate the middle class.

Sanders resonates with people in both parties. Social media and its bottom-up power is more sophisticated than it was in 2008. New communication tools have the potential to trump Power. I would love to see Sanders go all the way. Lets see what happens.

TG May 31, 2015 at 9:36 am

Indeed. But Clinton and Obama were not ‘quixotic’ – they made explicit deals to sell us out, and from that point forward the corporate press suddenly gave them glowing coverage out of nowhere. That (I hope) does not apply to Bernie Sanders.

And it’s not just silence that will be applied to Sanders – also the magnification of minor flaws or past mistakes until that’s all the people know about him. The things he stands for – like not having TPP or bank bailouts, which even the tea party supports – will not be covered. So in the conservative press we hear nothing about Sander’s opposition to TPP etc., only that he is a ‘socialist’ who fifty years ago wrote a stupid essay on something.

And the liberal press won’t talk about Senator Jeff Sessions’ opposition to TPP, because his opposition to the use of foreign workers to drive down wages means that he’s a racist who scapegoats immigrants. Divide and conquer, report only makes the enemies of the 1% ‘unelectable’.

washunate May 31, 2015 at 11:46 am

Very interesting read and comments. One angle I might add is to recall how important it was in 2007 to break the aura of inevitability. To grossly oversimplify, a few thousand teens and 20 somethings in Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, and farther away worked to ensure that Hillary Clinton finished third in the Iowa Caucus.

The good news is that it can be done. The bad news is that you can only fool people so many times. A lot of those Obama and Edwards folks in 2006 and 2007 are wary of anyone operating within the Democratic Party today.

Jackrabbit May 31, 2015 at 12:03 pm

The fundamental flaw made by those who support Sanders is that the Democratic Party is an independent institution. It is not. It is a member of the Duopoly which, by design, offers the illusion of democracy. That makes Sanders nothing more than a prequel to lesser evil voting.

Berie Sanders is no Eugene Debs

Sanders’ policies are pretty good on working-class economic justice demands and climate action, and not so good on foreign policy and militarism. But his positions on the issues is secondary to the question of whether his politics are helping the working class act for itself or subsume itself under the big business interests in charge of the Democratic Party. By entering the Democratic primaries with the promise of supporting Clinton as the lesser evil to the Republicans, Sanders is not helping the working class to organize, speak and act for itself.

By failing to act on its own and speak for itself in U.S. elections, the left committed political suicide. It lost its independent voice and its platform from which to be heard. The public doesn’t hear from the left in elections. They only hear from pro-capitalist Democrats, who most of “the left” promotes as the lesser evil to the Republicans.

By trying to get Democratic politicians to say and do what the left wants them to say and do, the left has been engaged in a pathetic and hopeless attempt at political ventriloquism. It is dependent politics, powerless politics. It has been 80 years–20 presidential election cycles–since the left largely disappeared itself into the Democratic Party. It is way past time to draw the lesson of this experience: the left won’t regain power and public significance until it breaks with the Democrats and acts independently for itself.

THE INDEPENDENT left should be talking to progressives who have decided to support Sanders. We should talk about why independent politics is the best way to build progressive power, about the Democratic Party as the historic graveyard of progressive movements, and about the need in 2016 for a progressive alternative when Sanders folds and endorses Clinton. I don’t expect many will be persuaded to quit the Sanders campaign before the primaries. But I do expect that many of them will want a Plan B, a progressive alternative to Clinton, after the primaries.

H O P

Jackrabbit May 31, 2015 at 1:10 pm

Interesting bit of history (from “Bernie Sanders is No Eugene Debs”):

THE INDEPENDENT left was a force to be reckoned with in U.S. politics from the 1840s through the 1930s. The Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party and the Radical Republicans carried the banners of abolition, land reform, labor rights and Reconstruction from the 1840s through 1870s. With the post-Civil War industrialization and rapid expansion of industrial workers, the surviving radicals of the pre-war reform movements formed the populist farmer-labor Greenback Labor and People’s Parties of the 1880s and 1890s.

With collapse of Populism into the Democratic Party, its radicals were central to the formation of the Socialist Party of America, as well as regionally based Labor, Farmer-Labor and Progressive Parties between 1900 and 1936, which came close to establishing a major third party on the left with a farmer-labor popular base. Together, they elected hundreds of local officials, scores of state officials and dozens of members of Congress. The Farmer-Labor and Progressive parties of the Upper Midwest in the 1930s had two governors, three U.S. Senators, 12 members of the House, and scores of state and local elected officials.

Those successes fueled widespread agitation for an independent labor party based on unions, which reached a peak as the 1936 election approached. Unfortunately, the unions and the Communist Party’s Popular Front policy led most of labor and the left into the Democratic Party’s New Deal Coalition in 1936 – from which they never emerged afterward in a major way.

Reply

jrs May 31, 2015 at 2:01 pm

If we believe that Sanders could win and be entirely different than Obama, then we believe the Democratic party could support both Obama and someone unlike him (the anti-Obama). Is this a coherent position? I don’t know as I have a hard time making coherent sense of what parties really are, of having a mental model of them.

I sometimes think that parties are: interest groups for certain industries. And if so Sanders could be different as long as he’s the same on the issues these industries care about. And maybe that’s what could happen, he’ll be allowed some progressive economic policies that still have to pass Congress, and thus may never see the light of day, in return for steering the empire through another round, which will of course see the light of day.

The popular perception is to see parties as ideologies but to accept that is to condemn a party that will not condemn and disown Obama as having no principles, or no decent principles at any rate.

Because the Dem party is really not coherent as an ideological entity except as a champion of the worse types of things. Sometimes I think parties should be seen more as junior high school cliques or yes as tribes, though I think that’s a hard conception for those who never were “in with the in crowd” to get their minds around. But maybe they are just all people in exclusionary (to the other party) and inclusionary (to anyone in the party) social circles, and no we non-elite really aren’t part of the club.

The other individualist alternative is to see Sanders as purely an individual, but he is running on a party platform. Would we vote for Sanders if he ran as a Republican? Why not? Maybe parties are branding, but branding of what, maybe those exclusionary and inclusionary social circles, that yea we the masses will never be part of.

jrs May 31, 2015 at 2:13 pm

I reject the simplification that both parties are the same big party. I can accept that they BOTH represent plutocrats and not the common person. But at the same time they fight too hard to win (even cheat to win as in hacking and counter-hacking the voting machines) to be the same exact party.

Even if it’s really just fighting for the spoils and to distribute some spoils to their cliques (no their cliques are not us). But some may believe their own spin of it being for the greater good.

[May 29, 2015] Bernie Sanders doesnt have to win the Democratic primary to do a lot of good

While it is extremely important that Sanders beat Hillary for democratic nomination, as warmonger Hillary will be a disaster for the county, it looks like majority of commenters does not understand that election in the USA are a formality and in reality "deep state" has most if not all the power and in a sense President is more of a figurehead, not "decider" as Bush boasted while being manipulated by Cheney, Wolfowitz and friends.
Notable quotes:
"... In Sanders case, I think hes partly a true believer in militarism. ..."
"... We should be clear that this degeneration of the Democratic Party platform does not represent a shift in public attitudes, but rather an increase in the corruption of the political system. ..."
"... The wealthy and corporations paid a much larger share, and you know what? Both they and the country prospered! ..."
"... Part of it, of course, is the utter vileness of the radical right, who associate their views with Christianity as much as possible and have done much to damage the brand. ..."
"... America is a corporate slave state. It is largely run by entities who see America as a useful tool, nothing else. ..."
"... due largely to the deluded notion by Christian Zionists that Israeli interests and American interests cojoin because they are part of an insane biblical plan for end days. ..."
"... As for Ralph Nader, your ad hominem attack depicting him as an attention seeking martyr with a giant ego is the borrowed, careless, shorthand cliche used by party hacks and operatives otherwise known as the Washington Consensus, to easily dismiss without consideration of issue or substance one of the few clear and vital voices of informed dissent America has. He has done as much or more over the last fifty years as any politician to protect and advocate for Americans against the corporate behemoths that regularly run roughshod over their lives. ..."
"... said America needs a serious debate on issues, and he then referenced the Trans-Pacific Partnership , ..."
"... Disguised Global (crony) Capitalist EMPIRE, which is only posing as our former country and which is the force hiding behind both these Vichy parties ..."
"... I agree. Hillary is just a fake Democrat. ..."
"... Hillary is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Shes more Republican than Democrat. ..."
"... progressive except for Pentagon and Palestine. ..."
"... What Bernie is actually pointing out is this same essential failure of the Clintons/ Gore/ Obama positions as centrist Democrats - and hes here to say that is not the way to go. Attack Nader, you also attack Bernie - and Ive heard it already said by Clinton supporters. ..."
"... As for Democrooks , theres an old joke in US politics, of small towns election whose outcome hinges on the last voter, who happens to be the town drunk. As the drunk staggers towards to polling station, the Democratic boss offers him $5 and a six pack to vote for the Democrat; a few steps later the GOP offers him $10 and two six packs. The drunk goes in, votes, staggers out, and each boss demands to know how he voted. Democrat the drunk hiccups. Outraged, the GOP boss demands to know why, citing his more generous offer. ..."
"... Lack of polish , abruptness do not characterize his platform which is based on a long and comprehensive legislative and administrative record beginning in the time he served as Mayor of Burlington VT. ..."
"... Furthermore, he has consistently avoided the ideological purities of the intransigent Left, preferring always to strive for what can be done as opposed what could be done in a perfect world ..."
"... His success in Vermont has been derived to an unexpected degree from folks who otherwise would be considered conservative- farmers, blue-collars with decidedly independent points of view, veterans and many segments of the business community who have gradually come to realize that his initiatives in many areas, not the least in health care and education, are in their interest. ..."
"... As for articles which have to issue a disclaimer that Bernie Sanders doesnt stand a squirrels chance in hell of winning, they are preferable to the fawning articles about Hillary Clintons inevitability because it is her turn. ..."
"... So lets stop placing bets on winning and talk about what is good for America right now, not what is good for this or that candidate. ..."
May 28, 2015 | The Guardian

ExcaliburDefender -> libbyliberal 28 May 2015 22:52

Oh bless your heart Lib Lib - good to be kept up to date on the world of Jill Stein, has she decided to run yet? Those 3rd challenges are going to work someday, right? Lesser evilism et al.

Do keep in mind there are no shortage of Rove types that want the democrats to sit this one out. It's the GOP that are worried this election, not enough Tea Party types to carry them. More than 5 states heading toward BLUE.

PEPP, now that was net new, is this the 'socialist' site?

In Sanders' case, I think he's partly a true believer in militarism. He wants good wars instead of bad wars (whatever that means) despite the belief in "good wars" requiring ongoing military spending. And partly, I think, he comes at it from a deep habit of "supporting" the troops and veterans for both sincere and calculating reasons. He's also a PEP in the Palestine sense.

But people will be thrilled just to hear Sanders mention "the bad Bush-Cheney war," when their standard is set by such war hawks as Hillary Clinton, whose love for war, rather than some collective fit of amnesia, explains the absence of the military from most of the emerging populist agendas.

We should be clear that this degeneration of the Democratic Party platform does not represent a shift in public attitudes, but rather an increase in the corruption of the political system. No polls support this. Many campaign funders do.

http://davidswanson.org/node/4752

Zepp -> bbh795 28 May 2015 19:59

Do you know that federal tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are at the same levels as they were in 1952?

The difference is that back then, a family of four making average income paid 4% of their income in federal taxes. The wealthy and corporations paid a much larger share, and you know what? Both they and the country prospered!

Zepp -> gwpriester 28 May 2015 19:36

There's a sea change in American politics over the past six or seven years. A poll yesterday showed that 31% of Americans now self-identify as "liberal" or "very liberal", matching the number who self-identify as conservative or very conservative. Ten years ago, ten points separated the two groups.

Further, the number of Americans who self-identify as Christian has dropped an amazing seven points in seven years. These are not trivial changes; for an estimated 15 million adult Americans to change their self-description on such a bedrock issue such as religion indicates a vast change is going on.

Part of it, of course, is the utter vileness of the radical right, who associate their views with Christianity as much as possible and have done much to damage the brand.

But part of it is the 2007 crash and the Occupy movement, which made it politically correct for the first time since the 50s for Americans to ask if unrestricted capitalism really is the best way to run a society, and do

Zepp -> zelazny 28 May 2015 19:20

Would [McCain and Palin] have attacked Libya and destroyed the most prosperous country in Africa?

Absolutely. And more. Remember McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"? He wasn't kidding, you know. They probably would have sparked World War III.

America is a corporate slave state. It is largely run by entities who see America as a useful tool, nothing else.

Support for Sanders is a good way of repudiating the corps.

Zepp -> hastings45 28 May 2015 19:14

Superhuman race? Not likely. But I do think Israel exerts undue influence on American policy, due largely to the deluded notion by Christian Zionists that Israeli interests and American interests cojoin because they are part of an insane biblical plan for end days.

Note to humanist_peach: You're right, I forgot that Sanders did that. As did about 40% of the Democrats, as I recall. Good for them!

pmyshkin 28 May 2015 16:43

I'm not sure when the media is going to break it to the American people that Bernie Sanders, who when he's not running for president, is a (gasp) socialist. Although he caucuses with the Democrats it would have been helpful to mention his pinkishness for the readership. One wonders why it hasn't come up yet in a big way, with the heavy handed finality, characteristic of an inane MM and a brainwashed USA, to thoroughly ridicule and discredit him. I suppose it is being held in reserve for the right moment.

As for Ralph Nader, your ad hominem attack depicting him as an attention seeking martyr with a giant ego is the borrowed, careless, shorthand cliche used by party hacks and operatives otherwise known as the Washington Consensus, to easily dismiss without consideration of issue or substance one of the few clear and vital voices of informed dissent America has. He has done as much or more over the last fifty years as any politician to protect and advocate for Americans against the corporate behemoths that regularly run roughshod over their lives.

His work on auto safety standards alone has literally saved thousand of lives. The Public Interest Research Groups spawned by Nader's early work and the court settlement against General Motors for their attempt to discredit and destroy him, have done as much as anyone operating in the political arena to protect Americans against polluters, big finance and Pharmaceutical companies.

As far as Gore and Bush and the practice of democracy in America, it is perhaps not so odd as it might seem, to hear a journalist criticize one candidacy because another candidate might win. That is after all how democracy works. Recall also what Clinton and Obama have done for the country if you wonder why the left must look for candidates beyond the Democratic Party.

amacd2 28 May 2015 16:27

My comment to Union Leader regarding Bernie Sanders in this campaign event in Portsmouth NH:

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150527/NEWS0605/150529254

The Union Leader's Dan Tuohy correctly reports that Sanders "said America needs a serious debate on issues, and he then referenced the Trans-Pacific Partnership", and that in the Hall, "Sanders spoke about free tuition to public colleges and the importance of universal health care, Social Security, and keeping promises to veterans" which are also 'issues'.

Your accurate report continued that, "Afterward, he walked out to a nearby courtyard where grabbed a bull horn to speak to an overflow crowd. He said his campaign would focus on fighting income inequality and the influence of big money in politics." --- which are more 'issues'.

Finally, you reported that Sanders addressed the 'issues' of; billionaires, control of the media and the economy. Sanders said that others should address the 'issues' like he is with 'the people'.

But the only single issue which is the proximate CAUSE of all these subordinate 'issues' that Sanders mentioned is the Disguised Global (crony) Capitalist EMPIRE, which is only 'posing' as our former country and which is the force hiding behind both these Vichy parties --- and which Bernie needs to honestly; expose, 'call-out', and tell the people about, just as Thomas Paine and Paul Revere shouted-out and warned the people about the EMPIRE that was oppressing colonial American 'subjects' of that more visible Red Coated British EMPIRE.

As I wrote in January of 2007 and implored Nader, Jim Webb, Romney (in Portsmouth '12), and Jill Stein to level with the people about:"The very most important question that the American people should be asking (and looking for) in any candidate for president in '08 is not, "Where do you stand on the war?", but, "Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- an Empire of which the war in Iraq is only its biggest and most visible crime?" -

See more at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alan_mac_070125_the_most_important_q.htm

The only 'Issue' (which covers all 'Issues") that both Sanders and Webb should address is the EMPIRE behind and CAUSING all these 'issues'.

If they addressed the EMPIRE all the other candidates would run away for fear of losing their campaign bribes from the EMPIRE which keeps both the neocon 'R' Vichy party political puppets and the neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy war goddess shilling Hillary in business!

cp1818 -> Timothy Everton 28 May 2015 15:04

I agree. Hillary is just a fake Democrat.

Timothy Everton -> ApostasyUSA 28 May 2015 14:11

" If Hillary gets the nomination then I will vote for her, If it's Bernie so be it."

That's part of the problem. People will let the DNC choose a candidate for them instead of helping get the BEST one on the rolls. Hillary is part of the problem, not part of the solution. She's more Republican than Democrat.

Tell the DNC to pick up Bernie Sanders as their candidate. It only takes and email or snail mail.

libbyliberal 28 May 2015 13:54

This columnist another proud to be sheepdog for patriarchy.

Sanders, sadly, a PEPP, "progressive except for Pentagon and Palestine." Kind of major holes in humaneness.

Style not substance with Obama, and now it is anti-style as style and not substance?

Meh.

ElyFrog 28 May 2015 13:22

"self-aggrandizing and delusional pose of a Ralph Nader, who could only arrive at the conclusion that there was no essential difference between George W Bush and Al Gore by surveying the playing field from somewhere 20 yards up his own ass."

Actually, on many issues, these two were very close. Maybe on the culture war issues not so much, but on economic, social and foreign policy, very close. However, juvenile insults are the refuge of mildly liberal types like this author.

What Bernie is actually pointing out is this same essential failure of the Clintons/ Gore/ Obama positions as centrist Democrats - and he's here to say that is not the way to go. Attack Nader, you also attack Bernie - and I've heard it already said by Clinton supporters.

marshwren -> ravioliollie 28 May 2015 12:36

Sanders' senate term isn't up until 2018, and i suspect at his age he'd probably retire rather than run again. He's still a senator while he runs for president, and will remain one should he lose the nomination or the general election.

As for "Democrooks", there's an old joke in US politics, of small town's election whose outcome hinges on the last voter, who happens to be the town drunk. As the drunk staggers towards to polling station, the Democratic boss offers him $5 and a six pack to vote for the Democrat; a few steps later the GOP offers him $10 and two six packs. The drunk goes in, votes, staggers out, and each boss demands to know how he voted. "Democrat" the drunk hiccups. Outraged, the GOP boss demands to know why, citing his more generous offer.

To which the drunk replies, "The Democrats are only half as corrupt as the Republicans."

marshwren -> ID345543 28 May 2015 12:21

I do, and so do most left-of-center voters: for the past 35 years the only dissent from Orthodoxy allowed is by the right wing; this is why Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Rand Paul make 2-3 (or more) appearances on the Sunday talk show EVERY WEEK, while Sanders was accorded just one--IN THE PAST YEAR. This is why we have 20+ flavors of Christo-corporate fascism representing the GOP, and one Democratic flavor thereof, who suck 99.999% of the oxygen out of the M$M coverage, while the only coverage afforded Sanders is about how unelectable he is (the week after Sanders announced, the liberal-lite non-candidate O'Malley generated more buzz for not yet announcing).

Anyone with half a brain could have predicted this the moment Sanders first mentioned his interest in running; this is why net neutrality is vital to the political health of this country--it's the people's alternative to the M$M, which is why corporate America (and their mostly GOP sock-puppets, including Rand Paul) wanted to drive the proverbial wooden stake through its heart.

ApostasyUSA 28 May 2015 11:18

I'll vote for the Democrat. It's about the platform of ideas to me, not just one person. If Hillary gets the nomination then I will vote for her, If it's Bernie so be it. Bernie can help one way or the other. His ideals enter the debate, many of which I agree with, and the conversation the left wants to have gets aired. Bernie + Hillary in the race is good for the Democrats and the Democrats are by far the better of the two major political Parties. I think a Clinton-Sanders ticket could be sweet!

Republicans prove themselves the scum of the Earth every day, so I'm all in for the Democrats and the Democratic platform. Renewable energy policy. Women's rights. Voting rights. Consumer rights. Serious efforts to reduce prison populations. Upkeep of our nation's infrastructure. Immigration rights. I'm going to vote affirmatively for the Democrats for allot of reasons in the next few decades.

Richard Polley 28 May 2015 11:10

'HE IS OUR ONLY HOPE.'....'NO, THERE IS ANOTHER.' bernie's greatness is in his current senate position and the voice/role he uses it for. He is pragmatic, offers clarity, states the obvious from a high position in the Senate. He is not destroying the rich class, he is saving them...because they are locked in to shortsighted views...their wealth is dependent on the existence and wealth of a middle class in the United states. Bernie is also growing a very powerful grass roots movement which, despite the hyperbole, is asking the wealthy to join in these reforms for every member of our society. This is not a super liber give-away program! Better education, rights to basic care, fair wages, these shouldn't even be thought of as 'revolutionary ideas' in our country...AMAZING....let the evolution revolution gain momentum!

johnshaplin 28 May 2015 09:26

"Lack of polish", 'abruptness' do not characterize his platform which is based on a long and comprehensive legislative and administrative record beginning in the time he served as Mayor of Burlington VT. in housing, health care,urban re-development, family services, veterans' benefits, minority affairs, immigration, community policing, schools, workers rights as well as numerous efforts to end the de-regulated environment, subsidies and tax-breaks in which the corporate 'oligarchy' presently operates.

Furthermore, he has consistently avoided the 'ideological purities' of the intransigent Left, preferring always to strive for what can be done as opposed what 'could be done' in a perfect world and even in foreign affairs he has never positioned himself as an anti-Imperialist demagogue or 'anti-Israel, to the great consternation of many who one would presume would be his 'natural supporters', very precisely Ralph Nader, Kucinich and others.

His success in Vermont has been derived to an unexpected degree from folks who otherwise would be considered 'conservative'- farmers, blue-collars with decidedly independent points of view, veterans and many segments of the business community who have gradually come to realize that his initiatives in many areas, not the least in health care and education, are in their interest.

Of course, "The Media", as evinced in their 'non-coverage' the official kick-oo to his campaign, are not going to broadcast his record. He will have to pull-up support blade by blade, dollar by dollar in countless 'town-hall meetings' and modest venues across the country, in a grueling contest with few opportunities to debate his opponents face-to-face. Perhaps he and Hillary will circle each other like carnivorous cats in the jungle, each staking out their own territories but avoiding direct conflict to jointly defeat the behemoth of "Thatcher-Reaganism" and tea-party anarchism which has held the country in its thrall for the last thirty years has wrecked the country and plunged it into cynicism and despair. As Bernie has indicated time and time again, following Hannah Arendt's remarks in "The Eggs Speak", his campaign is one chance, perhaps the last, for Americans to avoid the choice between 'the lesser of two evils." To avoid choosing what, after all, is still evil.

sassafrasdog 28 May 2015 09:11

As for articles which have to issue a disclaimer that Bernie Sanders doesn't stand a squirrel's chance in hell of winning, they are preferable to the fawning articles about Hillary Clinton's inevitability because it is her turn.

Bushwah! We are in the primary season. Other candidates need to run to keep the frontrunner on her toes if she is going to get the nomination--otherwise it is months of her talking to herself. Also, some of those candidates might actually have a chance at beating her!

So let's stop placing bets on winning and talk about what is good for America right now, not what is good for this or that candidate.

[May 28, 2015]Bernie Sanders's Message Resonates With a Certain Age Group His Own

Hillary Clinton is a despicable warmonger, so "anybody but Clinton" theme might get a traction.
NYTimes.com

EPPING, N.H. — Fit and quick-witted at age 73, Senator Bernie Sanders was still going strong after speaking for an hour in 90-degree heat on Wednesday when he fielded a question from a man who could have been an older brother.

"Would you raise the top marginal tax rate to over 90 percent, as it was in the 1950s, when the middle class and the economy were doing so well?" asked Milt Lauenstein, 89, who had the same white hair and hunched posture as Mr. Sanders.

"You mean under the communist Dwight D. Eisenhower?" Mr. Sanders quipped about the former president, who, of course, was a Republican, but one who did not oppose high taxes as fiercely as party leaders do now.

Senator Bernie Sanders speaking at an event at New England College in New Hampshire on Wednesday.

It is not every day in 2015 that an Ike joke gets a laugh, but Mr. Sanders landed the line perfectly — at least for the roughly 50 older people in the crowd of 200 who came out to meet the candidate in a backyard here. It was the latest Sanders event to draw a sizable number of registered voters who share not only Mr. Sanders's cultural reference points but also his age group.

Mr. Sanders, an independent from Vermont, is running an insurgent's campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, but to spend time with him on the trail is almost to travel back in time: He sprinkles his remarks with "50 years ago" or "40 years ago" as he reminds his audiences of the progress in the United States on race relations or gay rights.

At one point during his remarks in Epping, Mr. Sanders drew a "yes" from Nina Capra Jordan when he commented that back in the first half of the 20th century, the University of California campuses, the City College of New York and other elite institutions charged little or no tuition. (Mr. Sanders wants to eliminate tuition at public universities nationwide and pay for it largely with revenue from taxes on Wall Street stock trades.)

Older voters seem to be responding. Some, facing financial strains now, seem especially drawn to the senator's evoking of an earlier era's more generous government and strong safety net.

"He's like F.D.R.," Marlene Gilman, 80, whispered excitedly in Concord, N.H., as Mr. Sanders pledged to create more jobs through a trillion-dollar public works program — a plan that echoes President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

At a campaign rally in Vermont on Tuesday and at three events in New Hampshire, including a town-hall-style gathering in Portsmouth that drew roughly 600 people, older voters made up a sizable minority of the crowds.

Their visibility at his events has been striking because Mr. Sanders's unabashedly progressive message, calling for a "political revolution" to tax the rich and redistribute income, often appeals to idealistic young Americans who do not pay much in the way of taxes. Even some of these older voters said they were a little surprised to be responding to the fiery, man-the-barricades exhortations of Mr. Sanders. But if young people and African-Americans identified with Barack Obama during his presidential run in 2008, older Americans said that Mr. Sanders had struck a deeply personal chord with them.

"I don't think he's too old — he's articulate and on the ball," said Leslie Dundon, a 71-year-old from Manchester, N.H. "And look, the older you get, the more you realize that life has actually taught you something, and you have something to contribute."

Mr. Sanders, who is only starting to build a national campaign — he has hired a dozen staff members and raised about $4 million toward a $50 million goal over the next 10 months — said that support from older Americans was a central part of his strategy to win the Democratic nomination over the party's front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. A new survey by Quinnipiac University showed him moving up in the polls, with 15 percent support among Democratic voters, although polls at this point mainly reflect name recognition.

"It is beyond my understanding why the Democratic Party has not focused on the needs of seniors much more than they have — and you better believe I plan to," Mr. Sanders said in an interview on Wednesday between campaign events in New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary, in February. "The Democratic Party talks about needing the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, the women's vote — and all of that is right — but somehow we forget about senior citizens. Well, poverty among seniors is growing in this country, too. I'm going to fight for expanded Social Security benefits for them, and fight for their vote."

Mr. Sanders starts out as a long-shot candidate against Mrs. Clinton, who is far ahead of him in polls of Democratic voters. He is among the most liberal members of his party and hardly a power broker with a strong record in the Senate, and he is unlikely to come close to Mrs. Clinton in fund-raising — he vowed not to use a super PAC — or media exposure. But the televised debates could help him considerably, as he comes across as a truth-teller and more of a populist than Mrs. Clinton, and his policies and personality could attract both younger and older voters in influential states like Iowa and New Hampshire who are skeptical of establishment politicians.

Older Americans have long been a crucial voting bloc for presidential candidates, especially in states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that have early nominating contests.

... ... ...

Jordan Derderian Jr., 69, a retiree who turned out to hear Mr. Sanders in Concord on Wednesday, said his problems were bigger than entitlement programs. He said he still wanted to earn some money to enjoy his life, but was having a hard time getting by, mostly on a combination of Social Security and a state pension. Recently he started working as a driver, earning 50 cents a mile to take people to hospitals.

[May 28, 2015]Bush earned millions in juggling act as corporate adviser

May 28, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

Lucrative stints as corporate director, adviser earned Bush millions, may invite 2016 scrutiny

During his transition from Florida governor to likely presidential candidate, Jeb Bush served on the boards of or as an adviser to at least 15 companies and nonprofits, a dizzying array of corporate connections that earned him millions of dollars and occasional headaches.

Bush returned to corporate America after leaving the governor's mansion in early 2007, and his industry portfolio expanded steadily until he began shedding ties late last year to prepare a run for president.

Executives who worked alongside Bush describe him as an engaged adviser with an eye for detail.

Yet experts question how anyone could serve so many boards at once effectively.

"Board of directors and advisory boards are in charge of high-level oversight," said law professor Elizabeth Nowicki, a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer. "You cannot possibly do that simultaneously for 10 or 15 entities."

There is no formal rule limiting the number of boards one person can serve. But in the wake of the Enron scandal, where flimsy board oversight contributed to the company's infamous meltdown, and a federal law that increased liability for a public company's director, common sense dictates a small number, Nowicki said.

"If somebody starts serving on more than three or four boards that's a problem," she said.

Three boards should be the maximum, agreed Zabihollah Rezaee, a University of Memphis accounting professor who has authored books about corporate governance.

"Board members are representing shareholders, and they are responsible to shareholders for financial integrity," said Rezaee. "Best practices" dictate a small number, he said, "because of the amount of time it requires to be effective."

Bush served on the boards of or as an adviser to 11 companies or nonprofits at a time each year from 2010 to 2013, The Associated Press found. Those ties were in addition to his own businesses, such as Jeb Bush & Associates, and the educational foundations he created.

In 2010 Bush served on the board of directors of eight different entities, as adviser to a ninth company and advisory board member for two others. In 2013, he served on six boards, as an adviser to another company and on the advisory board of four more entities.

Bush answered curtly Thursday when asked about the positions after visiting a lab in Lansing, Michigan, that makes antidotes and vaccinations for poisons such as anthrax.

"I had two public boards," he said. "And I did my fiduciary duty quite well, I think. You'll have to ask them."

Bush was apparently referring to his standing only in 2014, when he shed his corporate ties. At that time he was on the board of two publicly held companies, Tenet Healthcare and Rayonier Inc. In 2013, he was on the board of four public companies, including the international advisory board of Barrick Gold Corp.

Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said not all the corporate entities were the same — some were board slots, some advisory positions and others nonprofits — and suggested it was unfair to put them all in the same basket. AP's review found that Bush served on the board of directors of as many as seven for-profit companies at a time — while also serving as an adviser to other companies and nonprofits.

Bush's experience on corporate boardrooms could evolve into a theme during the 2016 race for the presidency. Among the issues the Florida Republican could be asked to explain:

  • One company that paid Bush $15,000 a month as a board member and consultant, InnoVida Holdings, collapsed in fraud and bankruptcy, with the company's CEO, Claudio Osorio, now serving 12½ years in prison. Bush joined InnoVida despite warning signs that Osorio's prior company dissolved amid bankruptcy and allegations of fraud.
  • At least five companies where Bush served on the board or as adviser faced class-action lawsuits from shareholders or legal action by the government. Some of the most sweeping cases, involving allegations of fraud or environmental damage, remain active. The Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenaed one of the companies, Rayonier Inc., in November, shortly before Bush's exit.
  • Bush earned $3.9 million from four companies alone since 2007, the AP found, plus $25,000 a year more from a medical company in Georgia, $9,600 annually from Bloomberg Philanthropies and zero pay from a drug addiction nonprofit. His earnings from eight other companies are unknown, and Bush has declined AP's requests to disclose his compensation — raising questions about how open he would be as a presidential candidate.

Bush was a board member or adviser to publicly traded health care, timber, gold mining and sanitation companies; for private firms involved in housing, finance, medicine, higher education and decontamination; and for nonprofits focused on drug addiction and philanthropy. He served on the board of directors for nine of the 15, and as an adviser or advisory board member for the others. Two of the 15 are nonprofits.

Once Bush officially declares for president, he will have 45 days to file a public disclosure form listing his sources of income for the prior year. Those forms include broad ranges for the values of assets or salaries that can be used to estimate a politician's net worth, but they will not be precise totals and will capture just the prior year.

... ... ...

Re-joining the corporate world

Bush returned to corporate America less wealthy than when he took office. Bush's net worth, $2 million when he was elected Florida governor in 1998, dipped to less than $1.3 million by the time he left office in the first days of 2007, his financial disclosure forms show. The decline came largely from a diminished investment portfolio. He also earned less as governor — $129,000 his last year in office — than in the private sector, where he had been paid $755,000 annually by the Codina Group, a development company in Coral Gables, Florida, before taking office.

Out of office, Bush began quickly making up time, becoming an adviser or board member for at least five companies in 2007.

One was Tenet Healthcare Corp., a publicly held company where Bush served on the board of directors from 2007 to 2014, earning $2,375,870 in pay and stock, the company's SEC filings show.

Tenet declined to make a board member available for an interview, but spokesman Donn Walker said Bush challenged management to deliver for patients and consumers. Bush attended 94 percent of board meetings and 99 percent of committee meetings, Walker said.

In a statement, Trevor Fetter, the company's president and CEO, said his fellow board member "made innumerable contributions to Tenet's transformation into a national diversified health care services provider."

That year Bush also became an adviser for Lehman Brothers, which, after its collapse, was absorbed by Barclays Capital. Bush worked for Barclays through 2014, advising clients on the regulatory landscape in the U.S. The New York Times reported last year that Barclays paid Bush $1 million a year. The company declined comment on Bush's pay and tenure.

Later in 2007, Bush took on what became his most troublesome board position, joining Miami Beach's InnoVida Holdings. Founder Osorio is now serving a prison sentence for orchestrating a global fraud that cost investors millions.

Bush conducted a thorough review before joining InnoVida's board, Campbell said. That included commissioning a background check of Osorio, conducted by a former federal agent whom she declined to identify.

"Based on the report that was shared with the governor by the company that was hired to do the background check, there were not red flags to indicate financial or criminal wrongdoing," Campbell said. The campaign declined to share the report.

But financial red flags did exist, public court records show.

Thirteen years before creating InnoVida in 2006, Osorio had founded another South Florida business, CHS Electronics, which sold computer products in Latin America and Europe from its headquarters west of the Miami International Airport.

In 1999, just as Bush was beginning his first term as Florida governor, scores of CHS investors filed suit in federal court in Miami accusing Osorio and CHS of inflating the company's income and profits. In all, 36 separate actions were consolidated into one class-action lawsuit that said CHS overstated its profits in 1998 by 50 percent.

After CHS admitted in 1999 that it overstated vendor rebates, a financial chess move that led the company to issue a misleadingly rosy financial picture, the price of its common stock plummeted 35 percent in one day.

The lawsuit cited analyst Robert Damron who urged investors not to buy. "There was fraud, and when I see fraud I walk away," he said.

CHS filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000, and, a year later, entered into an $11.5 million settlement with shareholders, federal court records show.

In September 2007, the SEC revoked CHS' securities registration.

Three months later, Bush joined Osorio's InnoVida, a South Florida manufacturer that said its unique fiber composite panel construction could withstand fires and hurricanes. But instead of building homes, including a U.S. government-financed project in earthquake-stricken Haiti, Osorio used investors' money to bankroll a Miami Beach mansion, Colorado mountain retreat home, Maserati and country club dues, the SEC said.

Bush's role on InnoVida's board helped build the company's image and attract business.

One businessman who hired InnoVida as a contractor said that, when he visited Osorio at the company's Miami Beach offices, Bush's pictures were all over the wall.

"He drops his name repeatedly. 'Jeb Bush this, Jeb Bush that.' And you just say, OK, there's credibility there," said Troy Von Otnott, founder of Massive Technologies, a CleanTech consulting firm in Atlanta.

InnoVida never delivered on its promises to build housing in Africa, despite receiving $3 million for the job from Von Otnott's partners. "They delivered false promises and hot air and lies," he said.

Now Von Otnott is among creditors trying to collect pennies on the dollar — and questioning how Bush could have put his name behind the company.

"We bought into their whole sales push because Jeb Bush was on their board of directors and had his picture all over their office," said Von Otnott, a onetime volunteer with Citizens Climate Lobby who describes himself as a political independent.

"At the very least, it just demonstrates poor judgment. If you are running for the president of the United States of America, you need to show that you have judgment."

A major InnoVida investor, Miami lawyer Chris Korge, said Bush "showed true concern" about the losses investors suffered.

Bush left InnoVida in September 2010. In 2013, as part of the company's bankruptcy proceedings, Bush agreed to repay $270,000 of the $468,902 InnoVida paid Jeb Bush & Associates LLC over the 33 months he worked for InnoVida. From his Miami prison, Osorio declined an AP interview request.

"As soon as concerns regarding InnoVida were brought to Gov. Bush's attention, he took action to address them immediately," Campbell said.

[May 22, 2015] Stephen Kinzers The Brothers John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War

John Foster Dulles Allen Dulles were architects of deep state as a new form of US government.
May 15, 2015 | Foreign Policy Journal

Kinzer's The Brothers is an excellent source of information concerning the development of U.S. foreign policy during the Twentieth Century.

The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret War Stephen Kinzer. St. Martin's Griffin, New York, 2013.

Stephen Kinzer is a masterful storyteller, creating an historical record that is readily accessible to all levels of readers. Besides writing history—or more importantly, rewriting history correctly—he is able to draw out the personal characteristics of the people involved, creating lively anecdotal stories that carry the reader through the overall narrative.

His book, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret War, delves into the personal beliefs and perspectives of the Dulles brothers and those associated with them. From that he creates a picture of the nature of U.S. foreign policy as shaped by and being embodied by the brothers and the various Presidents and other corporate and political wheeler and dealers they interacted with over a span of fifty years:

"If they were shortsighted, open to violence, and blind to the subtle realities of the world, it was because these qualities help define American foreign policy and the United States itself…..they embodied the national ethos….They were pure products of the United States."

The historical narrative is clearly presented, the ties to corporations, their employment with powerful law firms, the power they gained within the political system such that after the Second World War they became the two most powerful figures in U.S. politics and foreign affairs. Apart from the basic historical record, the most intriguing aspect is the different natures of the brothers, and the basic similarity that few people gave very much credence to their abilities for deep thought.

Personalities…

They came from a relatively rigid Christian upbringing. John Foster retained the dourness of that upbringing through his life, while his younger brother Allen proved to be a dilettante and womanizer. Their concept of freedom

"was above all economic: a country whose leaders respected private enterprise and welcomed multinational business was a free country."

The other component of freedom was religion,

"Countries that encouraged religious devotion, and that were led by men on good terms with Christian clerics, were to them free countries….These two criteria…they conjured an explanation of why they condemned some dictatorships but not others."

This doctrinaire system of thought did not allow for much in the way of critical thinking skills. Sir Alexander Cadogan, Britain's undersecretary to the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, "wrote in his diary, "J.F.D. the wooliest type of useless pontificating American….Heaven help us!" Eden himself "considered Foster a narrow minded ideologue…always ready to go on a rampage….Churchill agreed. After one of their meetings he remarked,

"Foster Dulles is the only case I know of a bull who carries his own china shop around with him."

It was not just the British. American political scientist Ole Holsti found that Foster dealt with "discrepant information" by "discrediting the source" and "reinterpreting the new information so as to be consistent with his belief system; searching for other information. The advice of subordinates was neither actively sought nor, when tendered, was it often of great weight." Arthur Schlesinger Jr. said that Allen "was a frivolous man" who would "make these decisions which involved people's lives, and never would really think them through."

…and history

From a privileged upbringing with many family contacts in both the political and corporate world, the brothers had little trouble maneuvering through the intricacies of the global power structures they encountered. They were steeped in the ethos of pioneers and missionaries," and

"spent decades promoting the business and strategic interests of the United States….they were vessels of American history."

That history spans half a century. It starts with the Versailles peace talks and ends only with the death of Foster in 1959 and the senescence and increasing senility of Allen during that same time period. Its major impact occurred after World War II, with John Foster becoming Secretary of State with President Eisenhower, while Allen worked himself into founding leader of the FBI.

From both these positions, one of great public power (wielded with much secrecy) and the other with great covert power, they steered the course of U.S. history through the early days of the Cold War. Their rabid anti-communism, combining their religious and corporate beliefs, shaped the world as we know it today.

Kinzer leads the reader through the "Six Monsters", the foreign leaders who became the most public targets of the Eisenhower/Dulles administration: Mossadegh (Iran), Jacabo Arbenz (Guatemala), Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), Sukarno (Indonesia ), Patrice Lumumba (Congo), and Castro (Cuba). The ongoing repercussions and blowback from these actions continue to shape our world today.

The last three of these had other impacts. UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjold was involved with Sukarno and Lumumba, and was killed by CIA backed covert action in the Congo. The assassination of John F. Kennedy has several possible claimants, of which his interactions with Sukarno and Castro are the most telling. Significantly, Allen Dulles was appointed to the Warren Commission by President Johnson as it had "some foreign complications, CIA, and other things." Allen "systematically used his influence to keep the commission safely within bounds, the importance of which only he could appreciate."[1]

Kinzer's The Brothers is an excellent source of information concerning the development of U.S. foreign policy during the Twentieth Century. A reader will develop a much stronger understanding of our current geopolitical crisis with this as a background source. It provides not just the historical data behind the events, but more importantly it examines the mindset of the U.S. administration and the people who are both shaped by it and are shaping it:

"The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America. It illuminates and helps explain the modern history of the United States and the world."

Note

(1) See The Incubus of Intervention—Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles. Greg Poulgrain. Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Selangor, Malaysia. (Click here to read Jim Miles' review of Incubus of Intervention.)

[May 21, 2015] Militarization Is More Than Tanks Rifles It's a Cultural Disease, Acclimating Citizens To Life In A Police State

May 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

"If we're training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve. A soldier's mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers to have that mentality? Of course not."

— Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member of the military

Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it's brilliant timing.

Only nowafter the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense have passed off billions of dollars worth of military equipment to local police forces, after police agencies have been trained in the fine art of war, after SWAT team raids have swelled in number to more than 80,000 a year, after it has become second nature for local police to look and act like soldiers, after communities have become acclimated to the presence of militarized police patrolling their streets, after Americans have been taught compliance at the end of a police gun or taser, after lower income neighborhoods have been transformed into war zones, after hundreds if not thousands of unarmed Americans have lost their lives at the hands of police who shoot first and ask questions later, after a whole generation of young Americans has learned to march in lockstep with the government's dictatesonly now does President Obama lift a hand to limit the number of military weapons being passed along to local police departments.

Not all, mind you, just some.

Talk about too little, too late.

Months after the White House defended a federal program that distributed $18 billion worth of military equipment to local police, Obama has announced that he will ban the federal government from providing local police departments with tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms and large-caliber firearms.

Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo more training and collect data on the equipment's use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to "incentivize police departments to adopt the report's recommendations."

While this is a grossly overdue first step of sorts, it is nevertheless a first step from an administration that has been utterly complicit in accelerating the transformation of America's police forces into extensions of the military. Indeed, as investigative journalist Radley Balko points out, while the Obama administration has said all the right things about the need to scale back on a battlefield mindset, it has done all the wrong things to perpetuate the problem:

  • distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
  • provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
  • redefined "community policing" to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT teams,
  • encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of "contractors that now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,"
  • ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target "medical marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,"
  • defended as "reasonable" aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house based on a mistaken license plate,
  • and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents can "accuse" of being connected to a crime.

It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama's part, coming in the midst of heightened tensions between the nation's police forces and the populace they're supposed to protect, opens the door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further acclimating the populace to life in a police state.

Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted upon us. In fact, Obama's belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity. And it certainly fails to recognize the terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy, and our freedoms as a result of the government's determination to bring the war home.

Will the young black man guilty of nothing more than running away from brutish police officers be any safer in the wake of Obama's edict? It's unlikely.

Will the old man reaching for his cane have a lesser chance of being shot? It's doubtful.

Will the little girl asleep under her princess blanket live to see adulthood when a SWAT team crashes through her door? I wouldn't count on it.

It's a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama's pronouncement and the release of his "Task Force on 21st Century Policing" report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life in the American police state will become even more perilous.

Among the report's 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on the ground, training for police "on the importance of de-escalation of force," and "positive non-enforcement activities" in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as sending an ice cream truck across the city.

Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama's authority as president. And while the word "constitutional" is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report notes: "Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to crime."

Translation: as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our everyday activities will be even more invasive.

This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to "gift" local police agencies with military weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray devices and fusion centers are all funded by grants from the DHS. Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.

If you're noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into a national police force that answers not to "we the people" but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community.

So where does that leave us?

There's certainly no harm in embarking on a national dialogue on the dangers of militarized police, but if that's all it amounts to—words that sound good on paper and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms—then we're just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.

Despite the Obama Administration's lofty claims of wanting to "ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice," this is the reality we must contend with right now:

Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through our doors, or police officers who shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still no longer innocent until proven guilty. Americans still don't have a right to private property. Americans are still powerless in the face of militarized police. Americans still don't have a right to bodily integrity. Americans still don't have a right to the expectation of privacy. Americans are still being acclimated to a police state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed at reassuring the public that the police are our "friends." And to top it all off, Americans still can't rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when our rights are violated by police.

To sum it all up: the problems we're grappling with have been building for more than 40 years. They're not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish the same results—i.e., maintain the government's power, control and wealth at all costs.

This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.

[May 16, 2015]The Making of Hillary Clinton " CounterPunch Tells the Facts, Names the Names

First in a three-part series.

Hillary Clinton has always been an old-style Midwestern Republican in the Illinois style; one severely infected with Methodism, unlike the more populist variants from Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Her first known political enterprise was in the 1960 presidential election, the squeaker where the state of Illinois notoriously put Kennedy over the top, courtesy of Mayor Daley, Sam Giancana and Judith Exner. Hillary was a Nixon supporter. She took it on herself to probe allegations of vote fraud. From the leafy middle-class suburbs of Chicago's west side, she journeyed to the tenements of the south side, a voter list in her hand. She went to an address recorded as the domicile of hundreds of Democratic voters and duly found an empty lot. She rushed back to campaign headquarters, agog with her discovery, only to be told that Nixon was throwing in the towel.

The way Hillary Clinton tells it in her Living History (an autobiography convincingly demolished by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta in their Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, an interesting and well researched account ) she went straight from the Nixon camp to the cause of Martin Luther King Jr., and never swerved from that commitment. Not so. Like many Illinois Republicans, she did have a fascination for the Civil Rights movement and spent some time on the south side, mainly in African Methodist churches under the guidance of Don Jones, a teacher at her high school. It was Jones who took her to hear King speak at Chicago's Orchestra Hall and later introduced her to the Civil Rights leader.

Gerth and Van Natta eschew psychological theorizing, but it seems clear that the dominant influence in Hillary life was her father, a fairly successful, albeit tightwad Welsh draper, supplying Hilton hotels and other chains. From this irritable patriarch Hillary kept secret ­ a marked penchant throughout her life ­ her outings with Jones and her encounter with King. Her public persona was that of a Goldwater Girl. She battled for Goldwater through the 1964 debacle and arrived at Wellesley in the fall of 1965 with enough Goldwaterite ambition to become president of the Young Republicans as a freshman.

The setting of Hillary's political compass came in the late Sixties. The fraught year of 1968 saw the Goldwater girl getting a high-level internship in the House Republican Conference with Gerald Ford and Melvin Laird, without an ounce of the Goldwater libertarian pizzazz. Hillary says the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, plus the war in Vietnam, hit her hard. The impact was not of the intensity that prompted many of her generation to become radicals. She left the suburb of Park Ridge and rushed to Miami to the Republican Convention where she fulfilled a lifelong dream of meeting Frank Sinatra and John Wayne and devoted her energies to saving the Party from her former icon, Nixon, by working for Nelson Rockefeller.

Nixon triumphed, and Hillary returned to Chicago in time for the Democratic Convention where she paid an afternoon's visit to Grant Park. By now a proclaimed supporter of Gene McCarthy, she was appalled, not by the spectacle of McCarthy's young supporters being beaten senseless by Daley's cops, but by the protesters' tactics, which she concluded were not viable. Like her future husband, Hillary was always concerned with maintaining viability within the system.

After the convention Hillary embarked on her yearlong senior thesis, on the topic of the Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky. She has successfully persuaded Wellesley to keep this under lock and key, but Gerth and Van Natta got hold of a copy. So far from being an exaltation of radical organizing, Hillary's assessment of Alinsky was hostile, charging him with excessive radicalism. Her preferential option was to
KillingTrayvons1seek minor advances within the terms of the system. She did not share these conclusions with Alinsky who had given her generous access during the preparation of her thesis and a job offer thereafter, which she declined.

What first set Hillary in the national spotlight was her commencement address at Wellesley, the first time any student had been given this opportunity. Dean Acheson's granddaughter insisted to the president of Wellesley that youth be given its say, and the president picked Hillary as youth's tribune. Her somewhat incoherent speech included some flicks at the official commencement speaker, Senator Edward Brooke, the black Massachusetts senator, for failing to mention the Civil Rights movement or the war. Wellesley's president, still fuming at this discourtesy, saw Hillary skinny-dipping in Lake Waban that evening and told a security guard to steal her clothes.

The militant summer of 1969 saw Hillary cleaning fish in Valdez, Alaska, and in the fall she was at Yale being stalked by Bill Clinton in the library. The first real anti-war protests at Yale came with the shooting of the students at Kent State. Hillary saw the ensuing national student upheaval as, once again, a culpable failure to work within the system. "I advocated engagement, not disruption."

She finally consented to go on a date with Bill Clinton, and they agreed to visit a Rothko exhibit at the Yale art gallery. At the time of their scheduled rendez-vous with art, the gallery was closed because the museum's workers were on strike. The two had no inhibitions about crossing a picket line. Bill worked as a scab in the museum, doing janitorial work for the morning, getting as reward a free tour with Hillary in the afternoon.

In the meantime, Hillary was forging long-term alliances with such future stars of the Clinton age as Marian Wright Edelman and her husband Peter, and also with one of the prime political fixers of the Nineties, Vernon Jordan. It was Hillary who introduced Bill to these people, as well as to Senator Fritz Mondale and his staffers.

If any one person gave Hillary her start in liberal Democratic politics, it was Marian Wright Edelman who took Hillary with her when she started the Children's Defense Fund. The two were inseparable for the next twenty-five years. In her autobiography, published in 2003, Hillary lists the 400 people who have most influenced her. Marion Wright Edelman doesn't make the cut. Neither to forget nor to forgive. Peter Edelman was one of three Clinton appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services who quit when Clinton signed the Welfare reform bill, which was about as far from any "defense" of children as one could possibly imagine.

Hillary was on Mondale's staff for the summer of '71, investigating worker abuses in the sugarcane plantations of southern Florida, as close to slavery as anywhere in the U.S.A. Life's ironies: Hillary raised not a cheep of protest when one of the prime plantation families, the Fanjuls, called in their chips (laid down in the form of big campaign contributions to Clinton) and insisted that Clinton tell Vice President Gore to abandon his calls for the Everglades to be restored, thus taking water Fanjul was appropriating for his operation.

From 1971 on, Bill and Hillary were a political couple. In 1972, they went down to Texas and spent some months working for the McGovern campaign, swiftly becoming disillusioned with what they regarded as an exercise in futile ultraliberalism. They planned to rescue the Democratic Party from this fate by the strategy they have followed ever since: the pro-corporate, hawkish neoliberal recipes that have become institutionalized in the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Bill Clinton and Al Gore were founding members.

In 1973, Bill and Hillary went off on a European vacation, during which they laid out their 20-year project designed to culminate with Bill's election as president. Inflamed with this vision, Bill proposed marriage in front of Wordsworth's cottage in the Lake District. Hillary declined, the first of twelve similar refusals over the next year. Bill went off to Fayetteville, Arkansas, to seek political office. Hillary, for whom Arkansas remained an unappetizing prospect, eagerly accepted, in December '73, majority counsel John Doar's invitation to work for the House committee preparing the impeachment of Richard Nixon. She spent the next months listening to Nixon's tapes. Her main assignment was to prepare an organizational chart of the Nixon White House. It bore an eerie resemblance to the twilit labyrinth of the Clinton White House 18 years later.

Hillary had an offer to become the in-house counsel of the Children's Defense Fund and seemed set to become a high-flying public interest Washington lawyer. There was one impediment. She failed the D.C. bar exam. She passed the Arkansas bar exam. In August of 1974, she finally moved to Little Rock and married Bill in 1975 at a ceremony presided over by the Rev. Vic Nixon. They honeymooned in Acapulco with her entire family, including her two brothers' girlfriends, all staying in the same suite.

After Bill was elected governor of Arkansas in 1976, Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm, the first woman partner in an outfit almost as old as the Republic. It was all corporate business, and the firm's prime clients were the state's business heavyweights ­ Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart, Jackson Stevens Investments, Worthen Bank and the timber company Weyerhaeuser, the state's largest landowner.

Two early cases (of a total of five that Hillary actually tried) charted her course. The first concerned the successful effort of Acorn ­ a public interest group doing community organizing ­ to force the utilities to lower electric rates on residential consumers and raise on industrial users. Hillary represented the utilities in a challenge to this progressive law, the classic right-wing claim, arguing that the measure represented an unconstitutional "taking" of property rights. She carried the day for the utilities.

The second case found Hillary representing the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Arkansas in a lawsuit filed by a disabled former employee who had been denied full retirement benefits by the company. In earlier years, Hillary had worked at the Children's Defense Fund on behalf of abused employees and disabled children. Only months earlier, while still a member of the Washington, D.C., public interest community, she had publicly ripped Joseph Califano for becoming the Coca Cola company's public counsel. "You sold us out, you, you sold us out!" she screamed publicly at Califano. Working now for Coca Cola, Hillary prevailed

[May 14, 2015]Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq

TIME

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush sought to turn the page on a week of terrible press coverage Thursday, telling a group of Arizona voters that knowing what is known now, he would not have launched the 2003 Iraq War.

"Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq," Bush said, in reference to his greatest liability—the unpopular war launched by his brother, former President George W. Bush.

It was the latest turn in a tumultuous week that began with an interview with Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Saturday in which he said he would have supported going to war, even knowing that the Iraqi government did not possess weapons of mass destruction. "My mind kind of calculated it differently," Bush later explained, saying he misheard Kelly's question.

On Wednesday, Bush dodged the same question Kelly asked him days earlier, saying he wouldn't answer "hypotheticals" and that the question did a "disservice" to the memories of the 4,491 American war dead.

But that didn't put the questions to rest, Bush's Republican opponents lined up to criticize him for the comments, while Democrats gleefully used the opportunity to tie him to his brother.

"If we knew then what we know now and I were the President of the United States, I wouldn't have gone to war," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told CNN Tuesday. Sen. Rand Paul told the Associated Press that Bush's comments represent "a real problem if he can't articulate what he would have done differently."

"Knowing what we know now, of course we wouldn't go into Iraq," Sen. Ted Cruz told The Hill.

Sen. Marco Rubio went even further in an interview Wednesday at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Not only would I have not been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it. He said so," he said.

[May 14, 2015] Will “Vagina Voters” Devour Democracy by James Bovard

See also Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton and US Presidential Elections of 2016
May 14, 2015 | CounterPunch
...Spiked Online editor Brendan O’Neill scoffed at the would-be vagina stampede for Hillary at Reason.com:

“This embrace of the gender card by Clinton and her cronies, this move from thinking with their heads to voting with their vaginas, is being celebrated as a great leap forward.

It’s nothing of the sort. It merely confirms the speedy and terrifying shrinking of the political sphere in recent years, with the abstract being elbowed aside by the emotional, and the old focus on ideas and values now playing a very quiet second fiddle to an obsession with identity.

Would a female leader likely be less bellicose than recent male presidents? After the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Hillary Clinton only resumed talking to her husband when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the next day, Bill Clinton announced that the United States had a “moral imperative” to stop Serbia’s Milosevic. Counterpunch co-founder Alexander Cockburn observed in 1999 in the Los Angeles Times: “It’s scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend ‘our way of life.’ The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose such policing. War is more social engineering, ‘fixitry’ via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile… As a tough therapeutic cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty.” In the Obama administration, Hillary, Samantha Powers, and Susan Rice have been among the biggest warmongers – with an unquenchable thirst to bomb Libya, Syria, and other nations.

What is the male equivalent of “vagina voters”? Dickheads? On the bright side, maybe one of Hillary’s zealots will coin a catchy vagina-oriented version of the “hope and change” campaign promise.

Perhaps the greatest folly of “vagina voting” is the presumption that a candidate’s gender is more important than the fact that they are a politician. Politicians have been renowned for deceit for hundreds of years. Hillary, like most of the Republican males in the race, has a long record of brazen deceit. Politicians as a class conspire against the rights and liberties of citizens. And there is no evidence that certain genitalia immunizes a person against Powerlust.

James Bovard is the author of Public Policy Hooligan, Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books. More info at www.jimbovard.com; on Twitter @jimbovard

[May 14, 2015] To Those Who Believe in Voting by NOEL IGNATIEV

The key problem here is that candidates are pre-selected and does not represnt people in any sense. they represent two factions of elite and, if elected, will fight for privileges of those faction that they represent.
May 12, 2015 | CounterPunch

Thoughts on the Least Important Decision People Make Every Four Years

One morning years ago, as I entered the classroom for a course I taught on U.S. history, I found the students engaged in a discussion of elections. One of them, whom I knew to be a supporter of “progressive” causes and who had previously complained about student apathy, asked me in a despairing tone, “Why don’t people vote?”

“I don’t know,” I replied. “To me, the more interesting question is, Why do they?”

Why do people vote? The individual voter does not choose the winner of the election; she chooses which lever to pull or which box to check on a piece of paper. Yet some people get angry at me and call me a shirker when I tell them I don’t vote. If you don’t vote, they tell me, you have no right to complain.

Why not, I ask. Where is that written?

Some point out that in the past people died for the right to vote.

That is true, I respond, but beside the point: people also died for the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, but no one calls abortion a public duty.

Clearly, something is operating here besides logic.

The only explanation I can come up with is that people vote for the same reason they cheer or do the wave at an athletic competition—it makes them feel part of a community. Now, I respect the desire for community. In the good old Hew Hess of Hay, “citizens” choose people to represent them. To vote is to participate in a community ritual. It begins in grade school, when children elect who among them will get to clean the blackboards.

Rituals reinforce the society that gives rise to them. By reenacting the voting ritual people reinforce a system that ensures their powerlessness. This is true regardless of whom they vote for.

The New Society is based on people acting in concert to shape their lives. Representative versus direct democracy. The Paris Commune. The Flint Sitdown Strike. The Montgomery Bus Boycott. Tahrir Square.

... ... ....

Noel Ignatiev is the author of How the Irish Became White (Routledge, 1995), and co-editor, with John Garvey, of the anthology Race Traitor (Routledge, 1996). He blogs here. He can be reached at [email protected].

[May 10, 2015] 'Winner takes all' vote system exaggerates Britain's divisions

May 10, 2015 | Reuters

David Cameron can thank Britain's winner-takes-all voting system for handing him an outright majority in parliament on just 37 percent of the vote. But by boosting the power of Scottish nationalists, it has also intensified one of his biggest headaches.

... ... ...

Those complaining loudest are the anti-European Union UK Independence Party and the Greens. Nationwide, they took 12.6 percent and 3.8 percent of the vote respectively, but their support was too thinly spread to win more than one member of parliament each.

"The fact that over 5 million people between them have voted UKIP and Green, and they have two MPs, strikes us as utterly absurd and a tragic denial of people's democratic wishes," said Will Brett, head of campaigns for the Electoral Reform Society which advocates a switch to proportional representation (PR).

... ... ...

LONG BATTLE

Complaints about the fairness of the system are not new. For decades it was the centrist Liberals, and their successors the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems), who led the calls for change.

As part of the price for supporting Cameron in a coalition after the previous 2010 election, the Lib Dems were granted a referendum in 2011 on adopting a modified version of first-past-the-post (FPP), in which voters would rank candidates in order. The change was rejected, on a low voter turnout.

Advocates of FPP say it is a tried and tested system that for the most part has delivered clear election outcomes and stable governments. But opponents say the Scottish question, the fragmentation of the old two-party-dominated political structure and the emergence of movements such as UKIP and the Greens have all bolstered the case for reform.

Under a system of PR like the one used in Germany and New Zealand, Cameron's Conservatives would still have been the biggest party in the House of Commons after Thursday's election but would have needed to rely on UKIP, with more than 80 seats, to scrape a majority.

In Scotland, the SNP would be reduced to half the seats, with the others split between Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. In that more balanced landscape, the political chasm between England and Scotland would be greatly narrowed.

Even before the election, that point was forcefully argued by Vernon Bogdanor, a constitutional expert who was Cameron's politics tutor at Oxford University.

"Distorted representation makes the UK appear more divided than in fact it is," he wrote in Prospect magazine in February. "Proportional representation, therefore, would alter the dynamics of the conflict between England and Scotland and make it far more manageable."

No one expects Cameron to change the system that has swept him back to power. But in the long term, some argue, there are compelling reasons to re-draw electoral rules that divide much of Britain into fortresses held for decades by one party or the other.

That means that millions of people are effectively disenfranchised and elections are decided in a relatively small number of close-fought marginal seats.

While the current system gives Cameron a mandate for a majority government, "it's not such a strong mandate that he can ignore the rest of the country," Brett said.

"It's going to be hard to ignore electoral reform indefinitely

[May 10, 2015]Republican presidential hopefuls focus fire on Obama foreign policy

Pot calling cattle black...
May 09, 2015 | The Guardian

libbyliberal -> libbyliberal 9 May 2015 20:01

Obama/Hillary/Dem apologists, like the corporate media, can't admit that anyone exists to the real liberal left of these tools of the "empire of chaos" -- disaster capitalism is okay with them, profits uber alles.

So so much of the citizenry -- the voting majority which really is a pathetic minority -- stay penned up as the US sinks into quicksand, and the reins of the country keep getting passed back and forth between the supposed good cop and bad cop parties, and the citizenry is CON-FUSED, which according to Latin origin is "fused with". Obama is a Republican, a far right one in sensibility. Yet crazy Repubs call him liberal. How confusing is that??? How stupid to believe they are right.

Obama apologists call those more liberal than Obama (so not hard) to be non-liberal and demonize them since they are so ego-desperate to not admit just how betrayed we all have been not only since the highly lying Obama campaign days but when Clinton and his cabal of Ruben and Summers and Hillary and others destroyed consumer protections and handed over control to the corporate class.

We are hypnotized to think we have only two voting options, and the media underlines this never giving the microphone to those outside of the authoritarians of the two pens. We are hypnotized to think we have to go with the media-beloved sure-winners, when the corruption is so over the top the bewildered herd keeps contributing to the problem and never finding a solution.

So many non-hypnotized have stopped voting in disgust and despair.

Jill Stein of Green Party once said that with either Repubs or Dems we are on the Titanic. It may sink a tad faster with the Repubs in charge but it is sinking with the craven Dems as well.

Bill Ehrhorn Ozymandia 9 May 2015 20:01

It gives the chickenhawks a chance to act manly. Sitting from away from the battlefield they like to pretend that they're tough

tupacalypse7 babymamaboy 9 May 2015 20:00

Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising Islam.

oh that's a good one!


sour_mash TheWholeNineYards 9 May 2015 19:55

A mantle that murdered 4,486 Americans with +30,000 wounded and an untold number of Iraqis dead. $4-$6 trillion spent destabilizing Iraq which was no threat, never attacked America is the GOP calling card.

(I agree with you, just fine tuned a bit.)


sour_mash babymamaboy 9 May 2015 19:50

"We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you."

Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising hypocrisy.


Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:07

The republicans are irrelevant. Americans need to stop watching Fox News and not elect these crazy lunatics who will create more wars, more inequality, more neoliberalism, more deregulation, and completely screw the working and middle classes, just like they did under Bush snr and jnr, and Reagan.

We live in a multi polar world. Latin America is more independent than it has ever been, and IMO Obama has done a good job negotiating with Iran.

Treat people the way you would like to be treated and there will be peace in the world,

t bone Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:46

There's nothing worse than a secret war - the one that your Obama is committed to. He's set the Mideast on fire because he's just as much as a war devil as anyone else.

He's messed up Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq, there's all kinds of heinous murdering and uprisings going on there now. Now he's trying to start a race war here in the United States!

Congratulations - because you're the only one living in your utopian dream world. Obama (and his minions) has destroyed our U.S. Constitution - irreparably! He's an sobmfr! GD him!

cromwell2015 9 May 2015 18:43

listen to the war talk once again. Their talk, their glory, your blood, your death, your dreams .when will they lead like the kings of old and put the uniform on. In your dreams, when will "normal" people wake up and send these people to where they belong. We including Iran all belong to a same race ,its called the human race.

To add insult to any one with a brain knows your not so lily white when you have gone into and interfered with so many other country's including bombing Iraq back into the stone age. I would finish with you the USA's politicians, you are the people who are the real danger to the world,


MiniApolis 9 May 2015 17:56

"Conservatives howled and hooted as Walker, who was criticized by Obama for his lack of foreign policy expertise, went after the administration's nuclear deal with Iran, its handling of terrorism and its relationship with Israel."

Well.

And Obama's expertise on foreign policy when he was elected was exactly what? Having a Kenyan father?

The Republicans are a truly miserable bunch - worse this time around than even before, with the stunning exception of Sarah Palin, who can out-worse anyone.

But they are absolutely right on Iran, and Obama is absolutely wrong.

A plague on all of them.


tupacalypse7 9 May 2015 17:53

ISIS will be the biggest campaigner for the rightwing in 2016. republicans will paint anyone who doesn't support full-throttled blind aggression against IS as weak and unpatriotic. there will be frothing talk of smashing IS to pieces and bringin 'MERICAN justice to Iraq once again. and once again, no one will talk about what comes after IS because that would require vision, foresight, finesse, community organizing, LISTENING to the native population, listening to women and owning up to true motivations. there is no doubt the US and its allies are fully capable of blowing that part of the earth off the map. congratulations, you are all badasses.

however, the vicious cycle of self-perpetuating war will continue until the focus is put on the humanitarian endgame of any military aggression and not solely on military aggression. the question that needs to be answered and addressed by any war committee is why did WWI set the perfect stage for WWII? and why did Iraq 2 cause the potential Iraq 3 and IS? the answer to me is a complete lack of finesse and vision centered around an all-male war party with a complete conflict of interest because a world without war is a world without weapons sales.


ExcaliburDefender ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:50

Always good to bring up the Obama/Hitler, the nra have been milking that one for decades now too. Who could forget 'ninja Nazi jack booted thugs Fourth Reich' of 1994/1995. After the bombing of Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168, Bush 41 publicly withdrew from the NRA and trashed La Pierre specifically.

All your talk is just part of fear mongering, only believed by the bunker dwellers.

No one believes this any more. ISIS is not coming to the parking lot of Walmart, you don't need an AR15 that hold 100 rounds of ammo.

The greatest threat to the Tea Party faithful is Type II Diabetes, and they really need to keep their Medicare and ACA coverage. Too many super sized happy meals.

Profhambone ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:43

How little you know.....one aspect of Chamberlain signing is that it bought time for GB to begin to re-arm and prepare the industrial base for war making. Germany had a large lead and GB was not prepared to go to war then. Today, it is used as "appeasement" which has a negative connotation.

An example of appeasement for those who slept through history is the Republican hopefuls for Emperor who pledge any and all things to Israel in order to keep Shelton Adelson happy here in Las Vegas and giving millions and tens of millions of dollars to PAC's friendly to them. "Elect me!!" is the name of the game. It is all about "me", the whole country, it seems these days....


illegitimato -> Tony Wise 9 May 2015 17:43

Disingenuous dick -- this isn't about Republican versus Democrat. It's about failed leadership across the board.

Besides, count the casualties. Dubya killed more people.

How much does the GOP pay you for this drivel, 50 cents a post? Or do you carry their water for free?


illegitimato -> Boredwiththeusa 9 May 2015 17:38

Great, another round of chicken-hawk "leaders" with no combat background, ready to send others' sons and daughters into the carnage. How did that work out last time with Dubya, Cheney, Rummie, et al?

The new outrage this latest clutch manifests tops even those "Iraqi Freedom" incompetents -- bowing on bended knee to the owner of a Macau casino which uses underage sex slaves, all for his cash.

Those Predator drones have the wrong targets.

Robert Greene 9 May 2015 17:23

"Blackburn instead summed up the general argument candidates have been making at conservative gatherings: if voters do not elect a Republican in 2016, America could very well cease to exist as a global superpower."
So what we do not need to be a global superpower anymore. What has is got us just MORE FUCKIN' WAR!!


Tony Dearwester -> saltyandtheman 9 May 2015 17:22

Oh, like when Hillary says "We have to stop the 1% from running things" as she begs them for money, I mean... "What difference does it make"?


Steve Troxel -> seehowtheyrun 9 May 2015 17:07

What will they do when Obama is out of office? Apparently the only ideas they have is the opposite of what Obama is doing. The GOP field this election is a vacuous collection clowns each trying to out noObama the next.

Steve Troxel -> Pete Street 9 May 2015 17:02

Well said... I wonder if they guys or their constituency ever read the news. All you have to do get a red meat roar from this crowd is to flap you jaws about bombing someone.

When asked for specifics they usually reply with something that is already being done... and are evidently unaware of it.


sour_mash Tony Wise 9 May 2015 16:54

"your explanation is NOT the historical explanation"

Damn, I must have missed Bill Clinton calling for a Crusade against an Axis of Evil. And claiming that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US with WMD'S.


libbyliberal 9 May 2015 16:23

Obama is a disgusting warmonger, but not warmonger enuf for the crazy Republicans.

Here comes the fodder to build Dem "lesser evilism" which means both evil parties get to mass murder.

A frightened and very low-information and/or conscience-possessing American citizenry has learned from the authoritarians that the only tool in America's tool box for global co-existence is a HAMMER. As well as colossal lies about reality. We live in a spiritually profoundly dark age.

The US (and cronies) are arming ISIS, using ISIS in some of its wars like in Syria. Israel is covertly helping ISIS. The bullying nations are helping bomb the shit out of the poorest country in the ME. US is providing anti-international law cluster bombs to SA as one of their big helps. Why? Because the big sharks must devour the little fish. Proxy wars against nuclear allies or potential allies of that country, or they pretend they are, all leading to the big nuclear WWIII these insane monsters at the helms of our countries seem committed to.

The Republican hypocrit neocons who speak of God and war in the same sentences. The Dem hypocrit neolibs who pretend war is humanitarian. Disaster capitalism requires lots of bloodbaths and lemming Americans, especially bloodthirsty and stupid lemming Americans are willing to kill anyone that isn't them.

The world is a big video wargame to America, and you pick Blue Team or Red Team and then kill, kill, kill.


Tony Wise Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:06

"Evidently, these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S. project using armed aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist leadership from the top down the ladder."

except its not been sucessful, we are still fighting the same war, and are fighting increased numbers, because we keep creating more terrorists then we kill. we are ctually bombing targets without even knowing whos inside (signature strikes) then labeling anyone in the blast radius a terrorist. pakistan, PAKISTAN for goodness sakes, is working with the UN human rights commission to STOP the bombs with new laws governing drone warfare. this war has been going on for over a decade, and is predicted to go on decades longer, with NO tangible results. how do you call it "successful" when the main target of the war on terror wasnt even eliminated with it?


Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:01

Thanks for presenting the Chicken Little view of the Republican Party wannabes. Evidently, these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S. project using armed aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist leadership from the top down the ladder.

Even a news media worker has a better grasp of the activity of this project:

"Strikes began against Isis fighters in Iraq on 8 August and in Syria on 23 September. Such strikes have now run into the thousands; on Saturday the US military said 28 more had been carried out since Friday."

The RP faces put themselves in a vulnerable position here when an ordinary voter can easily do enough fact-checking to explode the false view of these faces.

Thereby, they make themselves easy picking by HRC who would eat their lunch anyhow.

Meanwhile, cheers and applause from a couple thousand RP right-wingers does not a viable candidacy make.

If this numbskull approach to vote-seeking continues, then little doubt exists that the RP will remain a rump party controlling state houses and gerrymandered voting districts for political power, but excluded from the White House again for lacking a sensible, moderate platform to appeal to more voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

From that position of course the RP will have a big target for its political asininity and hostility in the form of HRC as president for 8 years beginning in 2017.

Tony Wise Ozymandia 9 May 2015 16:00

obamas more of a warmonger then republicans, and the economy is only better if you are rich.


Tony Wise Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:54

if the republicans need help,

"Tanden: '95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent'"

Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning group, argued that the issue not only would work well among the party faithful but beyond.

"95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent, That's a fact in the country," Tanden said. "I think this is going to be an issue on both the right and the left."

source: politifact


Tony Wise LostintheUS 9 May 2015 15:48

"There are no worse sources for money than the Koch Bros."

sachs, jpmporgan, BP, citibank, need i go on?


Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:47

oh, and pakistan, because those bombings are actually illegal in spirit. they are actually working on making it illegal in the letter. the drones are new technology and pakistan is working on legislation governing their use with the UN human rights commission, because we are slaughtering too many innocents.

you wonder why I keep saying that? its not because im the one supporting the warmongering, bro. end it all, today. imo.


Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:44

so tell us, Tony: which of those countries do YOU think Obama should not have bombed?

  • libya: because the terrorists we left in charge are worse then kadaffy
  • syria, because it was a civil war we had no business getting involved in.
  • iraq, because it should have been over when it was over. obamas own incompetence required us to return and go to war again. when we left, ISIS was a minor, defunct, disbarred, offshoot of al-quida, then they started getting the weapons we were sending to so called "vetted moderates" who turned out to be no such thing. with those, they were able to march back into iraq picking up allies along the way, and take an entire city, and all the war toys left behind when obama withdrew. why would you leave such weapons in the hands of an obviously incompetent, corrupt, army? why would you keep sending them MORE after the pullout?
  • yemen, because we are not world police
  • and afghanstan, because we got bin laden already.

I didnt know rush limbaugh was antiwar? if hes for war, then your comparison of me to him is just vastly...ridiculous and childish.

Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:43

Did you ever wonder why Republicans have decided NOT to challenge Obama on the state of the US economy???

Because any references to the economy under Obama will automatically conjure up comparisons between the current President and the last REPUBLICAN president.
Just 6 years ago, the US economy was in tatters.

As the last Republican president prepared to leave the White House...
6 years ago....As the Last REPUBLICAN was preparing to leave office in early 2009....

1. the DOW had fallen to 7,949 and
2. the NASDAQ had plunged to 1500.
3. The average American with a 401K lost about half of their retirement savings.

4. Banks and financial institutions many over 100 years old that had survived the Great Depression went belly up: Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch . AIG. Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Indymac

5. Housing prices were falling like a rock as the bubble burst.

6.The unemployment rate was 7.8%...and heading up. In the same month that Bush left office a staggering 818,000 workers lost their
jobs. . The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits rose to a 26-year high for the week ended Dec. 20.,2008

7. The US auto industry was on it's knees. A month before he turned over the The White House to Obama, Bush announced a $17.4 billion taxpayer bailout for GM and Chrysler. "If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush admitted.

8. The Bush administration had to borrow 700 billion dollars from the taxpayers to bail out the banks. ""This is a big package because it was a big problem." Bush said ""People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence ."

9. In the 4th quarter of 2008...3 weeks before the flickering torch was passed from Republican to Democrat the US economy contracted a whopping 8.9%...the worst in postwar history.

10. Two months before Obama took office The Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index fell to 38 in October, 2008. The decline marked the index's lowest level since its inception in 1967.

11. By the end of Republican Bush's stewardship his job approval ratings had plummeted to 25%

12. In the final month of Bush's term only 7% of Americans were happy with the direction the country was headed, the lowest reading ever measured by Gallup

How different things are today.

Elizabeth Thorne 9 May 2015 15:42

"Iran: enemy. Israel: friend."

I can't imagine why people compare him to a Neanderthal.

I have to admit though that giving the loony right a free hand in foreign policy would bring the date the world grows a pair and takes care of the US' anti-social antics much closer. They would destroy the county and most our "allies". Not ENTIRELY bad if you compare that with "liberals" having not one complaint about expanded illegal use of drones by their guy. Look at the choices. The US will continue to maim destroy and kill in the name of short-range interests and goals with disproportionate effect on developing nations until it destroys itself. Look how long it took Rome to fall and look at what happened in the meanwhile. Like a useless structure. Better an implosion than to slowly burn.


Tony Wise ExcaliburDefender 9 May 2015 15:34

why are democrats such hypocrites about the kochs? democrats had no problem taking money from the kochs, when it was being offered.

they did take it, its documented history, as well as their offer to the kochs of special privileges in return for more cash. the kochs said no, and the war was on. your party still takes money from FAR worse sources, like Bp, that wrecked our shore, and banks like sachs and jpmorgan hat wrecked our economy. the kochs, even if you disagree with their political philosophies, at least create jobs here in America, manufacturing things we ALL use. how many jobs does warren buffets unregulated derivatives create?

I suppose his rail lines, transporting that dirty tar sands oil, creates jobs. this koch stuff just seems so ridiculous given your own parties donors. kochs are what, 56th in political giving? something like that?


Tony Wise sour_mash 9 May 2015 15:27

we know why bush bombed iraq"

Yes, we do. He lied. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.

your explanation is NOT the historical explanation, see 1998 iraq liberation act. signed by bill clinton.


Michael Miller 9 May 2015 15:20

The MIC needs to be fed.


Boredwiththeusa Tony Wise 9 May 2015 15:09

Bernie Sanders has always acted in accordance with his conscience. He is no sell out. That he made one decision you dislike doesn't affect my admiration for the man in the least, but paints you as a leftist purist who is never satisfied with anything.


Tony Wise -> Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:08

TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion

Six Republicans joined with 45 Democrats and one Joe Lieberman to defeat a resolution that would have blocked the release of $350 billion in financial-industry bailout funds Thursday. The Senate action -- or lack of it -- paves the way for the dispersal of the money regardless of any action taken by the House of Representatives.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is structured so that the president has access to the money unless Congress actively prevents its release. Only 42 senators -- seven Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Bernie Sanders -- voted to block the money.


Taku2 9 May 2015 14:58

""We need a commander in chief who will once and for all call it what it is, and that is radical Islamic terrorism," Walker said. "We need a president who will affirm that Israel is our ally and start acting like it."

These pathetic Republicans shameless has nothing to offer the American people, especially as they do not give a damn about the American poor. So, what do these bourgeois parasites focus on; 'making America Great.'

And how do these parasites try to achieve this; making war on other nations. For them, America 'being great' means military might. It means spending more on the military, which makes more money for these parasites. It does not mean spending more on maintaining and improving the nation's infrastructure, because the Republicans are only interested in enterprises which makes them lots of money.

If Walker and Santorum are intellectually deficient and talking shit, what does that make their Republican colleagues who support them?

[May 09, 2015]David Cameron and Conservatives Get Majority in British Election

Looks like neoliberalism is still alive and kicking the opponents.
May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

American in London

I read in these comments about how this is a harbinger for the next American election - a wave of conservatives all the way to the White House. Let's remember, the British Conservative Party is left of the US Democratic Party in many instances, and could not even begin to run as a conservative party in the US.

The British Conservative Party is:

  • Pro Choice
  • Pro gay marriage
  • A staunch defender of national health care.

Any one of these positions would immediately dismiss them for consideration in the US Republican Party.

GabbyTalks

The strongest bastion of Canadian conservative politics - the province of Alberta- where the Torys have been in power 44 years consecutively, have just thrown the bums out and voted for the socialist, left wing, tree hugging, New Democratic Party! The candidates were yoga teachers and college students, knitters guild, and so on. People voted for CHANGE more than anything.

They just got sick of the 1%ers running the joint, and their entitlement attitude, and kow-towing to the corporations and never raising business taxes, just piling it all on the backs of the great unwashed, the middle class. Apparently Britain hasn't reached the breaking point yet. But they will.\

Lynda, Gulfport, FL 22 hours ago

The BBC coverage of the election results provided a glimpse of the real contrasts between the US stuck in the two party mold and the British parliamentary system with multiple parties and very old traditions. The "always in campaign mode, overwhelmed by money, carefully handled candidates" system in the US contrasts with the limited in time and money campaigning of the British elections.

I loved the hand-counting of ballots, the "looney" parties whose candidates wore tall hats and costumes and especially the public line-up of all candidates for the announcement of results that the British system employs. No hiding in hotel rooms and behind spokespeople for British candidates. They lined up with all their opponents and heard the voting results in public. Most candidates then were vigorously questioned by journalists. Party leaders of the losing parties had to overcome their shock and speak up about what they did wrong, why the voters rejected their messages and what they would do to change. The leaders of the losing parties faced the consequences and resigned from party leadership.

The current mode of US elections is producing dysfunctional government at local, state and national levels. The detailed coverage of the British elections offers a primer on ways our elections could be improved--starting with vigorous questioning of all candidates by actual journalists, limits on campaign money and including the piercing of the PR images of the candidates.

Ashley, Wayzata, MN 21 hours ago

It's funny how a lot of US Republicans view this as an overall victory for conservative values. What these individuals fail to understand is that in the UK, the Conservative Party actually consists of sane people with ideas on how to improve their country (whether you agree with them or not is another issue entirely).

Across the pond, conservatives do not push policy based on personal religious beliefs. As Alistair Campbell, adviser to Tony Blair once stated, "Brits don't do God."

Can you imagine a conservative not mentioning religion in the US? It would ruin his/her entire campaign. The leader debate in the UK and the overall campaign structures focus on the ISSUES facing the country, rather than frivolous items like a candidate's birth certificate and college records. Each party releases manifesto's with ideas on how to improve living standards, education policy, foreign affairs, etc.

To any American conservative who thinks that this is truly a victory for US conservative values, I would encourage you to read the Tory Party manifesto; which pushes for 15 additional hours of FREE childcare, an increase in state pension funding , and an additional 8 billion pounds made available to the NHS (what Republicans would refer to as boogeyman socialized medicine).

Each of these values are inconsistent with the basic tenets of today's US conservatism; which raises the question as to how in the world did our conservatives get so crazy?

Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado Yesterday

A great day for the conservative movement, the wealthy, the well connected, business, Ayn Rand and for making war. A bad day for the middle class, the poor, the elderly, eco-friendly, labor unions, workers and those who toil to survive and not have it handed to them.

At least we know, the Unites States is not the only country which votes against their own interests. See Canada, Australia and New Zealand which all now have conservative governments. With legislatures that are akin to the current US Congress; though not the same gridlock or the extremes.

If the UK election was sending a message to this side of the pond, then it could be a clean sweep for the GOP next year; unfortunately. The Democrats, if they want to win, better quickly come up with new ideas and candidates that would put a wrench in the GOP works. Else, we will see Paul Ryan's budget plans, and Tea Party plans, be put into full implementation; which will complete this nation's advance to the Industrial Revolution years of the late 19th century. Well, on the bright side, your income taxes will be a flat 15% to pay for US empire building.

Also, the wealthy won't have an estate tax or capital gains to pay; so wealthy will flood to the masses (sarcasm). As for Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Child Care Credits, mortgage deductions, etc.; you're on your own. Just the way Ayn Rand advocated.

I hope I can retire without adverse affects, but woe to those under 55.

Walter Rhett, is a trusted commenter Charleston, SC Yesterday

Britian's unemployment numbers, its job creation, its double-dipped GNP growth (increasing only after austerity was relaxed) simply don't bear out the narrative, in which the details are overweighed in order to overwhelm the basic principle of economics that Krugman asserts: austerity, in times of depression, has no capacity to act as a stimulus.

Regarding "printing" money, it's spending money -- increasing demand -- that works to reinvigorate depressed economies, as Europe's individual and collective slow recoveries continuously affirm, as the facts are ignored.

Putting less gas/petrol in your car will not increase its gas mileage, whether paid by cash or credit.

Un, PRK Yesterday

Reading the New York Times explanation of the expected results should remind everyone why nothing you read in this paper is reliable. They got it all wrong. Their analysis was wrong. Their facts were wrong. Their polling was wrong. Their opinions were way off base. It was an example of how opinion driven reporting is not reporting at all.

[May 09, 2015] Election Dysfunction The Nation by John Nichols

September 19, 2006 | The Nation

The Sunday Washington Post headline said it all. Echoing a theme that is finally being picked up by print and broadcast media that for too long has neglected the dramatic problems with this country's systems for casting and counting votes, the newspaper's front page announced: "Major Problems At Polls Feared: Some Officials Say Voting Law Changes And New Technology Will Cause Trouble."

Following a disastrous election day in Maryland that was defined by human blunders, technical glitches, long lines and long delays in vote counting so severe that some contests remain unresolved almost a week after the balloting, the Post declared that, "An overhaul in how states and localities record votes and administer elections since the Florida recount battle six years ago has created conditions that could trigger a repeat -- this time on a national scale -- of last week's Election Day debacle in the Maryland suburbs, election experts said."

No fooling!

Some of us have been writing and talking about this country's almost fully dysfunctional electoral systems for the better part of a decade. And the one thing that every serious observer of the electoral meltdown recognizes is that the people who have managed the mess ought not to be trusted to clean it up.

That's the message that underpins the candidacy of John Bonifaz for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts Secretary of State.

Bonifaz, the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute, is one of a number of activists and advocates who are running in races for secretary of state positions around the country this year. They have recognized that these posts, which in most states are responsible for conducting elections, can no longer be trusted to Republican partisans -- such as Florida's Katherine Harris and Ohio's Ken Blackwell -- or Democratic hacks. They have to be occupied by champions of democracy who believe that protecting and the promoting the right to vote must be the central function of local and state election officials.

Some of these champions have already secured secretary of state nominations, including Minnesota Democrat Mark Ritchie and California Democrat Debra Bowen. But in Massachusetts, where the primary is Tuesday, Bonifaz faces a tough challenge. He must overcome an entrenched incumbent, William Galvin, who at one point was considered a serious contender for governor but dropped back to seek reelection as secretary of state.

That decision by Galvin made Bonifaz's job much harder. But he has persevered with a primary campaign that has spoken well and wisely of the need to fix our broken election systems. His small "d" democratic commitment has earned Bonifaz enthusiastic endorsements from newspapers such as the Boston Phoenix, one of the nation's premier alternative weeklies, and the New Bedford Standard-Times, which declared last week that, "Mr. Galvin has not used his office enough to push through voting reforms that make Massachusetts a shining example and a leader in reviving democracy at the local level. Mr. Bonifaz will be that champion for the voter."

Bonifaz has also won the backing of national figures who have been active on behalf of voting rights, including U.S. Representatives John Conyers, D-Michigan, and Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois., along with the support of the state's many Progressive Democrats of America chapters.

What appeals about Bonifaz is the seriousness of his uphill campaign, a seriousness that is highlighted by the candidate's commitment to a Voters' Bill of Rights that ought to be the platform on which progressives stand as they address this country's democracy shortfall.

Bonifaz's Voters Bill of Rights promises to:

1. Count every vote

The right to vote includes the right to have our votes properly counted.

We must ensure that every citizen's vote will be counted. This includes a guarantee of open and transparent elections with verified voting, paper trails, hand-recorded paper ballots, and access to the source codes for, and random audits of, electronic voting machines. It also includes a guarantee that we the people, through our government, will control our voting machines -- not private companies.

2. Make voting easier

We should enact election day registration here in Massachusetts, removing the barrier of registration prior to Election Day. Seven states have election day registration. They have a higher voter turnout in their elections and have no evidence of voter fraud. We should be encouraging greater participation in the political process, starting with election day registration.

We should also ensure absentee voting for all, allow for early voting, and remove other barriers that make it difficult for people to vote.

3. End the big money dominance of our electoral process

In a democracy, public elections should be publicly financed. In Maine and Arizona, publicly financed elections have enabled people to run for office who would never have dreamed of running under a system dominated by big money interests. We, as voters, need to own our elections, rather than allow the process to be controlled by the wealthy few.

We also need to enact mandatory limits on campaign spending. In 1976, the Supreme Court wrongly struck down mandatory campaign spending limits for congressional elections. Massachusetts should help lead the way with campaign spending limits for our elections.

4. Expand voter choice

Instant run-off voting: Voters should be able to rank their choices of candidates, ensuring majority support for those elected and allowing greater voter choice and wider voter participation.

Cross Endorsement Voting (Fusion voting): Voters should be able to cast their ballots for major party candidates on a minor party's ballot line, placing power in the hands of the people and broadening public debate on the issues of the day.

Proportional Representation: Voters should be allowed their fair share of representation, ensuring that majority rule does not prevent minority voices from being heard.

5. Ensure access for new citizens and language minorities

The right to vote does not speak one specific language. It is universal. No one should be denied the right to vote because of a language barrier.

6. Level the playing field for challengers

Redistricting reform -- Incumbent legislators should not have the power to draw their own district lines. We must transfer this power to independent non-partisan commissions and create fair standards for redistricting, thereby promoting competition in our electoral process and improving representation for the people.

7. Ensure non-partisan election administration

The Secretary of the Commonwealth must be a Secretary for all of us, regardless of party affiliation. The Secretary should not be allowed to serve as a co-chair of campaigns of candidates. To ensure the people's trust in the integrity of our elections, the Secretary must conduct the administration of elections in a non-partisan manner.

8. Make government more accessible to all of us

Democracy is not just about our participation on Election Day. We need to participate every day and our government needs to be accessible to us every day. This means a government that is open and transparent, that encourages people to make their voices heard, and that enlists citizen participation in addressing the major issues of our time.

9. Amend the US Constitution to ensure an affirmative right to vote

One hundred and eight democratic nations in the world have explicit language guaranteeing the right to vote in their constitutions, and the United States -- along with only ten other such nations -- does not. As a result, the way we administer elections in this country changes from state to state, from county to county, from locality to locality. The Secretary of the Commonwealth must fight for a constitutional amendment that affirmatively guarantees the right to vote in the US Constitution.

John Nichols is the author of Jews for Buchanan (The New Press), an account of the Florida recount fight following the 2000 presidential election, and numerous articles on America's dysfunctional electoral systems.

The Inner Circle Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. (978019504033

This is the essence of neoliberalism" Businessmen Unite! instead of "Proletarians of all countries unite"...
July 7, 2005 | Amazon.com

Luc REYNAERT on July 7, 2005

Businessmen Unite!

In the US and Great-Britain top officers of large corporations formed in the 1970s a semi-autonomous network which Michael Useem calls the 'Inner Circle'. It is a sort of institutionalized capitalism with a classwide alongside a corporate logic and permits a centralized mobilization of corporate resources.

This select group of business leaders assume a leading role in the support of political candidates, in consultations with the highest levels of the national administrations, in public defense of the free enterprise system and in the governance of foundations and universities.

One of its main goals is the promotion of a better political climate for big business through philanthropy (image building via generous support of cultural programs), issue (not product) advertising and political financing.

The reasons behind the constitution of this 'Inner Circle' were the declining power of the individual companies and declining profitability together with, more specifically in GB, the threat of labor socialism (nationalizations and worker participation in corporate governance) and in the US, government intervention.

A main issue was also the desire to control the power of the media, which in the US were considered far too liberal.

The interventions of this 'Inner Circle' were (and are) extremely successful. President R. Reagan and Prime Minister M. Thatcher were partly products of business mobilizations. They lowered taxation, reduced government (except military) spending, lifted controls on business and installed cutbacks on unemployment benefits and welfare.

On the media front, the influence of corporate America is highly enhanced, directly through media mergers, and indirectly through the high corporate advertising budgets.

This is an eminent study based on excellent research.

Highly recommended.

[May 03, 2015] Whichever party takes power does its best to govern just like the other party would have done while shouting about how different they are

marknesop.wordpress.com
Warren , May 1, 2015 at 8:12 am
The woman who shredded Red Ed: How marketing company boss used laser-like precision to lead audience attack on Labour leader
Marketing boss Catherine Shuttleworth leads charge against Labour leader
Miliband had the roughest ride from special Question Time audience
Dismissed Labour’s 2010 note admitting ‘there is no money’ as a Tory prop
He also faced the wrath of voters after denying Labour spent too much
Leaving stage after difficult 30 minutes, Miliband tripped and almost fell

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063559/Woman-shredded-Red-Ed-laser-like-precision-leads-audience-attacks-economy.html#ixzz3YtrjMeLV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

marknesop, May 1, 2015 at 8:52 am
I am suspicious of any PR moment that leaves that smug prick Dave coming out best. He is a disaster as leader and any election campaign that sees him get another term has to be rigged, since he is so clearly a privileged, cocky, full-of-himself jerk who projects an image of a Britain that is just like him, which it isn’t.

All the western democracies suffer from the same malaise – there are two parties which dominate the nation’s leadership; Labour and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal, and whichever party takes power does its best to govern just like the other party would have done while shouting about how different they are. This is particularly noticeable in the case of the United States, but merely because of its global influence and size and its impact on the world. Britain is pretty small potatoes these days in terms of global influence, Canada smaller yet, but both the preceding suffer from the same disease to varying degrees. There is simply no choice – you take this bastard or that bastard. And whichever wins, even when the result is clearly one in which the electorate “chose” the least horrible by its own estimation, the winner claims a mandate and says “the people have spoken”. Mmm….fewer and fewer of them all the time, as eligible voters continue to lose interest completely in the democratic electoral process. I wonder why?

Warren, May 1, 2015 at 11:42 am

The lady in question has been revealed as a Conservative/Tory supporter and not an independent undecided person as she purported to be.

Regarding, the UK General Election it seems inevitable there will be another hung Parliament. The Conservatives/Tories look like they will become the largest party in England, however they won’t have an overall majority in Parliament. Whereas, Labour is facing annihilation in Scotland, with the Scottish National Party (SNP) routing the “Red Tories” north of the border. Labour could conceivably govern the UK with the SNP in a coalition government. Nicola Sturgeon the leader of the SNP has expressed her desire to see another independence referendum within a few years. However, the Labour leader Edward “Ed” Miliband has ruled that out in the debate last night.

UK politics has fragmented and become so unpredictable. This was always going to happen because the economic crisis, new radical parties and policies were always going to emerge.

marknesop, May 1, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Ha, ha – just like the phenomenon of Katie Abram in the U.S. Here she is, supposedly just a concerned young mother who is at pains to explain she has never before been even interested in politics, but now, by God and Sonny Jesus, she is fired up, so look out. She was an overnight sensation, and Republicans started talking right away in that mindless way they have of her maybe running for office, even though they just heard she was a young mother who had no previous interest – translates to zero experience – in politics. Here she is the next day, getting her ass handed to her by Lawrence O’Donnell on “Hardball”. Watch her pretend not to know how much her family income is, although she just said the Obama government wants her to pay more taxes.

Nobody should have been surprised, then, when it was revealed she was a neoconservative organizer with failed rodeo clown Glenn Beck’s “9-12 Project”, and knee-deep in politics since at least the GOP’s congressional-elections rout in 2006.

Neocons the Echo of German Fascism By Todd E. Pierce

March 27, 2015 | Consortiumnews

Exclusive: The "f-word" for "fascist" keeps cropping up in discussing aggressive U.S. and Israeli "exceptionalism," but there's a distinction from the "n-word" for "Nazi." This new form of ignoring international law fits more with an older form of German authoritarianism favored by neocon icon Leo Strauss, says retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

With the Likud Party electoral victory in Israel, the Republican Party is on a roll, having won two major elections in a row. The first was winning control of the U.S. Congress last fall. The second is the victory by the Republicans' de facto party leader Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel's recent election. As the Israeli Prime Minister puts together a coalition with other parties "in the national camp," as he describes them, meaning the ultra-nationalist parties of Israel, it will be a coalition that today's Republicans would feel right at home in.

The common thread linking Republicans and Netanyahu's "national camp" is a belief of each in their own country's "exceptionalism," with a consequent right of military intervention wherever and whenever their "Commander in Chief" orders it, as well as the need for oppressive laws to suppress dissent.

Leo Strauss, an intellectual bridge between Germany's inter-war Conservative Revolutionaries and today's American neoconservatives.

Leo Strauss, an intellectual bridge between Germany's inter-war Conservative Revolutionaries and today's American neoconservatives.

William Kristol, neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, would agree. Celebrating Netanyahu's victory, Kristol told the New York Times, "It will strengthen the hawkish types in the Republican Party." Kristol added that Netanyahu would win the GOP's nomination, if he could run, because "Republican primary voters are at least as hawkish as the Israeli public."

The loser in both the Israeli and U.S. elections was the rule of law and real democracy, not the sham democracy presented for public relations purposes in both counties. In both countries today, money controls elections, and as Michael Glennon has written in National Security and Double Government, real power is in the hands of the national security apparatus.

Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership role in the U.S. Congress was on full display to the world when he accepted House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address Congress. Showing their eagerness to be part of any political coalition being formed under Netanyahu's leadership, many Congressional Democrats also showed their support by attending the speech.

It was left to Israeli Uri Avnery to best capture the spirit of Netanyahu's enthusiastic ideological supporters in Congress. Avnery wrote that he was reminded of something when seeing "Row upon row of men in suits (and the occasional woman), jumping up and down, up and down, applauding wildly, shouting approval."

Where had he heard that type of shouting before? Then it came to him: "It was another parliament in the mid-1930s. The Leader was speaking. Rows upon rows of Reichstag members were listening raptly. Every few minutes they jumped up and shouted their approval."

He added, "the Congress of the United States of America is no Reichstag. Members wear dark suits, not brown shirts. They do not shout 'Heil' but something unintelligible." Nevertheless, "the sound of the shouting had the same effect. Rather shocking."

Right-wing Politics in Pre-Nazi Germany

While Avnery's analogy of how Congress responded to its de facto leader was apt, it isn't necessary to go to the extreme example that he uses to analogize today's right-wing U.S. and Israeli parties and policy to an earlier German precedent. Instead, it is sufficient to note how similar the right-wing parties of Israel and the U.S. of today are to what was known in 1920s Weimar Germany as the Conservative Revolutionary Movement.

This "movement" did not include the Nazis but instead the Nazis were political competitors with the party which largely represented Conservative Revolutionary ideas: the German National People's Party (DNVP).

The institution to which the Conservative Revolutionaries saw as best representing German "values," the Reichswehr, the German Army, was also opposed by the Nazis as "competitors" to Ernst Rohm's Brownshirts. But the Conservative Revolutionary Movement, the DNVP, and the German Army could all be characterized as "proto-fascist," if not Fascist. In fact, when the Nazis took over Germany, it was with the support of many of the proto-fascists making up the Conservative Revolutionary Movement, as well as those with the DNVP and the Reichswehr.

Consequently, many of the Reichstag members that Uri Avnery refers to above as listening raptly and jumping up and shouting their approval of "The Leader" were not Nazis. The Nazis had failed to obtain an absolute majority on their own and needed the votes of the "national camp," primarily the German National People's Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.

The DNVP members would have been cheering The Leader right alongside Nazi members of the Reichstag. DNVP members also voted along with Nazi members in passing the Enabling Act of 1933, which abolished constitutional liberties and dissolved the Reichstag.

Not enough has been written on the German Conservative Revolutionary Movement , the DNVP and the Reichswehr because they have too often been seen as victims of the Nazis themselves or, at worst, mere precursors.

The DNVP was the political party which best represented the viewpoint of the German Conservative Revolutionary Movement. The Reichswehr itself, as described in The Nemesis of Power by John W. Wheeler-Bennett, has been called a "state within a state," much like the intelligence and security services of the U.S. and Israel are today, wielding extraordinary powers.

The Reichswehr was militaristic and anti-democratic in its purest form and indeed was "fascist" in the term's classic definition of "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." Mussolini merely modeled much of his hyper-militaristic political movement on the martial values of the Reichswehr.

German Army officers even had authority to punish civilians for failing to show "proper respect." In its essence, the viewpoint of the DNVP and the Conservative Revolutionaries was virtually identical to today's Republican Party along with those Democrats who align with them on national security issues.

These groups have in common a worshipful attitude toward the military as best embodying those martial virtues that are central to fascism. Sister parties, though they may all prefer to be seen as "brothers in arms," would be Netanyahu's "national camp" parties.

German Conservative Revolutionary Movement

The Conservative Revolutionary Movement began within the German Right after World War I with a number of writers advocating a nationalist ideology but one in keeping with modern times and not restricted by traditional Prussian conservatism.

It must be noted that Prussian conservatism, standing for militaristic ideas traditional to Prussia, was the antithesis of traditional American conservatism, which professed to stand for upholding the classical liberal ideas of government embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

Inherent to those U.S. constitutional ideas was antipathy toward militarism and militaristic rule of any sort, though Native Americans have good cause to disagree. (In fact, stories of the American conquest of Native Americans with its solution of placing them on reservations were particularly popular in Germany early in the Twentieth Century including with Adolf Hitler).

Historians have noted that when the German Army went to war in World War I, the soldiers and officers carried with them "a shared sense of German superiority and the imagined bestiality of the enemy." This was manifested particularly harshly upon the citizens of Belgium in 1914 with the German occupation. Later, after their experience in the trenches, the Reichswehr was nearly as harsh in suppressing domestic dissent in Germany after the war.

According to Richard Wolin, in The Seduction of Unreason, Ernst Troeltsch, a German Protestant theologian, "realized that in the course of World War I the ethos of Germanocentrism, as embodied in the 'ideas of 1914,' had assumed a heightened stridency." Under the peace of the Versailles Treaty, "instead of muting the idiom of German exceptionalism that Troeltsch viewed with such mistrust, it seemed only to fan its flames."

This belief in German "exceptionalism" was the common belief of German Conservative Revolutionaries, the DNVP and the Reichswehr. For Republicans of today and those who share their ideological belief, substitute "American" for "German" Exceptionalism and you have the identical ideology.

"Exceptionalism" in the sense of a nation can be understood in two ways. One is a belief in the nation's superiority to others. The other way is the belief that the "exceptional" nation stands above the law, similar to the claim made by dictators in declaring martial law or a state of emergency. The U.S. and Israel exhibit both forms of this belief.

German Exceptionalism

The belief in German Exceptionalism was the starting point, not the ending point, for the Conservative Revolutionaries just as it is with today's Republicans such as Sen. Tom Cotton or Sen. Lindsey Graham. This Exceptionalist ideology gives the nation the right to interfere in other country's internal affairs for whatever reason the "exceptional" country deems necessary, such as desiring more living space for their population, fearing the potential of some future security threat, or even just by denying the "exceptional" country access within its borders — or a "denial of access threat" as the U.S. government terms it.

The fundamental ideas of the Conservative Revolutionaries have been described as vehement opposition to the Weimar Republic (identifying it with the lost war and the Versailles Treaty) and political "liberalism" (as opposed to Prussia's traditional authoritarianism).

This "liberalism," which offended the Conservative Revolutionaries, was democracy and individual rights against state power. Instead, the Conservative Revolutionaries envisaged a new reich of enormous strength and unity. They rejected the view that political action should be guided by rational criteria. They idealized violence for its own sake.

That idealization of violence would have meant "state" violence in the form of military expansionism and suppression of "enemies," domestic and foreign, by right-thinking Germans.

The Conservative Revolutionaries called for a "primacy of politics" which was to be "a reassertion of an expansion in foreign policy and repression against the trade unions at home." This "primacy of politics" for the Conservative Revolutionaries meant the erasure of a distinction between war and politics.

Citing Hannah Arendt, Jeffrey Herf, a professor of modern European history, wrote: "The explicit implications of the primacy of politics in the conservative revolution were totalitarian. From now on there were to be no limits to ideological politics. The utilitarian and humanistic considerations of nineteenth-century liberalism were to be abandoned in order to establish a state of constant dynamism and movement." That sounds a lot like the "creative destruction" that neoconservative theorist Michael Ledeen is so fond of.

Herf wrote in 1984 that Conservative Revolutionaries were characterized as "the intellectual advance guard of the rightist revolution that was to be effected in 1933," which, although contemptuous of Hitler, "did much to pave his road to power."

Unlike the Nazis, their belief in German superiority was based in historical traditions and ideas, not biological racism. Nevertheless, some saw German Jews as the "enemy" of Germany for being "incompatible with a united nation."

It is one of the bitterest of ironies that Israel as a "Jewish nation" has adopted similar attitudes toward its Arab citizens. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently proclaimed: "Those who are with us deserve everything, but those who are against us deserve to have their heads chopped off with an axe."

Within Israel, these "Conservative Revolutionary" ideas were manifested in one of their founding political parties, Herut, whose founders came out of the same central European political milieu of interwar Europe and from which Netanyahu's Likud party is descended.

Ernst Junger

Author Ernst Junger was the most important contributor to the celebration of war by the Conservative Revolutionaries and was an influence and an enabler of the Nazis coming to power. He serialized his celebration of war and his belief in its "redeeming" qualities in a number of popular books with "war porn" titles such as, in English, The Storm of Steel, The Battle as an Inner Experience, and Fire and Blood.

The title of a collection of Junger essays in 1930, Krieg und Krieger (War and the Warriors) captures the spirit of America in the Twenty-first Century as much as it did the German spirit in 1930. While members of the U.S. military once went by terms such as soldier, sailor and marine, now they are routinely generically called "Warriors," especially by the highest ranks, a term never before used to describe what were once "citizen soldiers."

Putting a book with a "Warrior" title out on the shelf in a Barnes and Noble would almost guarantee a best-seller, even when competing with all the U.S. SEALS' reminiscences and American sniper stories. But German philosopher Walter Benjamin understood the meaning of Junger's Krieg und Krieger, explaining it in the appropriately titled Theories of German Fascism.

Fundamental to Junger's celebration of war was a metaphysical belief in "totale Mobilmachung" or total mobilization to describe the functioning of a society that fully grasps the meaning of war. With World War I, Junger saw the battlefield as the scene of struggle "for life and death," pushing all historical and political considerations aside. But he saw in the war the fact that "in it the genius of war permeated the spirit of progress."

According to Jeffrey Herf in Reactionary Modernism, Junger saw total mobilization as "a worldwide trend toward state-directed mobilization in which individual freedom would be sacrificed to the demands of authoritarian planning." Welcoming this, Junger believed "that different currents of energy were coalescing into one powerful torrent. The era of total mobilization would bring about an 'unleashing' (Entfesselung) of a nevertheless disciplined life."

In practical terms, Junger's metaphysical view of war meant that Germany had lost World War I because its economic and technological mobilization had only been partial and not total. He lamented that Germany had been unable to place the "spirit of the age" in the service of nationalism. Consequently, he believed that "bourgeois legality," which placed restrictions on the powers of the authoritarian state, "must be abolished in order to liberate technological advance."

Today, total mobilization for the U.S. begins with the Republicans' budgeting efforts to strip away funding for domestic civilian uses and shifting it to military and intelligence spending. Army veteran, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, exemplifies this belief in "total mobilization" of society with his calls for dramatically increased military spending and his belief that "We must again show the U.S. is willing and prepared to [get into] a war in the first place" by making clear that potential "aggressors will pay an unspeakable price if they challenge the United States."

That is the true purpose of Twenty-first Century Republican economics: total mobilization of the economy for war. Just as defeated German generals and the Conservative Revolutionaries believed that Germany lost World War I because their economy and nation was only "partially mobilized," so too did many American Vietnam War-era generals and right-wing politicians believe the same of the Vietnam War. Retired Gen. David Petraeus and today's neoconservatives have made similar arguments about President Barack Obama's failure to sustain the Iraq War. [See, for instance, this fawning Washington Post interview with Petraeus.]

What all these militarists failed to understand is that, according to Clausewitz, when a war's costs exceed its benefits, the sound strategy is to end the costly war. The Germans failed to understand this in World War II and the Soviet Union in their Afghan War.

Paradoxically in the Vietnam War, it was the anti-war movement that enhanced U.S. strength by bringing that wasteful war to an end, not the American militarists who would have continued it to a bitter end of economic collapse. We are now seeing a similar debate about whether to continue and expand U.S. military operations across the Middle East.

Carl Schmitt

While Ernst Junger was the celebrant and the publicist for total mobilization of society for endless war, including the need for authoritarian government, Carl Schmitt was the ideological theoretician, both legally and politically, who helped bring about the totalitarian and militaristic society. Except when it happened, it came under different ownership than what they had hoped and planned for.

Contrary to Schmitt's latter-day apologists and/or advocates, who include prominent law professors teaching at Harvard and the University of Chicago, his legal writings weren't about preserving the Weimar Republic against its totalitarian enemies, the Communists and Nazis. Rather, he worked on behalf of a rival fascist faction, members of the German Army General Staff. He acted as a legal adviser to General Kurt von Schleicher, who in turn advised President Paul von Hindenburg, former Chief of the German General Staff during World War I.

German historian Eberhard Kolb observed, "from the mid-1920s onwards the Army leaders had developed and propagated new social conceptions of a militarist kind, tending towards a fusion of the military and civilian sectors and ultimately a totalitarian military state (Wehrstaat)."

When General Schleicher helped bring about the political fall of Reichswehr Commander in Chief, General von Seekt, it was a "triumph of the 'modern' faction within the Reichswehr who favored a total war ideology and wanted Germany to become a dictatorship that would wage total war upon the other nations of Europe," according to Kolb.

When Hitler and the Nazis outmaneuvered the Army politically, Schmitt, as well as most other Conservative Revolutionaries, went over to the Nazis.

Reading Schmitt gives one a greater understanding of the Conservative Revolutionary's call for a "primacy of politics," explained previously as "a reassertion of an expansion in foreign policy."

Schmitt said: "A world in which the possibility of war is utterly eliminated, a completely pacified globe, would be a world without the distinction of friend and enemy and hence a world without politics. It is conceivable that such a world might contain many very interesting antitheses and contrasts, competitions and intrigues of every kind, but there would not be a meaningful antithesis whereby men could be required to sacrifice life, authorized to shed blood, and kill other human beings. For the definition of the political, it is here even irrelevant whether such a world without politics is desirable as an ideal situation."

As evident in this statement, to Schmitt, the norm isn't peace, nor is peace even desirable, but rather perpetual war is the natural and preferable condition.

This dream of a Martial State is not isolated to German history. A Republican aligned neoconservative, Thomas Sowell, expressed the same longing in 2007 in a National Review article, "Don't Get Weak." Sowell wrote; "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

Leo Strauss, Conservative Revolutionaries and Republicans

Political philosopher Leo Strauss had yearned for the glorious German Conservative Revolution but was despondent when it took the form of the Nazi Third Reich, from which he was excluded because he was Jewish regardless of his fascist ideology.

He wrote to a German Jewish friend, Karl Loewith: "the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme [inalienable rights of man] to protest against the shabby abomination."

Strauss was in agreement politically with Schmitt, and they were close friends.

Professor Alan Gilbert of Denver University has written: "As a Jew, Strauss was forbidden from following Schmitt and [German philosopher Martin] Heidegger into the Nazi party. 'But he was a man of the Right. Like some other Zionists, those who admired Mussolini for instance, Strauss' principles, as the 1933 letter relates, were 'fascist, authoritarian, imperial.'"

Strauss was intelligent enough when he arrived in the U.S. to disguise and channel his fascist thought by going back to like-minded "ancient" philosophers and thereby presenting fascism as part of our "western heritage," just as the current neocon classicist Victor Davis Hanson does.

Needless to say, fascism is built on the belief in a dictator, as was Sparta and the Roman Empire and as propounded by Socrates and Plato, so turning to the thought of ancient philosophers and historians makes a good "cover" for fascist thought.

Leo Strauss must be seen as the Godfather of the modern Republican Party's political ideology. His legacy continues now through the innumerable "Neoconservative Revolutionary" front groups with cover names frequently invoking "democracy" or "security," such as Sen. Lindsey Graham's "Security Through Strength."

Typifying the Straussian neoconservative revolutionary whose hunger for military aggression can never be satiated would be former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame and practitioner of the "big lie," who returned to government under President George W. Bush to push the Iraq War and is currently promoting a U.S. war against Iran.

In a classic example of "projection," Abrams writes that "Ideology is the raison d'etre of Iran's regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world." That can as truthfully be said of his own Neoconservative Revolutionary ideology and its adherents.

That ideology explains Bill Kristol's crowing over Netanyahu's victory and claiming Netanyahu as the Republicans' de facto leader. For years, the U.S. and Israel under Netanyahu have had nearly identical foreign policy approaches though they are at the moment in some disagreement because President Obama has resisted war with Iran while Netanyahu is essentially demanding it.

But at a deeper level the two countries share a common outlook, calling for continuous military interventionism outside each country's borders with increased exercise of authority by the military and other security services within their borders. This is no accident. It can be traced back to joint right-wing extremist efforts in both countries with American neoconservatives playing key roles.

The best example of this joint effort was when U.S. neocons joined with the right-wing, Likud-connected Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in 1996 to publish their joint plan for continuous military interventionism in the Mideast in "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which envisioned "regime change" instead of negotiations. [See Consortiumnews.com's "How Israel Outfoxed U.S. Presidents."]

While ostensibly written for Netanyahu's political campaign, "A Clean Break" became the blueprint for subsequent war policies advocated by the Project for the New American Century, founded by neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The chief contribution of the American neocons in this strategy was to marshal U.S. military resources to do the heavy lifting in attacking Israel's neighbors beginning with Iraq.

With these policy preferences goes a belief inside each country's political parties, across the spectrum but particularly on the Right, that Israel and the United States each stand apart from all other nations as "Exceptional." This is continuously repeated to ensure imprinting it in the population's consciousness in the tradition of fascist states through history.

It is believed today in both the U.S. and Israel, just as the German Conservative Revolutionaries believed it in the 1920s and 1930s of their homeland, Germany, and then carried on by the Nazis until 1945.

Israeli Herut Party

The Knesset website describes the original Herut party (1948-1988) as the main opposition party (against the early domination by the Labor Party). Herut was the most right-wing party in the years before the Likud party came into being and absorbed Herut into a coalition. Its expansionist slogan was "To the banks to the Jordan River" and it refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Kingdom of Jordan. Economically, Herut supported private enterprise and a reduction of government intervention.

In "A Clean Break," the authors were advising Netanyahu to reclaim the belligerent and expansionist principles of the Herut party.

Herut was founded in 1948 by Menachem Begin, the leader of the right-wing militant group Irgun, which was widely regarded as a terrorist organization responsible for killing Palestinians and cleansing them from land claimed by Israel, including the infamous Deir Yassin massacre.

Herut's nature as a party and movement was best explained in a critical letter to the New York Times on Dec. 4, 1948, signed by over two dozen prominent Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt.

The letter read: "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the 'Freedom Party' (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.

"It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. (…) It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents. …

"Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future."

According to author Joseph Heller, Herut was a one-issue party intent on expanding Israel's borders. That Netanyahu has never set aside Herut's ideology can be gleaned from his book last revised in 2000, A Durable Peace. There, Netanyahu praises Herut's predecessors – the Irgun paramilitary and Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, a self-declared "terrorist" group. He also marginalizes their Israeli adversary of the time, the Hagana under Israel's primary founder and first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.

Regardless of methods used, the Stern Gang was indisputably "fascist," even receiving military training from Fascist Italy. One does not need to speculate as to its ideological influences.

According to Colin Shindler, writing in Triumph of Military Zionism: Nationalism and the Origins of the Israeli Right, "Stern devotedly believed that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' so he approached Nazi Germany. With German armies at the gates of Palestine, he offered co-operation and an alliance with a new totalitarian Hebrew republic."

Netanyahu in his recent election campaign would seem to have re-embraced his fascist origins, both with its racism and his declaration that as long as he was prime minister he would block a Palestinian state and would continue building Jewish settlements on what international law recognizes as Palestinian land.

In other words, maintaining a state of war on the Palestinian people with a military occupation and governing by military rule, while continuing to make further territorial gains with the IDF acting as shock troops for the settlers.

Why Does This Matter?

Sun-Tzu famously wrote "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

When we allow our "Conservative Revolutionaries" (or neoconservative militarists or proto-fascists or whatever term best describes them) to make foreign policy, the United States loses legitimacy in the world as a "rule of law" state. Instead, we present a "fascist" justification for our wars which is blatantly illicit.

As the American political establishment has become so enamored with war and the "warriors" who fight them, it has become child's play for our militarists to manipulate the U.S. into wars or foreign aggression through promiscuous economic sanctions or inciting and arming foreign groups to destabilize the countries that we target.

No better example for this can be shown than the role that America's First Family of Militarism, the Kagans, plays in pushing total war mobilization of the U.S. economy and inciting war, at the expense of civilian and domestic needs, as Robert Parry wrote.

This can be seen with Robert Kagan invoking the martial virtue of "courage" in demanding greater military spending by our elected officials and a greater wealth transfer to the Military Industrial Complex which funds the various war advocacy projects that he and his family are involved with.

Kagan recently wrote: "Those who propose to lead the United States in the coming years, Republicans and Democrats, need to show what kind of political courage they have, right now, when the crucial budget decisions are being made."

But as Parry pointed out, showing "courage," "in Kagan's view – is to ladle ever more billions into the Military-Industrial Complex, thus putting money where the Republican mouths are regarding the need to 'defend Ukraine' and resist 'a bad nuclear deal with Iran.'" But Parry noted that if it weren't for Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, Kagan's spouse, the Ukraine crisis might not exist.

What must certainly be seen as neo-fascist under any system of government but especially under a nominal "constitutional republic" as the U.S. claims to be, is Sen. Lindsey Graham's threat that the first thing he would do if elected President of the United States would be to use the military to detain members of Congress, keeping them in session in Washington, until all so-called "defense cuts" are restored to the budget.

In Graham's words, "I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts."

And he would have that power according to former Vice President Dick Cheney's "unitary executive theory" of Presidential power, originally formulated by Carl Schmitt and adopted by Republican attorneys and incorporated into government under the Bush-Cheney administration. Sen. Tom Cotton and other Republicans would no doubt support such an abuse of power if it meant increasing military spending.

But even more dangerous for the U.S. as well as other nations in the world is that one day, our militarists' constant incitement and provocation to war is going to "payoff," and the U.S. will be in a real war with an enemy with nuclear weapons, like the one Victoria Nuland is creating on Russia's border.

Today's American "Conservative Revolutionary" lust for war was summed up by prominent neoconservative Richard Perle, a co-author of "A Clean Break." Echoing the views on war from Ernst Junger and Carl Schmitt, Perle once explained U.S. strategy in the neoconservative view, according to John Pilger:

"There will be no stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there . . . If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

That goal was the same fantasy professed by German Conservative Revolutionaries and it led directly to a wartime defeat never imagined by Germany before, with all the "collateral damage" along the way that always results from "total war."

Rather than continuing with this "strategy," driven by our own modern Conservative Revolutionaries and entailing the eventual bankrupting or destruction of the nation, it might be more prudent for Americans to demand that we go back to the original national security strategy of the United States, as expressed by early presidents as avoiding "foreign entanglements" and start abiding by the republican goals expressed by the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. In the course of that assignment, he researched and reviewed the complete records of military commissions held during the Civil War and stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

image_pdfimage_print

45 comments for "Neocons: the Echo of German Fascism"

  1. tateishi

    March 27, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    Good article. Often people forget that Germany is a very aggressive war mongers, sending soldiers to many areas, and actually it started Yugoslavian war together with the US. It also has many people who believe that they are Aryans, Hitler's imaginary race, though there are real Aryans peaceful one in the mountains of Iran, etc.

    • Lutz Barz

      March 28, 2015 at 5:23 am

      The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

    • Lutz Barz

      March 28, 2015 at 5:24 am

      The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

    • Lutz Barz

      March 28, 2015 at 5:24 am

      The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

    • Lutz Barz

      March 28, 2015 at 5:25 am

      The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

    • Lutz Barz

      March 28, 2015 at 5:25 am

      The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

    • Steve

      March 29, 2015 at 11:07 am

      A very strange comment from a presumed Iranian especially. Germany is not aggressive at all since WW2, which was a result of much aggression by several nations starting with Japan and Italy. German soldiers have gone almost nowhere since then, a limited deployment in Afghanistan being the main case. Germany did not start the "Yugoslavian war" at all, which was begun by Serbia attacking Slovenia and Croatia after they voted and declared independence. Aryanism is very rare in Germany today, and far more belligerent language comes out of Iran than Germany, Iran having swapped Aryanism for Islamism to little if any benefit.

      As for the article itself, it makes the common error of imputing excessive influence to a limited era of German militarism, whilst ignoring the far more globally influential records of Western colonial and Communist militaristic imperialism, as well as Italian Fascism which was the more influential model for many amenable to such ideas, with its aggressive colonial and corporatist notions, and successful attainment of power a decade before Hitler's.

    • [email protected]

      March 29, 2015 at 12:14 pm

      Yea, but lesson is that USA is the continuation and revival of nazi ideology carrying its propound ideology of "exceptionalism". The neo conservative hawkish holding the belief that USA has the right to interfere in others countries internal affairs, that USA is above the law, that USA is predestinated by providence to spread its civilization and more others imperialists beliefs.

  2. F. G. Sanford

    March 27, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    Concur. A common slogan of the political opposition in the 1930's was, "Fascism Means War!" It was true then, and it's still true today. The Major speaks the truth. I hope someone is listening.

  3. bobzz

    March 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    This piece tracks well with Charles Derber's, Morality Wars: How Empires, the Born Again, and the Politically Correct Do Evil in the Name of Good. Hitler was rabid on the subject of morality (i.e., favored it). He was well received by many professional theologians, and the church generally swung in line. Not enough of the Barmen's Confession. This is another parallel with America and Israel and a major contributor to exceptionalism.

  4. John

    March 27, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    Very true. The relationship of fascism and warmongering was described by Aristotle as the tactics of the tyrant over a democracy: fascist leaders must promote war and internal policing because it is the sole basis of their demand for power: they must create, provoke, or invent foreign enemies to demand power as "protectors" and accuse their opponents of disloyalty. They must appeal to the bully-boys as their militant wing, so they produce pseudo-philosophies of dominance.

    Fascism must at times be clarified in meaning to avoid limitation to specific historical instances, and it should be understood in those instances, but in is actually a very simple and universal attitude. It is nothing but the behavior and propaganda of bully boys. They are selfish, ignorant, hypocritical and malicious youths and abusive husbands and fathers, who glory in their small circle of the intimidated and push everyone around as a principal life skill. Those who extend that circle by operating small businesses, or as military or police officers, create and approve rationalizations of special rights. There is no real "exceptionalism" belief or philosophy of national/religious/ethnic superiority, it is just outright propaganda for bullying. They are quite stupid, and yet quickly pick up the methods of fascism, so it is not worth much analysis.

  5. John

    March 27, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    I should add that the resurgence of fascism and its strength in the US and Israel is due to its association with economic concentrations. In business, the spoils go not to the inventor or ingenious professional as claimed in business propaganda: the spoils go to the bully-boy. Those who rise to the top in the corporate world are not the brilliant professionals or the effective managers who shine at lower levels. The path upwards is limited to those who come out on top wars between groups in collusion, who are without exception scheming bully-boys. There is no other way to the top. Only the methods are different from politics. So only bully-boys have great economic power.

    In the US, economic concentrations did not exist when the Constitution was written, so it provides no protection at all for the institutions of democracy from economic power. Economic powers controlled elections and the press in the 19th century, so there has been no way to even debate the issue, and now that control is almost absolute. Those are the powers obtainable only by bully-boys, the predominant fascists of Nazi Germany and the US, and no doubt Israel. So the US has been loosely controlled by fascism for a long time, and that control is nearly total now. Only the propaganda to rationalize this changes to sell the policies to the intimidated.

  6. Randy

    March 27, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    War is inevitable.. You simply cannot deny this and anyone who does is just dreaming… The world cannot live in some perpetual peace forever, what will happen when oil, water, and even living space runs out? Will you watch your family starve to death while the people over in the next town are eating to their hearts content?

    As much as you want to deny it, Hitler had it right. Peace is only attainable through war, and can only be won for your own people. There cannot be world peace, and the events of today proves it. Hitler and Japan was defeated more than 50 years ago, where is the peace? There will come a day where money will be worthless, the only currency will be strength, only those rich in this currency will survive. How nature intended it to be.

    Hitler knew this, and was preparing his own country, the rest of the world took the Banker path, and look where that led us.

    • Zachary Smith

      March 27, 2015 at 3:08 pm

      The world cannot live in some perpetual peace forever, what will happen when oil, water, and even living space runs out?

      Has it occurred to you that oil is only one of the many energy sources, and that the amount of water on Earth is basically a fixed quantity? Living space? Consider contraception combined with incentives, and disincentives for having babies galore.

      Can't help but notice you didn't mention Global Warming as a gnawing problem. Why?

      Finally, WHY is this site a magnet for the Hitler Fan Club?

      • Randy

        March 27, 2015 at 3:52 pm

        The idea is that resources run out, right? I wasn't going to list everything. There is not a infinite amount of resources in this world, you can continue living in your fairy tale world if you'd like but I will not.

        Even the soil that we grow food in will one day become unusable if it is abused like it is today. Global warming is a result of your delusion of world peace. Nature hits back when you delay and ignore up its rule for to long.. There would be no Global Warming problem i

        • Zachary Smith

          March 27, 2015 at 4:00 pm

          Global warming is a result of your delusion of world peace.

          As I suspected.

          No doubt wind turbines kill the cute birdies.

          And contraception is some sort of sin.

    • John

      March 27, 2015 at 3:36 pm

      Randy, be careful to avoid traps here:
      1. Wars will continue in history, but that is not a justification for doing wrong.
      2. When groups are in conflict, good leadership avoids war because it causes great wrongs. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, usually due to bad leadership. But of course that does not justify unnecessary war.
      3. Peace is not obtained by war. Sometimes it results from a successful defense against wrongful war, sometimes it is only the peace after a wrongful war succeeds. Those who prefer peace want to avoid unnecessary war. They are not afraid of necessary defense.
      4. Those who want to keep the US from unnecessary wars know more about the world's cultures and problems and solutions than those who always think of war as a solution. They know that our security depends upon making friends among a wild variety of cultures at different stages of development. That is done by helping the unfortunate even when we disagree with them, and we can't expect much from them in return. Wars mainly make us enemies, and those who promote wars conceal those failures. That's what this site is about.

    • holycowimeanzebra

      March 27, 2015 at 10:53 pm

      Gee, we couldn't just talk like adults about the importance of having fewer children? War and killing is the only method of human population control?

    • holycowimeanzebra

      March 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm

      Gee, we couldn't just talk like adults about the importance of having fewer children? War and killing is the only method of human population control?

    • zhu bajie

      March 30, 2015 at 1:03 am

      Nonsense. War is caused by fighting.

    • frank scott

      March 30, 2015 at 11:04 pm

      war, slavery and general ignorance are "inevitable" so long as people are mentally enslaved enough to tolerate them…the only thing inevitable about life is death…the rest is all subject to at least some measure of control, whether those are called political, religious or scientific..belief in such nonsense as above guarantees the continued master race-self chosen people-ism the article's writer is trying to contend with, call attention to and end..hitler was right about some things and wrong about most, like obama, bush, clinton, reagan and all other "leaders" of the status quo.

    • frank scott

      March 30, 2015 at 11:17 pm

      death is inevitable but the rest of life is subject to control by concerned, thoughtful and informed humans..war is inevitable only if the opposite type of humans continue and if they do it may be that all of us will lose continuity, fulfilling their dreadfully negative religious belief..the article seems to be at least trying to locate sources for some of the diseased madness that prevails but talk of "inevitable" war is an example of the disease.

  7. Gregory Kruse

    March 27, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    Mr. Pierce appears to be a good example of a person who "knows himself, and knows his enemy", for indeed the Kagans and Cheneys of these times are enemies of the people. Unfortunately, most of the people don't know it yet, and in fact don't know themselves. It is absolutely dumbfounding to hear strains of Fox News coming from the mouths of otherwise seemingly decent and intelligent people who have the facility to think for themselves, but find it easier to parrot a TV station. I rue the fact that history and what served for political education in my youth led me to believe that there were no real enemies of democracy anymore. Reading back now through the history of Europe after the War of 1812 in Russia until WWI, I have come to appreciate the strength of fascist sentiment and passion, and I fairly tremble at the thought of the possible rise of another Otto von Bismark or Adolph Hitler in what we think of as "modern" times. There is only one ray of hope for me and that is the writing of such as Pierce, Parry, and some others scattered about the internet. It isn't clear to me that people will wake up and perceive the path we are on and in dreadful fear force a change of direction, but if not, we will learn again what it is to suffer unimaginable horror.

    • Zachary Smith

      March 27, 2015 at 7:21 pm

      It is absolutely dumbfounding to hear strains of Fox News coming from the mouths of otherwise seemingly decent and intelligent people who have the facility to think for themselves, but find it easier to parrot a TV station.

      Dumbfounding is right!

      Sometime back I was astonished to hear a relative at least as bright as myself (and educated at the same University) tell me that Fox was the ONLY news source which could be trusted. She'd moved from Indiana to the deep South years ago and sort-of "gone native". It was an ordeal to remain calm and use lip-glue.

  8. Theodora Crawford

    March 27, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    Excellent discussion and worth the challenge of a thought-provoking and complex argument about governance and war. Today's environment is frightening with so much negative opinion, an absurd sense of US "exceptionalism" and unthinking faith in the power of war (clinched by a nuclear option as last resort).

    Alas, we have the government we deserve.

  9. Abe

    March 27, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    In 1926, German political theorist Carl Schmitt wrote his most famous paper, "Der Begriff des Politischen" ("The Concept of the Political"), in which he developed his theory of "the political".

    For Schmitt, "the political" is not equal to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the most essential to identity. As the essence of politics, "the political" is distinct from party politics.

    According to Schmitt, while churches are predominant in religion or society is predominant in economics, the state is predominant in politics. Yet for Schmitt the political was not an autonomous domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics (e.g. religion ceases to be merely theological when it makes a clear distinction between the "friend" and the "enemy").

    Schmitt, in perhaps his best-known formulation, bases his conceptual realm of state sovereignty and autonomy upon the distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is to be determined "existentially," which is to say that the enemy is whoever is "in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible." (Schmitt, 1996, p. 27)

    For Schmitt, such an enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything.

    Although there have been divergent interpretations concerning Schmitt's work, there is broad agreement that "The Concept of the Political" is an attempt to achieve state unity by defining the content of politics as opposition to the "other" (that is to say, an enemy, a stranger. This applies to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one's own interests.) In addition, the prominence of the state stands as a neutral force over potentially fractious civil society, whose various antagonisms must not be allowed to reach the level of the political, lest civil war result.

    Leo Strauss, a political Zionist and follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, had a position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932 and summarized Schmitt's political theology thus: "[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against – against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men… the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state."

    With a letter of recommendation from Schmitt, Strauss received a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation to begin work, in France, on a study of Hobbes. Schmitt went on to become a figure of influence in the new Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.

    On 30 January 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. The SA and SS led torchlight parades throughout Berlin. Germans who opposed Nazism failed to unite against it, and Hitler soon moved to consolidate absolute power.

    Following the 27 February Reichstag fire, the Nazis began to suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition. The Communists were excluded from the Reichstag. At the March 1933 elections, again no single party secured a majority. Hitler required the vote of the Centre Party and Conservatives in the Reichstag to obtain the powers he desired. He called on Reichstag members to vote for the Enabling Act on 24 March 1933.

    Hitler was granted plenary powers "temporarily" by the passage of the Enabling Act. The law gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and even without constitutional limitations.

    Schmitt joined the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933. Within days of joining the party, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, rejoicing in the burning of "un-German" and "anti-German" material, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas.[

    In July 1933, Schmitt was appointed State Councillor for Prussia (Preußischer Staatsrat) by Hermann Göring and became the president of the Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen ("Union of National-Socialist Jurists") in November. He also replaced Hermann Heller as professor at the University of Berlin (a position he held until the end of World War II).

    Schmitt presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the Führer state with regard to legal philosophy, in particular through the concept of auctoritas. Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt was appointed editor-in-chief of the Nazi news organ for lawyers, the Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung ("German Jurists' Journal").

    In July 1934, he published "The Leader Protects the Law (Der Führer schützt das Recht)", a justification of the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives with the authority of Hitler as the "highest form of administrative justice (höchste Form administrativer Justiz)".

    Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention in Berlin in October 1936, where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit (jüdischem Geist)", going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol.

    Nevertheless, in December 1936, the SS publication Das schwarze Korps accused Schmitt of being an opportunist, and called his anti-semitism a mere pretense, citing earlier statements in which he criticized the Nazis' racial theories. After this, Schmitt resigned from his position as "Reichsfachgruppenleiter" (Reich Professional Group Leader), although he retained his post as a professor in Berlin, and his post as "Preußischer Staatsrat".

    After World War II, Schmitt refused every attempt at de-nazification, which effectively barred him from positions in academia. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the scholarly and political community, he continued his studies especially of international law from the 1950s on.

    In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in Francoist Spain, two of them giving rise to the publication, the following year, of Theory of the Partisan, in which he qualified the Spanish civil war as a "war of national liberation" against "international Communism."

    Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon that, in the latter half of the twentieth century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.

    At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the most simple formulation of Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction was enunciated by this intellectual giant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfNROmn7bc

    In that Schmittian fulmination known as the Bush Doctrine, the "partisan" is transformed into the "terrorist," no longer "internal" but a truly "global" enemy to be destroyed wherever found.

    As further codified by the Obama Doctrine: the decider has the right.

    The world-ordering, planet-appropriating doctrine of American exceptionalism has no space in its Grossraum (great space) concept for a "Eurasia."

    The very enunciation of a "Eurasian" political sphere is a "terrorist" act, and all those associated with such "lunacy" are "enemies" to be annihilated.

  10. John

    March 28, 2015 at 12:50 am

    Junger was not so pro-war when he lost his son in WW11.

  11. John

    March 28, 2015 at 12:50 am

    Junger was not so pro-war when he lost his son in WW11.

  12. Dato

    March 28, 2015 at 6:28 am

    Just as defeated German generals and the Conservative Revolutionaries believed that Germany lost World War I because their economy and nation was only "partially mobilized

    One would like to know wherein lay the premises of such a belief. Indeed, the general staff of the Reich laid out plans and performed actions for a "total war", and the effects, once the war ended, were hard to oversee: Not only were there scant resources and only barely functioning capital infrastructure left after the war, people were actually dying of hunger in the streets (made worse by the entente's continuing blockade even into 1915). Maybe all the information was hard to come back then.

    From "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" by Astore and Showalter, p 40ff:

    The war, Hindenburg noted, had become a colossal Materialschlacht, or material struggle, waged by modern industrial juggernauts. The western front in particular witnessed organized destruction on a scale theretofore thought impossible. Staggered by the sheer wastage of modern war, all combatants sought with varying degrees of success to mobilize their economies. The so-called Hindenburg Program was Germany's concerted attempt to mobilize fully, if somewhat belatedly, for total war. Improving the efficiency of economic mobilization was certainly a worthwhile goal. Hindenburg's, and especially Ludendorff's, key mistake was to presume that an economy could be commanded like an army. The end result was a conflict of effciencies. What was best for the army in the short term was not necessarily best for the long-term health of the economy. Furthermore, as economic means were mobilized to the fullest, the sacrifices required and incurred by modern warfare's destructive industrialism drove Germany, as well as the Entente powers, to inflate strategic goals to justify national sacrifice. Extreme economic mobilization encouraged grandiose political and territorial demands, ruling out opportunities for a compromise peace, which Hindenburg and Ludendorff rejected anyway. Under their leadership, imperial Germany became a machine for waging war and little else. And Hindenburg and Ludendorff emerged as Germany's most committed merchants of death.

    Nothing in Hindenburg's background prepared him for the task of overseeing an economic mobilization. Thus, he left details to the technocrat Ludendorff. Aided by Lieutenant Colonel Max Bauer, Ludendorff embarked on a crash program to centralize and streamline the economy. Fifteen separate district commands in Germany needed centralizing if economic mobilization was to be rationalized; rivalries among federal, state, and local agencies needed to be curtailed. As enacted, the Hindenburg Program sought to maximize war-related production by transforming Germany into a garrison state with a command economy. Coordinating the massive effort was the Kriegsamt, or War Office, headed by General Wilhelm Groener.

    Yet, Ludendorff's insistence on setting unachievable production goals led to serious dislocations in the national economy. Shell production was to be doubled, artillery and machine gun production trebled, all in a matter of months. The German economy, relying largely on its own internal resources, could not bear the strain of striving for production goals unconstrained by economic, material, and manpower realities. The release of hundreds of thousands of skilled workers from military duty back to the factories, which led to short-term increases in the production of armaments, did not solve critical and systemic shortages of labor. Large-scale deportation and impressment of Belgian workers was a stopgap that only further alienated world opinion, notably in the United States. In the aggregate, the high level of autonomy enjoyed by the military contributed to wasteful duplications of effort and patterns of bureaucratization that eventually defied even the Germans' gift for paperwork.

  13. Brad Owen

    March 28, 2015 at 6:36 am

    Excellent article. I still think the Financial Oligarchy, which currently holds the "Imperium" in City-of-London/Wall Street jointly, are the financial enablers of these "Conservative Revolutionaries". One of the main tasks of an Empire is to PREVENT any rival power structure (such as a legitimate Republic taking root within a colony, becoming a powerful nation-state, and becoming most attractive to the other subjugated colonies…the ONLY basis for U.S. "exceptionalism", and our one unforgivable "sin" in the, now covert, British Empire) from arising within its' Realm. The witless conservative revolutionaries are enabled by the Financier/Emperors (think of Grand daddy Prescott; bagman for the NAZIs) PRECISELY because they will lead to "the eventual bankrupting and destruction of the Nation", as Major Pierce says, thus being rid of a dangerous Republic within their Empire. These policies and wars are meant to destroy US, here, in America, and lead us, and the World, FAR AWAY from the wisdom of our Preamble. BTW, Kaiser's Germany, and Dr. Sun Yat Sen, were influenced by "Lincoln's economists" Henry Carey and Friedrich Liszt…the "republican infection" was spread far and wide, after Lincoln's victory in his proxy war with the British and French empires (The Russian Empire, as always, was USA's quiet ally in that war).

  14. Peter Loeb

    March 28, 2015 at 6:45 am

    NAMING NAMES…

    The history of fascism is helpful, It remains that it is a common tendency of liberals/
    progressives to believe in the illusion that one person, one party exchanged for another
    will transform a society (any society).

    As Naseer Aruri documents in his incisive book, DISHONEST BROKER, that the US has collaborated with Zionism for decades, Both US political parties have been complicit. This
    has been the case for 35 years prior to the current Administration and certainly was the
    case going back as far as Harry Truman.(Aruri's brief book was written just prior to
    the election of Obama.)

    Netanyahu's supposed "shock" to Washington is that his blatant racism and opposition to
    the "peaceful negotiations" of two so-called "sovereign" nations made such good PR. One commenter observed that it was like asking the lamb to "negotiate" with the wolf. Aruri
    repeats that the US, which has always supported the oppressor(Israel), could act as"mediator" thus excluding international law altogether. (Aruri blames in equal measure PLO's Arafat who agreed to "occupation by consent" (Aruri).

    Netanyahu blew the US "cover" for just a second. The next Democratic leadership if it is
    Hillary Clinton as President or Chuck Schumer as Democratic leader has never been
    noted for any sympathy for Palestinians aka "the inferior race" (Israelis). Both Clinton and
    Schumer have represented New York State in the US Senate. Both want to elect more members of their party (Democratic) and to use the dollars of wealthy US Jews in accomplishing this.

    The voices of the hundreds of thousands who lose their jobs as disposeable (except in
    campaign rehetoric) have less and less meaning. The very rich are the beneficiaries and they lay off thousands of workers and managers to move to low wage and more compliant
    location with high tech ease.

    From my perspective, the only means to delay this is economic. On the one hand it is
    BDS but on a larger field it is the weakness of the US economy and others of the West.

    Recalling that it was WW II that "solved" the Great Depression and not the ineffective programs of FDR's "New Deal" (See Gabriel Kolko, MAIN CURRENTS IN MODERN AMERICAN
    HISTORY). Todd E. Pierce does not mention the so-called global "revolution" but as the
    French have phrased it "La revolution se mange" (" The revolution eats itself") Everyone
    wants someone else to fight their battles for them at no cost to themselves.

    Pierce does not evaluate the power relationships weakening virtually all governments
    today. Inequality has eaten us up (we have eaten ouselves!).

    —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

  15. muggles

    March 28, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    Extremely good essay today by Todd Pierce. Very impressive scholarship and insight, particularly in the light of his impressive military career.

    Many good comments posted also, despite the inevitable odor of anti Semitism found in some, always the case when "Germany" is part of the topic. "Bankers", etc. Much easier to stereotype than to think.

    Yes, France and Britain were also hyper militaristic in the 19th century, far more than Germany, which of course wasn't united until the very end of that century, which meant that while some German states were quite active militarily in the period (Prussia) it didn't act as a "nation" as it did later in the 20th century.

    France lost most of the militarist ideology after two crushing defeats in the World Wars and post colonial failures. Britain maintained that outlook despite the World Wars but the wars devastated the economic ability and imperial reach which had sustained that view, despite the persistent Churchill worship. Thatcher's defense of the tiny Falklands was merely an almost comic echo of times past. Still, today in many British intellectual circles (if not in actually participating in the armed forces) military worship continues.

    Germany today has now lost most of its taste for war. Instead it leads Europe economically. Butter rather than guns.

    Pierce's essay highlights the sinister influence of Leo Strauss, something that libertarian historian-economist Murray Rothbard warned about several decades ago as well. As Godfather of the neocons, Strauss is the intellectual architect of today's bloodlust American political establishment. His being Jewish was the only thing which kept him from being a full fledged Hitlerite.

    So neocons, many themselves Jewish (though many not) are mere slightly less crazy fascists as were the interwar German nationalists who easily jumped into the Nazi bed when the cult of personality overwhelmed the German rightwing.

    There has long been a cult of war worship, going back to ancient times. The fact that warfare brings death and disease and horrible injury doesn't matter. The fact that it destroys wealth and human prosperity and harmony is ignored. Individuals are crushed to the greater "good" of arms against whatever enemy can be found. Sociopaths and psychopaths use militarism as the path to "greatness."

    That much of the American "right" is in the thrall of the pseudo fascist neocon ideology of Straussian war worship as the path to "security" and "national greatness" should be the red blinking "danger-danger!" light for every thinking American.

    Thanks Mr. Pierce.

  16. Steve Naidamast

    March 28, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    I have not thoroughly read this article but will do so after I print it out.

    However I would like to add that though there were quite a few people in 190s Germany that were proponents of warfare there is a slow but increasing amount of research that is beginning to show that Adolph Hitler was not the war-monger western historians have made him out to be. In addition, after the advent of war in 1939, up through 1941, Hitler was making peace overtures to the west, which Britain continuously ignored and rejected.

    This too was done up through 1915 by Germany in World War I, which Britain also
    ignored.

    As recent research is beginning to show, it was not Germany who was itching for
    war in 1939 but in fact Britain and Poland. And war is what they eventually got and
    very much to Britain's and Poland's demise as the former lost her empire and the latter was
    swallowed up by Soviet Russia.

  17. Coleen Rowley

    March 28, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    Great article showing how history repeats! But most of your points, with the exception of Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu to speak to Congress and more Democrats than Republicans backing Obama's negotiation strategy with Iran, apply as much to the Democrat as Republican Party leadership. I think I even read where Robert Kagan may back Hillary Clinton whilst his fellow PNAC founder William Kristol will back Bush or whatever Republican wins the nomination. The neocon ideology seems to be fully in control of both parties.

    • Bob Van Noy

      March 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm

      Thank you Coleen for your comment. I share your concern that a Clinton/Bush race will be one in the same. I'm desperately hoping we get neither as candidates because it will mean "business as usual".

  18. hisoricus

    March 28, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    One of the most startling things I've found in reading "Nazi propaganda" is their dead-on accurate prediction of America's coming role as a primary threat to world peace, in its rulers' quest for total global domination. The United States was routinely mocked in the German press as the phony "democracy of dollars" controlled by the plutocrats of Wall Street – gosh, how'd they ever get a wacky idea like that, huh?

    Hitler clearly stated in Mein Kampf "we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

    Hitler attempted to rapidly build Germany into a global power that would be capable of fending off the twin threats of capitalist imperialism from the west and totalitarian communism from the east – but these forces were too strong: the "new Germany" never had a chance of survival. Eighty million Germans faced a billion-strong British empire that was determined to destroy all economic rivals, and had centuries of experience in mass murder and destruction in the Third World. Add to this the 320 million people of a communist USSR and a capitalist USA whose elites could agree on only one thing, that Germany's astoundingly successful experiment in national socialism must first be annihilated and then its true character erased from history.

    Today the German government's cruel treatment of Jews – who made up one half of one percent of Germany's population, by the way – is all that most people know of National Socialism, which is rather like remembering America's Founders only as the brutal slaveholders and Indian killers that they were.

    Ask yourself: how is it evenly remotely possible that the second German war could be the only time in our history that our leaders did not lie to us about why we were supposed to hate and butcher a people who had done us no harm?

    • Monster from the Id

      March 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm

      Hoooo boy, the delusion is strong in this one…

  19. richard vajs

    March 29, 2015 at 8:54 am

    One good thing about the "coming together" of the fascist Republican Party and the fascist Israeli Likud Party – it will make for a unified target. As I've heard military drill instructors advise, "You people need to spread out – one hand grenade would get you all!". I look forward to no separation between the two and the tossing of that grenade.

    • Coleen Rowley

      March 29, 2015 at 10:34 am

      First I need to make clear I'm against bombing. Anyone. I'm in the "war is not the answer; war is a crime; war is waste; war is a lie; war is hell camp. I think individuals are justified in valid "self defense" but not the nation-state or ethnic-religious type tribalism that Carl Schmitt apparently referred to as the "political" groupings that justify and benefit from "pre-emptive" wars of aggression. It IS a slippery slope but still we must stick to principles.

      But with that said, the Likud-inspired AIPAC and other Israeli fronts were very much aware of your drill sergeant's advice, Richard. The Israel lobbyists were highly effective in the past, in contrast to other political lobbies (who generally favored one party or the other), simply because they did "spread out" and were able to infiltrate both Republican and Democratic parties (as well as their corresponding "think tanks") so as to better control the whole US government.

      The Boehner invite of Netanyahu, Republican Militarist Senator Cotton's letter and the exposing of AIPAC's forcing of Democratic congresspersons to now oppose their own Party Leader, Obama, in order to launch war on Iran, could be significant in ending that control of both parties by splitting the parties. Bush's former UN Ambassador and top neocon John Bolton's outright and explicit call for bombing Iran in the NYT helps pull off the mask and expose what the neocons are after. Middle of the road Democratic congresspeople, almost all of whom are normally are hard-pressed to not vote and give AIPAC anything it wants, may find it easier to publically explain how they cannot in good conscience vote this one time, for the Israel Lobby and what the terrible new war it wants.

      And my guess is the reason Kristol and Kagan would be splitting their support, if that does materialize, Kristol for Bush and Kagan for Clinton, would be exactly in line with your old drill sergeant's advice.

  20. Solon

    March 29, 2015 at 10:26 pm

    re: "Avnery's analogy of how Congress responded to its de facto leader was apt"

    The analogy could not be less apt.

    The German leaders were in their own nation, addressing the concerns of their own people, concerns including the debasement of their culture, the debasement of their money, high unemployment, challenges in finding food, riots and mob violence incited by Communist and Bolshevic subversives, and chaos in their political system. Promises were made to the German people by their leaders to solve their problems, a plan was laid out and most of the promises were kept: within 4 years, Germans were employed, the economy was revitalized with public works spending, and the people's morale was unified around German cultural values. Several of their international problems were settled without violence, as the people demanded and the NSDAP government promised.

    On the other hand, the leader of a foreign state stood before a representative body in which only 16% of the people have any confidence. He told this body that their leader should not be trusted, and they cheered.
    The representatives of the people pledged their fealty to this leader of a foreign state and promised to send him more taxpayer money to kill more of the people whose lands and homes the foreign state is stealing. None of the concerns of the American people — for jobs, for relief from high food prices, for adequate treatment of 50,000 military persons wounded in wars fought at the behest of the same foreign leader — none of those concerns were addressed by the cheering crowd.

    This author suffers from Hitler Derangement Syndrome: his thinking is so suffused with the relentlessly propagandized notion that Hitler and NSDAP are the embodiment of evil that his analysis is forced and his judgments flawed.

    An assessment of the full panoply of facts and evidence will reveal that it was not Hitler and NSDAP but the forebears of the same man who sought to — and came pretty close to succeeding in subverting the US political system.

    The German people under NSDAP leadership were reclaiming their government and culture, and for that they cheered.

    Their resistance to the ideology that Strauss and his cohort sought to impose on Germans was an affront to the pro to-neocons, and so they organized with warmongering British and manipulative American leaders to destroy Germany and incinerate the German people in what C E Hughes called the first use of weapons of mass destruction as a means of terror against a civilian population.

  21. zhu bajie

    March 30, 2015 at 1:23 am

    The comparison is interesting, but it a comparison between Japanese Militarism and the US permanent war regime would also be enlightening. Neither the US nor Japan have or had a charismatic orator, a Mussolini or a Hitler.

  22. zhu bajie

    March 30, 2015 at 1:58 am

    Re "exceptiohnalism," Lewis' _The American Adam_ should be read. The idea that Americans can do no wrong has been around since the early days of the Republic.

  23. Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell, J.D.

    March 30, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    Re: "It was left to Israeli Uri Avnery to best capture the spirit of Netanyahu's enthusiastic ideological supporters in Congress."

    I disagree with that sentence, albeit it's a judgment call. But I don't think Avnery is even in the running. The best capture of that I've seen is Noy Alooshe's masterful video remix of the event itself. .

  24. hbm

    March 31, 2015 at 3:06 am

    You don't get Nazis without Ashkenazis.

    Why should Neocons be at all surprising?

  25. Rob

    April 2, 2015 at 10:58 am

    I enjoyed the article, but I cannot agree that Netanyahu is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rather, he is a prop in the ongoing drama known as "Republicans doing everything in their power to oppose and embarrass President Obama and the Democrats."

    I have long advocated that those public figures who agitate for war should be sent into the battlefield along with all able bodied members of their families. That would quickly put an end to chicken hawk warmongers. The exception would be Charles Krauthammer, who is paralyzed in his lower extremities. That man should be sent into battle in his wheelchair.

[Apr 10, 2015] Shadow Government By Bruce Morgan

October 28, 2014 | Tufts Now

Elected officials are no longer in charge of our national security—and that is undermining our democracy, says the Fletcher School's Michael Glennon

"We are clearly on the path to autocracy," says Michael Glennon. "There's no question that if we continue on that path, [the] Congress, the courts and the presidency will ultimately end up . . . as institutional museum pieces." Photo: Kelvin Ma

Michael Glennon knew of the book, and had cited it in his classes many times, but he had never gotten around to reading the thing from cover to cover. Last year he did, jolted page after page with its illuminating message for our time.

The book was The English Constitution, an analysis by 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot that laid bare the dual nature of British governance. It suggested that one part of government was for popular consumption, and another more hidden part was for real, consumed with getting things done in the world. As he read, Glennon, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School, where he also teaches constitutional law, saw distinct parallels with the current American political scene.

He decided to explore the similarities in a 30-page paper that he sent around to a number of his friends, asking them to validate or refute his argument. As it happens, Glennon's friends were an extraordinarily well-informed bunch, mostly seasoned operatives in the CIA, the U.S. State Department and the military. "Look," he told them. "I'm thinking of writing a book. Tell me if this is wrong." Every single one responded, "What you have here is exactly right."

Expanded from that original brief paper, Glennon's book National Security and Double Government (Oxford University Press) takes our political system to task, arguing that the people running our government are not our visible elected officials but high-level—and unaccountable—bureaucrats nestled atop government agencies.

Glennon's informed critique of the American political system comes from a place of deep regard. Glennon says he can remember driving into Washington, D.C., in the late spring of 1973, at the time of the Senate Watergate hearings, straight from law school at the University of Minnesota, to take his first job as assistant legislative counsel to the U.S. Senate. Throughout his 20s, he worked in government, culminating in his position as legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Sen. Frank Church from 1977 to 1980. Since entering academic life in the early 1980s, Glennon has been a frequent consultant to government agencies of all stripes, as well as a regular commentator on media outlets such as NPR's All Things Considered, the Today show and Nightline.

In his new book, an inescapable sadness underlies the narrative. "I feel a great sense of loss," Glennon admits. "I devoted my life to these [democratic] institutions, and it's not easy to see how to throw the current trends into reverse." Tufts Now spoke with Glennon recently to learn more of his perspective.

Tufts Now: You've been both an insider and an outsider with regard to government affairs. What led you to write this book?

Michael Glennon: I was struck by the strange continuity in national security policy between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Obama, as a candidate, had been eloquent and forceful in criticizing many aspects of the Bush administration's national security policies, from drone strikes to Guantanamo to surveillance by the National Security Agency—the NSA—to covert operations. Yet as president, it turned out that he made very, very few changes in these policies. So I thought it was useful to explain the reason for that.

Were you surprised by the continuity?

I was surprised by the extent of it. I knew fundamentally from my own experience that changing national policies is like trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier. These policies in many ways were set long ago, and the national security bureaucracy tends to favor the status quo. Still, I thought that a president like Obama would, with the political wind in his sails and with so much public and congressional support for what he was criticizing, be more successful in fulfilling his promises.

You use the phrase "double government," coined by Walter Bagehot in the 1860s. What did he mean by that?

Walter Bagehot was one of the founders of the Economist magazine. He developed the theory of "double government," which in a nutshell is this. He said Britain had developed two sets of institutions. First came "dignified" institutions, the monarchy and the House of Lords, which were for show and which the public believed ran the government. But in fact, he suggested, this was an illusion.

These dignified institutions generate legitimacy, but it was a second set of institutions, which he called Britain's "efficient" institutions, that actually ran the government behind the scenes. These institutions were the House of Commons, the Cabinet and the prime minister. This split allowed Britain to move quietly from a monarchy to what Bagehot called a "concealed republic."

The thesis of my book is that the United States has also drifted into a form of double government, and that we have our own set of "dignified" institutions—Congress, the presidency and the courts. But when it comes to national security policy, these entities have become largely for show. National security policy is now formulated primarily by a second group of officials, namely the several hundred individuals who manage the agencies of the military, intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracy responsible for protecting the nation's security.

What are some components of this arrangement?

The NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon and elements of the State Department, certainly; generally speaking, law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government. It's a diverse group, an amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure, that has come to dominate the formation of American national security policy to the point that Congress, the presidency and the courts all defer to it.

You call this group the "Trumanite network" in your book. What's the link to Harry Truman?

It was in Truman's administration that the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted. This established the CIA and the National Security Council and centralized the command of the U.S. military. It was during the Truman administration as well that the National Security Agency [NSA] was set up, in 1952, although that was a secret and didn't come to light for many years thereafter.

In contrast to the Trumanites you set the "Madisonians." How would you describe them?

The Madisonian institutions are the three constitutionally established branches of the federal government: Congress, the judiciary and the president. They are perceived by the public as the entities responsible for the formulation of national security policy, but that belief is largely mistaken.

The idea is driven by regular exceptions. You can always point to specific instances in which, say, the president personally ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden or Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution. But these are exceptions. The norm is that as a general matter, these three branches defer to the Trumanite network, and that's truer all the time.

So the trend is toward increased power on the Trumanite side of the ledger.

Correct.

If that's true, why has there not been a greater outcry from the public, the media—all the observers we have?

I think the principal reason is that even sophisticated students of government operate under a very serious misunderstanding. They believe that the political system is self-correcting. They believe the framers set up a system of government setting power against power, and ambition against ambition, and that an equilibrium would be reached, and that any abuse of power would be checked, and arbitrary power would be prevented.

That is correct as far as it goes, but the reality is that's only half the picture. The other half is that Madison and his colleagues believed that for equilibrium to occur, we would have an informed and engaged citizenry. Lacking that, the entire system corrupts, because individuals are elected to office who do not resist encroachments on the power of their branches of government, and the whole equilibrium breaks down.

What role, if any, have the media played?

The media have pretty much been enablers. Although there are a handful of investigative journalists who have done a heroic job of uncovering many of the abuses, they are the exception, for a number of reasons. Number one, the media are a business and have a bottom line. It takes a huge amount of money to fund an investigative journalist who goes about finding sources over a period of years. Very few newspapers or television concerns have those sorts of deep pockets.

Second, access for the press is everything. There is huge incentive to pull punches, and you don't get interviews with top-ranking officials at the NSA or CIA if you're going to offer hard-hitting questions. Look, for example, at the infamous 60 Minutes puff piece on the NSA, a really tragic example of how an otherwise respectable institution can sell its soul and act like an annex of the NSA in order to get some people it wants on the TV screen.

What is the role of terror in this environment?

The whole transfer of power from the Madisonian institutions to the Trumanite network has been fueled by a sense of emergency deriving from crisis, deriving from fear. It's fear of terrorism more than anything else that causes the American people to increasingly be willing to dispense with constitutional safeguards to ensure their safety.

Madison believed that government has two great objects. One object of a constitution is to enable the government to protect the people, specifically from external attacks. The other great object of a constitution is to protect the people from the government. The better able the government is to protect the people from external threats, the greater the threat posed by the government to the people.

You've been involved with the U.S. government for 40 years. How has your view of government changed?

Double government was certainly a factor in the 1970s, but it was challenged for the first time thanks to the activism stemming from the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. As a result, there were individuals in Congress—Democrats and Republicans like William Fulbright, Frank Church, Jacob Javits, Charles Mathias and many others—who were willing to stand up and insist upon adherence to constitutionally ordained principles. That led to a wave of activism and to the enactment of a number of pieces of reform legislation.

But there is no final victory in Washington. Those reforms have gradually been eaten away and turned aside. I think today we are in many ways right back where we were in the early 1970s. NSA surveillance is an example of that. The Church Committee uncovered something called Operation Shamrock, in which the NSA had assembled a watch list of antiwar and civil rights activists based upon domestic surveillance. Church warned at the time that NSA capabilities were so awesome that if they were ever turned inward on the American people, this nation would cross an abyss from which there is no return. The question is whether we have recently crossed that abyss.

To what degree are we still a functioning democracy? I'm sure you know that President Jimmy Carter told a German reporter last year that he thought we no longer qualified as a democracy because of our domestic surveillance.

We are clearly on the path to autocracy, and you can argue about how far we are down that path. But there's no question that if we continue on that path, America's constitutionally established institutions—Congress, the courts and the presidency—will ultimately end up like Britain's House of Lords and monarchy, namely as institutional museum pieces.

Bruce Morgan can be reached at [email protected].

Michael Glennon on who REALLY runs the government by Tom Jackson

Dec 2, 2014 | anduskyregister.com

My favorite nonfiction book this year is "National Security and Double Government" by Michael J. Glennon, which argues that the president and Congress are largely figureheads in setting U.S. national security policy.

Glennon's book suggests that U.S. foreign and security policy is formed by "Trumanites," a network of several hundred top bureaucrats. They're named after Harry S. Truman, whose administration saw the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 and the creation of the National Security Agency. The elected officials who are supposed to make the decisions are dubbed "Madisonians," after President James Madison.

The Madisonians do have power, and they make important decisions. President Barack Obama made the decision to carry out the raid that killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, Glennon notes. No one will know whether Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. But Glennon argues that very little in American foreign policy actually changed when Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush at the White House.

As an example, Glennon's book is quite devastating in describing how prominent Madisonians reacted when James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was caught lying to Congress about whether it collects data on "millions" of Americans. (Leaks from Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency in fact attempts to collect the phone records of all Americans.) Sen. Dianne Feinstein knew the statement was false and said nothing, Glennon writes. Obama knew or should have known the statement was false and also was silent, "allowing the falsehood to stand for months until leaks publicly revealed the testimony to be false," he writes. "Obama, finally caught by surprise, insisted that he 'welcomed' the debate that ensued, and his administration commenced active efforts to arrest the NSA employee whose disclosures had triggered it." Glennon's heavily-footnoted book then documents the misleading statements Obama made about the matter.

Glennon is not a campus radical or a conspiracy theorist blogging in his parents' basement. He's professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Before he entered academia, he had a legal career that included a stint as legal counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has written several books, and his opinion pieces have appeared in "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," among other newspapers. He kindly agreed to take our questions about his new book:

Sandusky Register: Did the election of President Barack Obama, and the subsequent disappointment of many who thought he would change U.S. national security policy, spur your book, or had you already had it in mind for years?

Glennon: Both. I had noticed for years that U.S. national security changed little from one administration to the next, but the continuity was so striking mid-way into the Obama administration that I thought it was time to address the question directly. Hence the book.

Sandusky Register: Your book suggests that elections in the U.S. have little effect on national security policy — most of the decisions are made by a network of several hundred national security bureaucrats, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office or the seats in Congress. Do politicians in Washington privately admit that this is true?

Glennon: I've spoken with many members of what I call the "Trumanite network" who do acknowledge that reality — it's hard to deny, really, though few will say so publicly — but members of Congress and federal judges have too much at stake to pull back the curtains. As I describe in the book, public deference depends upon the illusion that the public institutions of our government are actually in charge, and their legitimacy would suffer if they were brutally honest about how much power they have transferred to the Trumanites.

Sandusky Register: Drawing upon "The English Constitution" by Walter Bagehot, you refer to the politicians who are supposed to be in charge as "the Madisonians" (after James Madison) and the national security bureaucrats who actually govern as "the Trumanites" (after Harry Truman's National Security Act of 1947). Is it a misnomer to refer to the Trumanites as a "secret government," as some do?

Glennon: The Trumanites surely operate in secrecy; most of their work is highly classified because the security threats have to be addressed out of the public eye, for the most part. But the Trumanite network itself exists in plain view, and has been readily visible for some time. So it's a mistake to think of it as a "deep state" or "shadow government" to the extent that those terms imply some nefarious conspiracy. There has been no such thing.

Sandusky Register: The U.S. Senate just defeated an NSA reform bill, and even supporters admitted it would not have brought major change. Does this fit your book's suggestion that reform from the "Madisonians" is going to be a difficult enterprise?

Glennon: The bill was mostly cosmetic and would not have addressed the deeper sources of double government. Its defeat can be attributed to a number of factors, one of which surely is the power of the Trumanite network. But in the interest of complete accuracy, it's useful to think of the phenomenon of double government as something like climate change: not every bad storm or hot day is caused directly and exclusively by the dynamic of global warming. The theory of double government merely predicts that, over time, national security policy as a whole will be largely continuous. Individual elements of that policy could change.

Sandusky Register: I've noticed you haven't been invited to appear on national TV yet, or on NPR's "Fresh Air," although your thesis would seem to be controversial and interesting. Are there institutional reasons why your book isn't getting a huge amount of publicity, or is it just hard to get an academic press book out there?

Glennon: Some good books never get reviewed and some bad books do. Lots of it just seems to be luck and happenstance. I tried to write it for informed lay readers; time will tell whether they pick it up.

My other author interviews are archived. Professor Glennon also was interviewed by the Boston Globe. He also appeared on the Scott Horton Show.

Sandusky Register reporter Tom Jackson reviews and recommends local and national reading opportunities. You can read the other blog posts and follow this blog on Twitter.

Email him at [email protected]

Comments

AJ Oliver

Tue, 12/02/2014 - 12:40pm

Tom, thanks. That will go on my reading list - right now I'm into "Why We Lost (in Iraq and Afghanistan)" by Gen. Dan Bolger.
And for influence on security policy, don't forget the Neo-cons and their Israeli partners.
We're spending trillions on the military and becoming ever less secure - they are bankrupting the country.

[Apr 10, 2015] Professor Michael Glennon on the Rise of the American System of Double Government by Michael Glennon

November 7, 2014 | fletcherforum.org

Professor Michael Glennon on the Rise of the American System of Double Government

In his latest book, National Security and Double Government, Professor Michael Glennon challenges common understandings of American government institutions and provides daunting insights into the nature of the U.S. national security apparatus. Glennon claims that the "Trumanite network," consisting of managers of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, guides and often makes key decisions on U.S. national security policy. He highlights the lack of oversight, accountability, and the mutually beneficial relationship between the public-facing "Madisonian" actors, such as the President and Congress, and this classified "Trumanite" network. The Fletcher Forum Editorial team sat down with Michael Glennon, Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School, to talk about his book and discuss the future of American democracy.

FLETCHER FORUM: How did your experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and your continued work with the government inform your book?

GLENNON: When I worked for the Committee I was struck by the large number of Ford administration officials who continued on into the Carter administration. Many of these officials held significant policy-making roles in the realm of national security. I was also struck by the many programs and policies that also carried over from the earlier administration. Most of these related to classified intelligence and law enforcement activities. As a result the public believed that in many areas, things had changed much more than they actually had. What I was observing in closed meetings and in classified documents was not the civics-book model that the public had internalized. The courts, Congress, and even presidential appointees exercised much less influence over national security policy-making than people commonly believed. And the 1976 presidential election had had much less impact than people had expected. So it was pretty clear the data didn't fit the conventional tri-partite, separation-of-powers paradigm, but I wasn't sure what a more accurate paradigm would look like, or even whether there was one.

FLETCHER FORUM: When did you start thinking about this topic? How did you formulate this thesis and how did we get to this point?

GLENNON: Two years ago, I was struck again by the strange inalterability of U.S. national security policy. Before winning the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama had campaigned forcefully and eloquently against many elements of the Bush administration's national security policy. Yet rendition, military detention without trial or counsel, drone strikes, NSA surveillance, whistleblower prosecutions, non-prosecution of water-boarders, reliance on the state secrets privilege, covert operations, Guantanamo—you name it, virtually nothing changed. Obviously something more was going on than what the defenders of those policies claimed—which was that all those policies somehow happened to be the most rational response among all competing alternatives. The fact is that each of these policies presents questions on which reasonable people can differ—as indeed Obama himself had, as a Senator and as a candidate for the presidency. The epiphany occurred when I pulled a little book off the shelf and read it in amazement one rainy Sunday afternoon—Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution.

FLETCHER FORUM: What are some components of this double government in the U.S. today? What are the key institutions and players?

GLENNON: Bagehot's objective was to explain how the British government operated in the 1860s. He suggested that it had in effect split into two separate sets of institutions. The "dignified" institutions consisted of the monarchy and House of Lords. The British people believed that the dignified institutions ran the government. This belief was essential to foster the legitimacy needed for public deference and obedience. But that belief was an illusion. In fact, the government was run by the "efficient" institutions—the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the cabinet—which operated behind-the-scenes, largely removed from public view. Gradually and quietly, these efficient institutions had moved Britain away from a monarchy to become what Bagehot described as a "concealed republic." My book's thesis is that in the realm of national security, the United States also has unwittingly drifted into a system of double government—but that it is moving in the opposite direction, away from democracy, toward autocracy. With occasional exceptions, the dignified institutions of the judiciary, Congress, and the presidency are all on the road to becoming hollowed-out museum pieces, while the managers of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence community more and more come to dominate national security policy-making.

FLETCHER FORUM: You identify the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American public as the root problem, and argue that reform must come from the people. How can this actually work in practice? Is there any hope that change is possible?

GLENNON: It's a bit simplistic to focus exclusively upon the public's "pervasive civic ignorance" (a term used by former Supreme Court Justice David Souter). As I point out in the book, the American people are anything but stupid. And while it's true that they're not terribly engaged or informed on national security policy, their ignorance is in many ways rational. Americans are very busy people and it doesn't make much sense to expend a lot of effort learning about policies you can't change. So we're in a dilemma: because the dignified institutions can't empower themselves by drawing upon powers that they lack, energy must come from the outside, from the people—yet as the electorate becomes increasingly uninformed and disengaged, the efficient institutions have all the more incentive to go off on their own. It's telling and rather sad that the American public has become so reliant upon the government to come up with solutions to its problems that the public is utterly at loose ends to know where or how to begin to devise its own remedy. Learned Hand was right: liberty "lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

FLETCHER FORUM: Does a lame duck President have a different relationship with the Trumanite Network? If President Obama were to read your book and ask for advice on changing the system, what would you tell him?

GLENNON: I'd suggest that he demonstrate to the American people that the book's thesis is wrong. He could do that by changing the national security policies that he led the American people to believe would be changed. Among other things: (1) fire officials who lie to Congress and the American people, beginning with John Brennan and James Clapper, (2) appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the CIA's spying on the Senate intelligence committee and Clapper's false statements to it, (3) stop blocking publication of the Senate intelligence committee's torture report, (4) stop invoking the state secrets privilege to obstruct judicial challenges to abusive counter-terrorism activities, (5) halt the bombing of Syria until Congress authorizes it, and (6) stop prosecuting and humiliating whistleblowers who spark public debates he claims to welcome.

FLETCHER FORUM: Are there any potential 2016 Presidential candidates that could challenge the Trumanite Network?

GLENNON: No.

FLETCHER FORUM: Do you have any other recommended reading on this subject?

GLENNON: The English Constitution, by Walter Bagehot; President Eisenhower's farewell address; The Power Elite, by C. Wright Mills; Why Leaders Lie, by John J. Mearsheimer; The Arrogance of Power, by J. William Fulbright; Top Secret America, by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin; the final report of the Church committee (S. Rep. No. 94-755, 1976); On Democracy, by Robert A. Dahl; The New American Militarism, by Andrew Bacevich; Groupthink, by Irving Janus

[Apr 09, 2015] National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon

Amazon.com

Mal Warwick on December 22, 2014

Who makes national security decisions? Not who you think!

Why does Barack Obama's performance on national security issues in the White House contrast so strongly with his announced intentions as a candidate in 2008? After all, not only has Obama continued most of the Bush policies he decried when he ran for the presidency, he has doubled down on government surveillance, drone strikes, and other critical programs.

Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in his unsettling new book, National Security and Double Government. And he clearly dislikes what he found.

The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official branches of the government, on the one hand — the "Madisonian" institutions incorporated into the Constitution — and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real work of a constellation of military and intelligence agencies, on the other hand. These officials, called "Trumanites" in Glennon's parlance for having grown out of the national security infrastructure established under Harry Truman, make the real decisions in the area of national security. (To wage the Cold War, Truman created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National Security Council.) "The United States has, in short," Glennon writes, "moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy. . . . The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created and nurtures America's double government." If Al Qaeda hadn't existed, the Trumanite network would have had to create it — and, Glennon seems to imply, might well have done so.

The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their principal tools.

Michael J. Glennon comes to this task with unexcelled credentials. A professor of international law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, he came face to face on a daily basis with the "Trumanites" he writes about. National Security and Double Government is exhaustively researched and documented: notes constitute two-thirds of this deeply disturbing little book.

The more I learn about how politics and government actually work — and I've learned a fair amount in my 73 years — the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some ways, this book is the most worrisome I've read over the years, because it implies that there is no reason whatsoever to think that things can ever get better. In other words, to borrow a phrase from the Borg on Star Trek, "resistance is futile." That's a helluva takeaway, isn't it?

On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego), was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the menace of the military-industrial complex. "Move to Vancouver," he said.

The mounting evidence notwithstanding, I just hope it hasn't come to that.

Tom Hunter on November 22, 2014

Incredible Rosetta Stone book that Explains Why the US Government is Impervious to Change

This work is of huge importance. It explains the phenomenon that myself and many other informed voters have seen--namely--how the policies of the United States government seem impervious to change no matter the flavor of administration. I found myself baffled and chagrined that President Obama, who I cheerfully voted for twice (and still would prefer over the alternatives) failed to end many of the practices that I abhor, such as the free reign of the NSA, the continual increase in defense budgets and the willingness to keep laws that are clearly against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans, be they Progressives or otherwise.

This incredible book acts as a Rosetta Stone that explains why nothing ever changes. Highly recommended.

[Apr 07, 2015] How America Became An Oligarchy by Ellen Brown

Zero Hedge/The Web of Debt blog

"The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. . . . You have owners."

- George Carlin, The American Dream

According to a new study from Princeton University, American democracy no longer exists. Using data from over 1,800 policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page concluded that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of – or even against – the will of the majority of voters. America's political system has transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where power is wielded by wealthy elites.

"Making the world safe for democracy" was President Woodrow Wilson's rationale for World War I, and it has been used to justify American military intervention ever since. Can we justify sending troops into other countries to spread a political system we cannot maintain at home?

The Magna Carta, considered the first Bill of Rights in the Western world, established the rights of nobles as against the king. But the doctrine that "all men are created equal" – that all people have "certain inalienable rights," including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" – is an American original. And those rights, supposedly insured by the Bill of Rights, have the right to vote at their core. We have the right to vote but the voters' collective will no longer prevails.

In Greece, the left-wing populist Syriza Party came out of nowhere to take the presidential election by storm; and in Spain, the populist Podemos Party appears poised to do the same. But for over a century, no third-party candidate has had any chance of winning a US presidential election. We have a two-party winner-take-all system, in which our choice is between two candidates, both of whom necessarily cater to big money. It takes big money just to put on the mass media campaigns required to win an election involving 240 million people of voting age.

In state and local elections, third party candidates have sometimes won. In a modest-sized city, candidates can actually influence the vote by going door to door, passing out flyers and bumper stickers, giving local presentations, and getting on local radio and TV. But in a national election, those efforts are easily trumped by the mass media. And local governments too are beholden to big money.

When governments of any size need to borrow money, the megabanks in a position to supply it can generally dictate the terms. Even in Greece, where the populist Syriza Party managed to prevail in January, the anti-austerity platform of the new government is being throttled by the moneylenders who have the government in a chokehold.

How did we lose our democracy? Were the Founding Fathers remiss in leaving something out of the Constitution? Or have we simply gotten too big to be governed by majority vote?

Democracy's Rise and Fall

The stages of the capture of democracy by big money are traced in a paper called "The Collapse of Democratic Nation States" by theologian and environmentalist Dr. John Cobb. Going back several centuries, he points to the rise of private banking, which usurped the power to create money from governments:

The influence of money was greatly enhanced by the emergence of private banking. The banks are able to create money and so to lend amounts far in excess of their actual wealth. This control of money-creation . . . has given banks overwhelming control over human affairs. In the United States, Wall Street makes most of the truly important decisions that are directly attributed to Washington.

Today the vast majority of the money supply in Western countries is created by private bankers. That tradition goes back to the 17th century, when the privately-owned Bank of England, the mother of all central banks, negotiated the right to print England's money after Parliament stripped that power from the Crown. When King William needed money to fight a war, he had to borrow. The government as borrower then became servant of the lender.

In America, however, the colonists defied the Bank of England and issued their own paper scrip; and they thrived. When King George forbade that practice, the colonists rebelled.

They won the Revolution but lost the power to create their own money supply, when they opted for gold rather than paper money as their official means of exchange. Gold was in limited supply and was controlled by the bankers, who surreptitiously expanded the money supply by issuing multiple banknotes against a limited supply of gold.

This was the system euphemistically called "fractional reserve" banking, meaning only a fraction of the gold necessary to back the banks' privately-issued notes was actually held in their vaults. These notes were lent at interest, putting citizens and the government in debt to bankers who created the notes with a printing press. It was something the government could have done itself debt-free, and the American colonies had done with great success until England went to war to stop them.

President Abraham Lincoln revived the colonists' paper money system when he issued the Treasury notes called "Greenbacks" that helped the Union win the Civil War. But Lincoln was assassinated, and the Greenback issues were discontinued.

In every presidential election between 1872 and 1896, there was a third national party running on a platform of financial reform. Typically organized under the auspices of labor or farmer organizations, these were parties of the people rather than the banks. They included the Populist Party, the Greenback and Greenback Labor Parties, the Labor Reform Party, the Antimonopolist Party, and the Union Labor Party. They advocated expanding the national currency to meet the needs of trade, reform of the banking system, and democratic control of the financial system.

The Populist movement of the 1890s represented the last serious challenge to the bankers' monopoly over the right to create the nation's money. According to monetary historian Murray Rothbard, politics after the turn of the century became a struggle between two competing banking giants, the Morgans and the Rockefellers. The parties sometimes changed hands, but the puppeteers pulling the strings were always one of these two big-money players.

In All the Presidents' Bankers, Nomi Prins names six banking giants and associated banking families that have dominated politics for over a century. No popular third party candidates have a real chance of prevailing, because they have to compete with two entrenched parties funded by these massively powerful Wall Street banks.

Democracy Succumbs to Globalization

In an earlier era, notes Dr. Cobb, wealthy landowners were able to control democracies by restricting government participation to the propertied class. When those restrictions were removed, big money controlled elections by other means:

First, running for office became expensive, so that those who seek office require wealthy sponsors to whom they are then beholden. Second, the great majority of voters have little independent knowledge of those for whom they vote or of the issues to be dealt with. Their judgments are, accordingly, dependent on what they learn from the mass media. These media, in turn, are controlled by moneyed interests.

Control of the media and financial leverage over elected officials then enabled those other curbs on democracy we know today, including high barriers to ballot placement for third parties and their elimination from presidential debates, vote suppression, registration restrictions, identification laws, voter roll purges, gerrymandering, computer voting, and secrecy in government.

The final blow to democracy, says Dr. Cobb, was "globalization" – an expanding global market that overrides national interests:

[T]oday's global economy is fully transnational. The money power is not much interested in boundaries between states and generally works to reduce their influence on markets and investments. . . . Thus transnational corporations inherently work to undermine nation states, whether they are democratic or not.

The most glaring example today is the secret twelve-country trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If it goes through, the TPP will dramatically expand the power of multinational corporations to use closed-door tribunals to challenge and supersede domestic laws, including environmental, labor, health and other protections.

Looking at Alternatives

Some critics ask whether our system of making decisions by a mass popular vote easily manipulated by the paid-for media is the most effective way of governing on behalf of the people. In an interesting Ted Talk, political scientist Eric Li makes a compelling case for the system of "meritocracy" that has been quite successful in China.

In America Beyond Capitalism, Prof. Gar Alperovitz argues that the US is simply too big to operate as a democracy at the national level. Excluding Canada and Australia, which have large empty landmasses, the United States is larger geographically than all the other advanced industrial countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) combined. He proposes what he calls "The Pluralist Commonwealth": a system anchored in the reconstruction of communities and the democratization of wealth. It involves plural forms of cooperative and common ownership beginning with decentralization and moving to higher levels of regional and national coordination when necessary. He is co-chair along with James Gustav Speth of an initiative called The Next System Project, which seeks to help open a far-ranging discussion of how to move beyond the failing traditional political-economic systems of both left and Right..

Dr. Alperovitz quotes Prof. Donald Livingston, who asked in 2002:

What value is there in continuing to prop up a union of this monstrous size? . . . [T]here are ample resources in the American federal tradition to justify states' and local communities' recalling, out of their own sovereignty, powers they have allowed the central government to usurp.

Taking Back Our Power

If governments are recalling their sovereign powers, they might start with the power to create money, which was usurped by private interests while the people were asleep at the wheel. State and local governments are not allowed to print their own currencies; but they can own banks, and all depository banks create money when they make loans, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged.

The federal government could take back the power to create the national money supply by issuing its own Treasury notes as Abraham Lincoln did. Alternatively, it could issue some very large denomination coins as authorized in the Constitution; or it could nationalize the central bank and use quantitative easing to fund infrastructure, education, job creation, and social services, responding to the needs of the people rather than the banks.

The freedom to vote carries little weight without economic freedom – the freedom to work and to have food, shelter, education, medical care and a decent retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt maintained that we need an Economic Bill of Rights. If our elected representatives were not beholden to the moneylenders, they might be able both to pass such a bill and to come up with the money to fund it.

[Apr 04, 2015] Plutocracy 1.0

naked capitalism

By Steve Fraser, co-founder of the American Empire Project and Editor-at-Large of the journal New Labor Forum. He is the author of Every Man a Speculator, A History of Wall Street in American Life, and most recently co-editor of Ruling America: A History of Wealth and Power in a Democracy. This article is excerpted and slightly adapted from The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. Originally published at TomDispatch

The American upper classes did not constitute a seasoned aristocracy, but could only mimic one. They lacked the former's sense of social obligation, of noblesse oblige, of what in the Old World emerged as a politically coherent "Tory socialism" that worked to quiet class antagonisms. But neither did they absorb the democratic ethos that today allows the country's gilded elite to act as if they were just plain folks: a credible enough charade of plutocratic populism. Instead, faced with mass social disaffection, they turned to the "tramp terror" and other innovations in machine-gun technology, to private corporate armies and government militias, to suffrage restrictions, judicial injunctions, and lynchings. Why behave otherwise in dealing with working-class "scum" a community of "mongrel firebugs"?

One historian has described what went on during the Great Uprising as an "interlocking directorate of railroad executives, military officers, and political officials which constituted the apex of the country's new power elite." After Haymarket, the haute bourgeoisie went into the fort­ building business; Fort Sheridan in Chicago, for example, was erected to defend against "internal insurrection." New York City's armories, which have long since been turned into sites for indoor tennis, concerts, and theatergoing, were originally erected after the 1877 insurrection to deal with the working-class canaille.

During the anthracite coal strike of 1902, George Baer, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and leader of the mine owners, sent a letter to the press: "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for… not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country." To the Anthracite Coal Commission investigating the uproar, Baer proclaimed, "These men don't suffer. Why hell, half of them don't even speak English."

Ironically, it was thanks in part to its immersion in bloodshed that the first rudimentary forms of a more sophisticated class consciousness began to appear among this new elite. These would range from Pullman-like Potemkin villages to more practical-minded attempts to reach a modus vivendi with elements of the trade union movement readier to accept the wages system.

efschumacher April 4, 2015 at 8:25 am

The nuggets of actual history are useful but Thorstein Veblen skewered them far more deftly.

MartyH April 4, 2015 at 4:38 pm

As did Frederic Lundberg in America's 60 Families (1938) somewhat later. Still protected by the "Protect Mickey Mouse Act" (copyright extension to perpetuity) as best I can figure but there are copies around in those subversive Public Libraries and such.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef April 4, 2015 at 9:57 am

But neither did they absorb the democratic ethos that today allows the country's gilded elite to act as if they were just plain folks: a credible enough charade of plutocratic populism. Instead, faced with mass social disaffection, they turned to the "tramp terror" and other innovations in machine-gun technology, to private corporate armies and government militias, to suffrage restrictions, judicial injunctions, and lynchings….

We still see that in play today across the globe.

Some security states are clumsy and some suave.

The suave ones say to their ruled, 'Behold them savages. Thou are truly blessed to have me."

MyLessThanPrimeBeef April 4, 2015 at 10:04 am

But an opposed instinct, native to capitalism in its purest form, wanted the state kept weak and poor so as not to intrude where it wasn't wanted. Due to this ambivalence, the American state was notoriously undernourished, its bureaucracy kept skimpy, amateurish, and machine-controlled, its executive and administrative reach stunted.

Thanks to its capture, after the tragic Sack of New Rome by a roaming band of billionaires, the state can now be safely allowed to expand, to be given unlimited money to spend. No more undernourishment, no more skimpiness. Amateurish maybe, as the debate rages eternally whether it's evil intent or just incompetence.

One word – Peopleism.

human April 4, 2015 at 10:11 am

Thank you for this post, Yves. I found it cathartic and rejuvenating, especially with May Day right around the corner.

As the grandson of an emigrated Menshevik pamphlateer, I have for two generations now understood his reluctance with small government.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL April 4, 2015 at 6:30 pm

What a sad fact to learn in this post, that May Day originated in the US and is now expunged like some unwelcome Kommissar airbrushed out of a Kremlin lineup. Oh the mere thought of the actual people who do all of the actual work, not the financial leeches, the tax-free corporo-fascist bosses, or the millionaires per capita of Maryland, that those actual people who do *work* should have some kind of identity and voice and actual claim to the social fabric…perish the thought!

Turning point in my mind was Reagan's stamping out the air traffic controller strike, in the Capital versus Labor battle of course Capital could buy every last possible advantage. Only with the consent of the governed of course…so the very idea that workers have rights needed to be demonized, and how completely successful they have been at that.

The very word "union" is spat with contempt by the widest possible swath of the populace, with holdover associations from the Red Scare. Mayor Bloomberg knew what to do: arrest 243 people for loitering in the Occupy Park…because he knew everybody was behind him. At the same time Jamie and Lloyd were flying to St. Barts for a really nice confab…when they should have been the ones getting the ankle bracelets.

Steve H. April 4, 2015 at 11:06 am

Many things of interest in this post. Let me highlight one of the milder juxtapositions:

"Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest
Eight hours for what we will."

and

"Work hard, but never work after dinner."

hemeantwell April 4, 2015 at 11:43 am

This is particularly useful for the references to alliances between working class and "petty bourgeois" shopkeepers, e.g. the Pittsburgh strike. I'm fairly familiar with the strike history lit and hadn't seen that before.

In a related vein, Yves has usefully pointed out that the resistance to the TPP has been drawing together sections of the left and right. In my contacts with our Congresscritter, Gwen Graham, I've stressed this point strongly. I think she's basically a hack looking to run for higher office asap but, for someone trying to maintain a seat in a district that went Tea Party in 2010, an anti-TPP position should be a no-brainer.

susan the other April 4, 2015 at 2:26 pm
'The Gilded Age' is such an apt moniker. Under its veneer of wealth there was no there there. My all time favorite book on the subject of the struggle for democracy is "Framing America" by Frances Pohl. The first plate is the memorial statue dedicated to those who died in the Haymarket riot. It is extremely beautiful. No need for gilding. There was another horrendous incident in 1913, a mining incident where miners and their families were massacred by the owners of the mines (Colorado I think) which became a rallying cry for NY artists and they produced an exhibit of abstract art in protest at the NY Armory. And then, of course, WW1.

When civility breaks down in one country it usually spreads. And the threat of socialism was on the horizon. Which is why it is so unbelievable to see the encroachment (really a takeover) of what is yet another gilded age trying to keep power. It's crazy.

participant-observer-observed April 4, 2015 at 4:00 pm

While plutocracy puts on its show, its fascism face is taking over-it is not enough to consider the economic elements of plutocracy isolated from its political implications:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/2/20_years_in_prison_for_miscarrying

This report shows not only this one case, but the loss of personal sovereignty of pregnant women, and the abusive police state power.

(Same like Ferguson: going after minorities, women…..who's next?)

participant-observer-observed April 4, 2015 at 4:13 pm

There is also a hidden plutocracy-internecine war theme to the misogyny police state story:

A misogynist police state will never elect Hillary Clinton!

John April 4, 2015 at 9:10 pm

Why would any American worker want Hillary the Globalist to be president?

montanamaven April 4, 2015 at 4:03 pm

A month ago there was a discussion on Ian Welsh's site about the lack of non-fiction books of depth and original thought. Commenter Jessica had a list of good books that I decided to follow. I read Graeber's "Utopia of Rules" and am now tackling "Karl Marx: A Nineteenth Century Life" by Jonathan Sperber. I am totally taken with it. (And mind you, I've never read or studied Marx. As a theater/film major the closest I got was studying Bertolt Brecht.) Sperber's book puts Marx in the context of his times not through a 20th Century lens. Marx lived in an exciting but turbulent time; the mid-nineteenth century. It was a time of heady ideas and deep philosophical thought. Did God exist? What should replace him? Should nations or "the state" exist? Are "united" states a good idea or bad? Why should Marx's region of the Rhineland be either French or German?

Well heeled "shop keepers" put money into radical newspapers as share holders or gave great writers like Marx, Engels and Hess "grants" to publish their ideas. Shoe makers and other tradesmen moved from Germany to cities like Paris, Brussels, and London to take up revolutionary causes that had started with the French revolution and spread out. There were cafes, reading rooms, and back of the bar discussions that included factory workers, skilled craftsmen and scholars. Marx committed his life to action although as a scholar and writer not a professional agitator like a Karl Schapper or Giuseppe Mazzini. He did not want to just "interpret the world" as philosophers had done before him, he wanted to change it.

We did have some heady days in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Revolution was in the air in 1968 like it was in 1848. The anti-globalists have soldiered on and created a great event in 1999. Occupy gave a brief but heady time. It is good to be reminded of the labor clashes and solidarity that existed in the 19th Century amongst workers, farmers, and shop keepers. I am grateful to Yves for pointing out yet another book worth reading. Here at NC, we have a virtual cafe where we can hone our ideas and bicker in true Hegelian style. But after reading this book on Marx, I am determined to get back to the city for more meet ups of NC readers. The Most Holy Order of the Knights and Dames of Capitalism Most Naked dedicated to as much leisure time as we can get our hands on. In an age of acquiescence, drinking does help.

participant-observer-observed April 4, 2015 at 5:15 pm

You might enjoy a new book out by a scholar of process studies, called "Organic Marxism"
http://philipclayton.net/books/organic-marxism/

[Apr 03, 2015] Jeb is more interested in undermining Democratic constituencies than in financial gain

Apr 02, 2015 | naked capitalism

shinola, April 2, 2015 at 12:11 pm

I may not be remembering correctly, but doesn't Jeb Bush have some sort of financial interest in a company that benefits from the charter school movement?

NotTimothyGeithner, April 2, 2015 at 12:41 pm

I thought it was Neil off the top of my head, but it is the Bush crime family after all.

washunate, April 3, 2015 at 8:04 am

Jeb Bush has been involved with education for a long time, and certainly has some financial interests, but he's actually more of a true believer. The people in it for the money are more around him than Jeb himself.

If anything, Jeb is more interested in undermining Democratic constituencies (unions, impoverished communities, etc.) than in financial gain.

Which is a great example of how the Democrats have bean so unbelievably weird on areas like education policy. They have helped create the environment in which traditional Democratic constituents are now abandoning the party in droves. Rahm Emanuel and teachers unions are fighting each other in Chicago instead of fighting together against GOP policies.

Almost as if that's how national Democrats want things to work…

[Apr 02, 2015] Hillary Clinton: foreign policy is her strong suit – but it could be her undoing by Tom McCarthy

Apr 02, 2015 | The Guardian

someoneionceknew 2 Apr 2015 20:51

Hillary Clinton: war mongering is her strong suit – according to media hacks.


BradBenson Ashok Choudhury 2 Apr 2015 19:04


Nonsense. Who are the wise? Hillary is a war criminal. She should not be elected for any reason. She should be shipped off to the Hague with Obama, Bush and Cheney.

BradBenson yesfuture 2 Apr 2015 18:57

Libya, for one. It's always been about light crude that is used for airplane fuel. Regaining control of Libya's Oil is BP Petroleum's prime project and Hillary supported it.

BradBenson Elton Johnson 2 Apr 2015 18:52

Congratulations, you are both wrong. We were occupiers in Iraq and were always going to incite bigger and more violent opposition groups. We should not have gone in. We should have gotten out sooner. We should not be there now.

BradBenson Michael Seymour 2 Apr 2015 18:49

This kid is a living, typing example of the way that Americans have been dumbed down over the years. He has no fucking clue as to what we are doing in the world and believes everything he hears on CNN and MSNBC (our so-called 'liberal' media outlets). He can no longer be reeducated.

He will live in fear that ISIS or some other phony terrorist group will plant a bomb in his toilet and thus suffer from constipation for the rest of his life.


Paul Moore Alchemist 2 Apr 2015 18:45

Bush vs. Clinton
Been there. Done that.


BradBenson Whitt 2 Apr 2015 18:42

Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama the second time around.

BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40

Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead, he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which he once claimed to have stood.

Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.

More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

BradBenson Whitt 2 Apr 2015 18:42

Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama the second time around.

BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40

Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead, he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which he once claimed to have stood.

Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.

More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

BradBenson lightstroke 2 Apr 2015 18:36

Nobody, including Obama. Where have you been for the past six years. Obama makes Bush look like a beginner. Bush started two wars. We now have seven that we know about and are militarily engaged in more than 100 countries.

The blind eye that you faux lefties turn toward Obama and Hillary is absolutely disgusting and hypocritical. Obama and Hillary are fucking WAR CRIMINALS--just like Bush and Cheney--in fact worse!

BradBenson diddoit 2 Apr 2015 18:34

Yes...in the wrong direction. He's beginning to reverse some of his earlier anti-interventionist statements and was one of 47 idiots that signed that letter to Ayatollah Khamenei. I like Rand for a while, strictly because of his 'opposition' to our wars and the domestic spying. Lately, he's back to trying to appeal to Evangelical Nutcases.

BradBenson Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 18:30

Well Natasha, you are correct that US Foreign Policy should be about protecting US Interests--to a point. Where we may disagree is in how that policy has truly not served our best interests and certainly could not be said to have served in the best interests of the US or the Globe in any single respect--not one. When your only foreign policy is war and murder by drone, you are not serving anyone's interests but the arms dealers.

BradBenson Samuel Burns 2 Apr 2015 18:22

Our leaders have brought war, torture, murder and mayhem to the planet since the early 90's and have doubled down since 9/11. They are war criminals and the blame is correctly place upon the US. Wake up.

BradBenson fredimeyer 2 Apr 2015 18:19

Well I wish you were right, but it's not shaping up that way right now. That being said, she cannot win and we will all be stuck with another fucking Bush.

I'll be voting third party this year as will every other anti-war progressive.

BradBenson sour_mash 2 Apr 2015 18:17

Those ills are now the ills of the Obama Administration and I have pointed this out to you way too often in the past for you not to have gotten it. Obama embraced Bush's War Crimes and made them his own. Quit apologizing and making excuses for this murderous SOB. Here again are the links. Educate yourself.

More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

macmarco 2 Apr 2015 18:14

She like Obama are militarists. Obama astounded his progressive supporters with his praise for militarism at Nobel. Hillary lost the primaries by hanging onto the 'Iraq was a just and good intervention'. Even if it was imposed by Bill it was idiotic when even some in the GOP were jumping ship.

BradBenson Mikhail Lykhin 2 Apr 2015 18:14

That's just sexist bullshit. She's a well-qualified war criminal and will wage our wars with the same audacity, ferocity and veracity of any man. In fact, she will be more brutal just to prove that women should be allowed to be the War-Criminal-in-Chief more often.

BradBenson Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 18:11

Yep, I remember that too. That should have been a wake up call for any faux Democrats that hated Bush's Policies, but loved those same policies under Obama. Now these neo-con converts can't wait for Hillary to break the glass ceiling and become the greatest US War Criminal of all-time. She will never be President. Real lefties will stay home.

BradBenson toadwarrior 2 Apr 2015 18:07

It's not a matter of age. It's a matter of faulty policies and a total lack of any morality. I'm 64 and I'd match my intellectual acuity against anyone, young or old. I might not always win, but it wouldn't be because of my age if I lost.

Hillary is not qualified because she is a war criminal. Period.

Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 18:03

It was easier for Clinton to coordinate his politics with Europeans at that time. The US was the measure of everything.

But yes, I think you are right, Hillary may be moved by an excessive ambition rather than pure ideology. What I fear is that this ambition makes her prone to hard ideological positions and to alliaces with the worst currents of American politics. On the other hand, you are right, as a whole the Democrats may seem to be more reasonable and I, in Europe, probably underestimate the political climate in the country.

BradBenson Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:59

People with money back them and most of the American People have been dumbed down to believe that we are a beacon of freedom and democracy around the world.

Despite the fact that realistic Americans recognize the truth, we can no longer unseat the shadow government and will just have to wait for the inevitable collapse of the evil empire under its own weight. It will be tough, but the education will be good for the survivors--however difficult.

voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:48

Point taken.

But interestingly, there was much less "go-it-alone" foreign policy by Bill Clinton. He coordinated with European allies, for one--for which he was castigated by the Republicans. That sort of foreign policy really took off under Bush--the right-wing is contemptuous of Europe, the UN, and pretty much any other nation.

I agree with you that she's too hawkish--and that she has made a number of serious mistakes. But I think she's less ideologically driven that driven by her (maybe "pragmatic") ambition.

But the climate in the US is such that the Republican alternatives are *much* more extreme and aggressive -- they talk about waging war on a daily basis. It's truly terrifying.

But anyone more "moderate" that Clinton really doesn't stand a chance for the Democrats. The political climate is too extreme and money has totally corrupted our political process--big money is generally (*but not exclusively) interested in "advancing their interests" and "the rest of the world be damned." There really are no good alternatives--it's Clinton or someone like Bush, or even worse someone like Cruz, Christie, or Paul.

NomChompsky Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 17:45

The world is in much worse shape and the U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was Secretary of State.

Hey.


BradBenson 2 Apr 2015 17:32

The people are not dissatisfied with Obama's Foreign Policy because it has somehow been too tepid. They are sick of his embrace of the worst war crimes of the neo-con right as his own and his failure to implement hope and change from the abuses of the Bush/Cheney Administration. To say that Hillary's experience as Secretary of State has given her anything more than experience in WAR CRIMES is an exaggeration if not outright mendacity.

Obama started with two wars and we now have at least seven. During Obama's Tenure, both he and Hillary were involved in: illegal drone murders; CIA Black Sites (Benghazi was actually about the freeing of illegally held Libyan Nationals from a CIA Black Site Prison); an illegal Coup d'état in the Ukraine, which nearly brought Europe to the brink of war; the overthrow of the Libyan Government, which resulted in a civil war and the rise of ISIS there; the failure of our policies in Syria and Yemen, resulting in major wars throughout the Middle East; the failure of the Arab Spring and the reestablishment of US-backed dictatorial strongmen in numerous Arab Countries. Hillary has promised to be "more aggressive" than her predecessor.

There is no basis for this woman to be elected and her candidacy will result in the US being saddled with Bush III. Anti-war Progressives WILL NOT vote for another war criminal and will either vote for a third party candidate or stay home.

More information on Hillary's War Crimes can be found at the following sites.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state
http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/10/29/cornel-west-calls-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-war-criminals/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/18/hillary-the-warmonger/

More information on Obama's Aggressive Foreign Policies and War Crimes can be found here.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

Matt062 2 Apr 2015 17:28

We don't call her Killary over here for nothing. There is no need to speculate about the future. We can already see her foreign policy in action in Yemen, where the USA is once again directing another lawless war of aggression.

Ask the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate how his targeted bombing of what little civilian infrastructure Yemen has? You know, dairy processing, electrical power installations, the usual list of war criminality we have all come to know so well and hate.

Ana ask how long will it take for mass starvation to kick in with a total naval blockade on a country that must import 100% of its grain?

normankirk 2 Apr 2015 17:02

Please, not Hillary. I'm not eligible to vote in American elections, but I do have a stake in staying alive. Hillary has to be a nutcase with her warmongering rhetoric.

And I'm not encouraged by Ukrainian oligarchs bloating the Clinton foundation with looted money


Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 16:56

I meant internationally. At that time nobody dared to oppose the US. Nowadys it's different. China challenges the US, in South America there are left governments and others that claim some independence. In Europe there is skepticism and critic of the American government. Iran made now an agreement on better terms than they had offered in 2003. Russia showed that they would act according to what they think it's their interest against American opposition. The US lost wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have to consider all those failures and mistakes. Hillary Clinton is not the right person for that.


voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:38

"Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition."?

You must have missed the government shut-down by the right-wing and the mendacious obstructionism of Newtie Gingrich and his pals


Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:21

I wonder why the electorate keeps people in politics who are clearly unsuitable to be politicians. Many are crazy, are ignorant, are politically corrupt, have no common sense, have no scruples of any kind, are greedy. Why can't people have better choices? Why don't they send such people in retirement and vote for better politicians? Why do such politicians remain eternally in the political arena? Why do people take them seriously?


CroatianRoger 2 Apr 2015 16:14

If Clinton or Bush win we are in for more war, only Rand Paul will pull the troops back.
Apparently this election will cost about $5 billion, disgusting.


Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:12

but who may be guided by a preference for alliance-based negotiations of the kind that informed her husband's presidency

This doesn't mean very much. Times were completely different. The Soviet Union had just fallen when Bill Clinton was the president and the leadership of the US was not disputed. Today opposition to intervention is much stronger and an agressive politics which didn't function before when conditions were more favourable will not function now.

Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition. But he didn't seem to be very ideologically guided. He used military and diplomatic power because he had the power to do that, he was moved by custom, and for personal reasons (because of the scandals involving him).

Obama doesn't seem to be a very determined person, to have very strong convictions. He noticed that his power was limited and decided to take the easiest way. That means that he made mistakes, that he simply followed what Bush had begun without much questioning. But he tried to correct the course in some moments, to repair some mistakes, he took some positive initiatives.

Hilary Clinton on the other hand lacks some of the few qualities of past presidents while combining their bad qualities. She doesn't seem to be careful like Obama, she isn't so pragmatic as Bill Clinton, she's as ideological as some of the worse politicians in the US, she's as naive as Bush, she's as ignorant as McCain, she doesn't show any kind of moral and intellectual independence and autonomy: she sides with the worst tendencies of politics. The results cannot be good.

Speculation and discussions about all those cases (Ukraine, Syria and so on) show how insane political talk has become. It's funny, because they are exactly the result of long term faillures, political mistakes and so on. Obama often spoke wrong, but did the right thing in the end. H. Clinton would do the wrong thing in the end. I think that politis is too serious to be in the hand of people like her.

Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 14:59

On the 22nd April 2008 Hillary Clinton made the following astonishing comment:"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the President, we will attack Iran," she replied adding, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them". From that time on, I began to see her as a liability and was confirmed by innumerable speeches made as Secretary of State: speeches which displayed arrogance towards and ignorance of other cultures, together with a contempt for the political process.


Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 14:41

How exactly is foreign policy her strong suit? The world is in much worse shape and the U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was Secretary of State. There is not one area of the world better off now due to her efforts.


Phil429 lightstroke 2 Apr 2015 13:55

Obama's strategy of forcing the regional players to sort things out themselves

This would be the same Obama who started the war on Libya and showered his Al-Qaeda buddies with weapons to terrorise the whole region, would it? The same Obama who tried to support Hosni Mubarak only until his defeat became undeniable, then worked to make sure his replacement would be as close to identical as possible? Whose State Department funded and enabled the Nazis who overthrew the government of Ukraine? Who's been devoted to indefinitely continuing the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq from his first day in office? Whose murder-by-drone campaign has caused vastly more devastation in Yemen and Pakistan than under Gov Bush? Who's turned Honduras into a living hell, tried to sanction the life out of Iran on fraudulent grounds with no authority and faithfully continued enabling every war crime Israel commits on its way to national suicide?
Anyone who considers that 'leaving others to sort things out' has lost all touch with reality.


Whitt brighterday 2 Apr 2015 12:48

"If some nutter like Jeb Bush wins, a major war is just a matter of time." - brighterday
*
Actually, in the current crop of Republicans making noises about running, Jeb Bush is the moderate one. Moderate being in a completely relative sense here.


TONY C 2 Apr 2015 12:08

A vote for Hillary is a vote for her undying support of the Iraq war. I hope this woman becomes undone at the seams for whatever can be made to stick. She is the same old pedigree of war mongers that both democrats and republicans push to the forefront of amerikkkan politics.


LowlyPeruser 2 Apr 2015 12:06

Hillary Clinton supported just about every military aggression in the Middle East (invading Iraq, bombing Syria and Lybia) that was on offer, and when the crap hit the fan (as in Benghazi) she was stupid enough to try to cover it up. Some strong diplomatic skills and wisdom she has, indeed....


sparafucile2 2 Apr 2015 11:24

Rand Paul is the only candidate on the horizon who could conceivably end America's disastrous love-affair with the neo-cons and neo-liberals. The thought of Hillary Clinton returning to the White House would be a bit like Cherie Blair returning to No 10.


DynamicDitherer 2 Apr 2015 11:24

Americans are being fed the idea that it is time a woman was in charge, like the first black president it is a con.

Anyone want to know what Hillary Clinton is about simply google "Hilary Clinton on Gadaffi" and it just about sums up US foreign policy REGARDLESS who is in the big chair.

If people in the UK really want to end the murders and mayhem our? foreign policies wreak around the globe then the only way to stop it is to vote green and be brave enough to usher in a brand new dawn in British politics as this shit has to stop, its only a matter of when, vote for the main parties and we are sending more of our own sons and daughters to go fight the banksters wars which in turn will unleash hell on the civillian populations of whatever country it is.. last time it was Libya, almost Syria... lets not let it happen again and perhaps bring foreign policy to the front of elections... no more war.


nonfiction 2 Apr 2015 11:02

She is an old fraud. She's told the world she was the one who brought peace to Northern Ireland, though it was certainly not anything she did that helped there. She told the world how brave she was, when she landed in a supposed danger zone, when in fact she and her daughter had landed to a peaceful welcome by a children's band. She showed no understanding of Palestine or of Israel. Internationally, she hasn't a clue. She's nothing but a grabby property developer. t can't believe even Americans are so easily hood-winked that they'd vote for her.


wimberlin 2 Apr 2015 10:42

She is obviously a bellicose bag - there is no doubt about that. However the irony is that this bellicose bag may be better than any wing-nut the Republicans decide to come up with in the next year.

American politics is all about money anyways - if she can get the really rich behind her, then she will get in.


Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:39

Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical questions for Hillary Clinton ......

... Hillary, give the money back. Or don't run. You can't keep the money and run.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/foreign-donations-to-hillary-clintons-foundation-raise-major-ethical-questions/


DNAin1953 2 Apr 2015 10:28

In politics you do not need to be good, you just need to be better than the other choices and win a plurality of the electorate. Discussing someones merits or failings as a leader without contrasting that with the competition is a tiresome waste of time. Clinton is not impressive except in comparison with the lunatics from which her opponent will be choosen. It is this contrast that is the relevant one that should be discussed. Despote her many failings, she is the least bad choice among thoae on offer, by a country mile.


Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:28

Hillary Clinton: foreign policy is her strong suit

25 Mar 2008 ........ Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated. .....

..... News footage of the event however showed her claims to have been wide of the mark, and reporters who accompanied her stated that there was no sniper fire. Her account was ridiculed by ABC News as "like a scene from Saving Private Ryan".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html


Seanymoon 2 Apr 2015 09:56

Madame is a war hawk's war hawk; and few major political figures belong more completely to Wall Street.

No thanks.

moncur 2 Apr 2015 09:48

Family dynasties are a disturbing, newish trend in Western democracies, particularly in USA. The Bushes, the Clintons...
There is no need to copy North Korea.

[Mar 25, 2015] Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

There have been some suggestions that the Treaty of Moscow notwithstanding, there may well be another hidden agreement between the USA and Germany that exists apart from an agreement between the former WWII allies, a secret agreement that infringes upon German sovereignty and blocks the possibility of adopting a Verfassung.

Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 2:25 am

The German system is better as there one votes for a party and for a candidate that one prefers. However, the system is complex – with good reason: they do not want a repeat performance of the 1930s.

See: Germany's Voting System Explained

A little sleight of hand there, though, in the above linked Der Spiegel article:

It only recently became completely fair. Germany's Constitutional Court ruled in 2009 that the voting system used up through the 2009 general election was actually unconstitutional. Then the first fix offered up by the Bundestag was thrown out as well. It was only in February of this year that the country finally got a new system that conforms with the country's constitution, the Basic Law.

Ever wondered why the German "constitution" is called "The Basic Law" (Grundgesetz)?

No?

Never entered your mind, or just not bothered?

Well, I shall tell you anyway:

You see, independent sovereign states have constitutions, do they not? – apart from the UK and three other sovereign states, or so I have been led to believe.

The UK has a constitution, they say, but if you ask to see a copy of it, they say there isn't one, because it is an unwritten constitution – which sounds like a bit of a swizz to me – whilst here, in the Police State that everyone knows as Russia, I can go to any news kiosk or bookshop and buy a copy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

But I digress: the Federal Republic of Germany has no constitution (Verfassung) because some maintain that it is an occupied country and has been so since 1945.

The German "Basic Law" was imposed on the Germans by the victorious allied occupying forces in 1949 and differs from a constitution that has been created by a sovereign people.

In the day to day functioning of the German state, the Grundgesetz functions, of course, as a Verfassung, so every Fritz and Freda is happy – I think.

The fact remains, however, that the allied forces imposed the original Grundgesetz on the Germans (at the point of a Lee-Enfield .303 or M1 carbine as the case may be and as Call-Me-Dave might have said if he had been around at that time), and the Germans, of course, had no choice but to accept the Grundgesetz, though some at the time of its imposition did object to their conquerors' demand because they were good Germans and not Nazis – though they had known plenty who were – and felt that they were perfectly capable of drafting their own Verfassung.

It is also a fact that since the allied imposition of the Grundgesetz, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has had occasion to change and make adjustments to parts of the Grundgesetz as regards the EU and the former German Democratic Republic, which the West Germans always called Die Sowjetische Besatzungszone (The Soviet Occupation Zone) before it became re-united with the rest of Germany, namely with the US, British and French occupation zones of Germany.

One could argue, therefore, that the changing of the Grundgesetz by the German Constitutional Court shows that it had the sovereign right to do so and that Germany is, indeed, a sovereign state that treats its Grundgesetz as though it were a Verfassung. Furthermore, that august and supreme judicial authority based in Karlsruhe is indeed called the the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and not the German Basic Law Court (Bundesgrundgesetzgericht) – so Germany does indeed have a constitution QED.

Yes, and the EU has a parliament in Strasbourg – but it ain't no parliament!

But get this:

Grundgesetz (not, may I remind you once again, Verfasssung) article 146.

"This Basic Law, which since the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany applies to the entire German people, shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect".

See, the Basic Law recognises that there is no German constitution yet.

This very fact that Germany still has no Verfassung, or a document that they dare call one, may also indicate that Germans still do not enjoy full freedom in self-determination – which is a human right, goddamit!!!!!

:-)

A constitution is based upon a sovereign people. In Germany, however, there exists "The Basic Law" that was imposed upon the German people by its conquerors in 1949 following the unconditional surrender of the German state in 1945. Since "the unity and freedom of Germany" was achieved with the signing of the Treaty of Moscow in 1990, why have the Germans not changed the Basic law into a Constitution drawn up by a sovereign nation?

The Treaty of Moscow 1990 states in article 7:

"(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved.

(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs".

Alles klar?

So why no Deutsche Verfassung?

There have been some suggestions that the Treaty of Moscow notwithstanding, there may well be another hidden agreement between the USA and Germany that exists apart from an agreement between the former WWII allies, a secret agreement that infringes upon German sovereignty and blocks the possibility of adopting a Verfassung.

In 2007, Gerd-Helmut Komossa, a former head of the "German CIA" – the Bundesnachtrichtendienst (BND) – published the book "Die deutsche Karte (The German Card), stating that there was such a treaty in 1949

[Mar 14, 2015] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/14/hillary-clinton-arkansas-friends

From comments (BradBenson -> maggie111 14 Mar 2015 11:55) : We should have a woman candidate, but not this one. She is a WAR CRIMINAL who has promised a more aggressive foreign policy than Obama who, by the way, started five new wars to add to Bush's two. You are dangerously naïve.
Mar 14, 2015 | The Guardian

foggy2 -> OperatorError 14 Mar 2015 14:13

I think many Americans come here because usually the level of discussion is quite a bit higher than that found in most US newspapers.

I come here to read what other people are thinking and try hard to digest what I find because by using that process I can learn and grow.

Waughchild -> philipf 14 Mar 2015 14:10

Couldn't agree more. When she said she came under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, she retracted and said it was a mistake. Mistake!!!!! No, a total BS lie that she was so stupid that she thought she could get away with. She is power hungry like her husband. She doesn't have a feminist bone in her body.

sfgirl42 14 Mar 2015 14:08

Remember this?

"After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left (the White House), the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return." abc news 2/8/2001

foggy2 -> Orance 14 Mar 2015 13:50

I think corporate and bankster money is much more important to them than opinion polls. They can say one thing to appease people but in the end go with the monied interests.

janvaneck 14 Mar 2015 13:41

What you Brits do not realize is that Hillary can never prevail in a national election. It has nothing to do with talent, or campaign funds, or staff abilities, or anything else. It has to do with her behavior, which is so disgraceful that a hefty chunk of "democrat" voters will bolt.

To understand the Hillary-antipathy phenomenon, I offer this little tidbit: Hillary was asked by some University to give a Commencement Address. For 40 minutes of speaking, she demanded a fee of $350,000. She also demanded to be ferried to and fro in a Gulfstream G-5; that is the ultimate top-of-the-line corporate jet, with intercontinental capabilities. She also demanded to be put up in a hotel - not some raggedy 4-star hotel, but only a 5-star hotel - and not is some "room," nor even a "suite," but only the "Presidential Suite." Then she demanded that a staff of courtiers be brought along and paid for, a chunk of these to be ferried out as advance men on First-class tickets (at least, not a private jet!), and then only so many photos were allowed, and so forth.

The University caved in to this extortion, and hired the jet and the Presidential Suite and paid the outrageous fee. But the problem is that this tab, which all-in likely ran to some $750,000, meant that hundreds of students would not be receiving need scholarships. If you figure that even $2,000 would tip a needy student out of school, she with her arrogance and hubris shut down the education of some 400 students.

She gets away with this self-absorbed behavior because she is "Hillary," and has figured out how to milk the system to put hefty chunks of coin into her purse. Plus, she confuses the G-5 with being "royalty." And she craves being pseudo-royalty. {Would Kate ever behave like this? No chance; the Princess has real class.] But the voters are wise to this, and they do not like this bad behavior in their leaders. She has so incensed even party stalwarts (not to even mention how Republicans froth at the mouth when anyone says "Hillary!") that she will end up shellacked.

It reminds me of another badly-behaved politician, a fellow named John Ashcroft. He was running for Senator from Missouri, and as the fates would have it, his opponent was killed in a plane crash some five weeks before the election. There was no time window to put another candidate in there on the ballot, so the voters were faced with the choice of electing Ashcroft or a dead man. The voters chose the dead man - anybody but Ashcroft. Humiliated, he was awarded a Cabinet Post as a consolation prize (and went on to do a lot of damage, just as Hillary did in the State Department).

Personally, I would vote for any identifiable road-kill carcass - skunk, gopher, opossum, whatever - before I would elect Hillary. Welcome to America, where we elect the dead. It is the ultimate "none of the above" voting line.

Lucymarie 14 Mar 2015 13:38

Hilary Clinton is such a hawk, that I offer the following version of the nursery rhyme:

Pillory Hillary, mock,
Our troops land on the dock.
Our troops strike out,
Throughout we're cursed,
Pillory Hillary, mock.

foggy2 -> BradBenson 14 Mar 2015 13:35

I'm a woman and would like to at some point see a female candidate but I don't think it should come about strictly based on gender. The right woman will appear and this may or may not be the election. But nowhere is it written that a female president is going to be any better than a male.

geronimo -> rustybeancake 14 Mar 2015 13:30


Why do you think this only comes up as an issue for female candidates?

I think that observation is plainly and simply wrong, however often Hillary claims that any attacks on her are 'because she's a women'. Disingenuous self-serving claptrap.

Where should I start the list of male politicians with the same sociopathy? Well, for the sake of provocation let's take another opportunistic self-serving martyr and Grauniad darling in the news, Boris Nemtsov...

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n06/keith-gessen/remembering-boris-nemtsov?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3706&utm_content=ukrw_nonsubs&hq_e=el&hq_m=3661873&hq_l=11&hq_v=6833aad56c

http://pando.com/2015/03/02/boris-nemtsov-death-of-a-russian-liberal/

philipf 14 Mar 2015 13:43

No matter how many words are written to try and humanise these people they are clearly sociopaths. Clinton, like her husband, is utterly shameless and without scruples. She is warmongering, lying scumbag without any genuine qualities.


MBDifani 14 Mar 2015 12:50

Hillary Clinton made a headline when she gave an address at Wellesley College in 1969 regarding the 'Nam war which I protested too at UC San Diego. I was in the army for five yrs. half of which was in W. Germany as a flight operations Sp5 at two helicopter bases. Our protest was not aimed at the trigger pullers, but the four star brass and civilian hawks such as Pres. LBJ and McNamara in the Pentagon. I am not for her as president...Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley in '16...not Joe Biden. Back in 2008 stand up comic Lewis Black ranted and raved about Clinton in the race vs. Obama. He wanted her to get out of the race, it's time for Barack Obama...on and on. Much applause from the audience.

boscovee 14 Mar 2015 12:48

Ah, the money must be finding the right pockets, this article is nothing but propaganda to foist this woman on the people, read the Clinton chronicles of ask the people of Arkansas about the Clinton's.

george1la 14 Mar 2015 12:39

This is exactly the personality type we do not need anymore. This is self destruction if she is elected. How about some sensible people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are for the people not corporations and billionaires as the Clinton's have proven, by their actions, to be with Fascist inclinations as does Obama when looking at not what they say, but what they do. Are we more free and safe? Do you have more or less privacy? Is the world safer? Why is the U.S. backing Nazi Fascists in the Ukraine?

WHO ARE WE REALLY AND WHO ARE THE LEADERS WE ELECT?

hertsman 14 Mar 2015 12:39

Why does this article not address the outright, provable lies she told when she ran against Obama and she was aggrandising her time in the White House ;

1) Her claim to have landed at Sarajevo, dodging sniper-fire
2) Her claim to have been instrumental in the Irish Peace process

Appalling liar. Impossible to trust her a e-mail controversy shows.

pwatson mizdarlin 14 Mar 2015 12:39

She's just another ambitious careerist who voted for war

chiefwiley -> Guruwho 14 Mar 2015 12:38

There will be a constant stream of sycophantic articles laying the base, together with stinging, downright nasty articles on each and every opponent, questioning why they are not in jail. She will be shown as holding her own against terrible accusations, while Republicans will be portrayed as denying, deflecting, and deceiving. Even potential Democratic opponents will be measured and found wanting.

It's all nonsense, of course, but the template is "history in the making," and history must be served. So they lower the bar for her and raise it for anybody else. She blatantly ignores public records and FOIA regulations --- no big deal. Christie, on the other hand, personally created a traffic jam and should be in jail for it.

Put on the popcorn and get out the pompoms. In the Guardian, it's Hillary Time!

flatulenceodor67 -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:33

"She was on a secured server and has already confirmed that security was not breached."

What an ASININE statement believing a compulsive/corrupt KNOWN LIAR! I guess it takes one to know one.


geronimo -> MurkyFogsFutureLogs 14 Mar 2015 12:31

Indeed...

Under the retiring editor, all politics seems to have been reduced to 'identity' politics. Forget about class, war, class war and so on... If it can't be reduced to Hillary's gender or Putin's, er... transcendental evil... then it's barely worth a comment above the line.

As I've said before, for the Guardian 'the personal is the political' - or rather, for the Guardian as for Hillary, the political reduces to the personal.

A marriage made, not so much in heaven, but somewhere in political-fashionista North London.

Scuppie -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:18

I've heard that Elizabeth Warren's IQ is somewhat greater than that of a cherry stone clam. Anyone who would willingly sign up as a US presidential candidate cannot be very high in the brain-power pecking order. Political party has nothing to do with it.

xxxaaaxxx -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:17

She hasn't much experience and lied about her background to get a place at Harvard. We had an inexperienced young politician in Obama and that has not worked out so well. Just because someone is a women does not mean they need to be elected. BTW I am a women but there has to be more qualifications then sex to get the job.

consciouslyinformed -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:14

Elizabeth Warren, has stated she is heavily invested in her current position, about which, she has great passion and rewards of her personal productivity, and recognises that the presidency is not the "goal," of one who knows what her current position provides her and the citizens of her state.

Spanawaygal -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:12

She's not a computer tech and hasn't got a clue as to whether security was breached. If the hackers can invade gov't websites (wikileaks) and major corporations, it's not only possible but very likely that her security was breached.

Roberta -> Hudlow Crewman 14 Mar 2015 12:06

There is a political term that drives me crazy, "flip-flopped," Do we really prefer politicians who say, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up?' Or do we prefer someone who can review the facts of an issue and find that their own view is wrong and untenable? I change my mind in view of facts. Do we want thinkers of primitive robots? I say primitive, because even computers can re-analyze. Further, I understand that many Evangelicals have changed stance on Israel-Palestine.

BradBenson -> maggie111 14 Mar 2015 11:55

We should have a woman candidate, but not this one. She is a WAR CRIMINAL who has promised a more aggressive foreign policy than Obama who, by the way, started five new wars to add to Bush's two. You are dangerously naïve.

Moyers & Company: The Long, Dark Shadows of Plutocracy

Nov 28 2014 | dewaynenet.wordpress.com

wa8dzp

Moyers & Company: The Long, Dark Shadows of Plutocracy
Nov 28 2014
<http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-long-dark-shadows-plutocracy/>

Some people say inequality doesn’t matter. They are wrong. All we have to do to see its effects is to realize that all across America millions of people of ordinary means can’t afford decent housing.

As wealthy investors and buyers drive up real estate values, the middle class is being squeezed further and the working poor are being shoved deeper into squalor — in places as disparate as Silicon Valley and New York City.

This week Bill points to the changing skyline of Manhattan as the physical embodiment of how money and power impact the lives and neighborhoods of every day people. Soaring towers being built at the south end of Central Park, climbing higher than ever with apartments selling from $30 million to $90 million, are beginning to block the light on the park below. Many of the apartments are being sold at those sky high prices to the international super rich, many of whom will only live in Manhattan part-time – if at all — and often pay little or no city income or property taxes, thanks to the political clout of real estate developers.

“The real estate industry here in New York City is like the oil industry in Texas,” affordable housing advocate Jaron Benjamin says, “They outspend everybody… They often have a much better relationship with elected officials than everyday New Yorkers do.” Meanwhile, fewer and fewer middle and working class people can afford to live in New York City. As Benjamin puts it, “Forget about the Statue of Liberty. Forget about Ellis Island. Forget about the idea of everybody being welcome here in New York City. This will be a city only for rich people.”

At the end of the show Bill says: “Tell us if you’ve seen some of these forces eroding the common ground where you live. Perhaps, like some of the people in our story, you’re making your own voice heard. Share these experiences at our website,BillMoyers.com.”

Video+Transcript: 23:09 min



Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: February, 21, 2017