George Bush’s 3rd Term

Yes, it’s sickening. It doesn’t matter what your personal convictions are if you don’t have the courage to act on them. Obama has no guts. He’s a thoroughgoing careerist. Ambitious, bright, canny (up to a point), but not what you’d call a stand up guy. I don’t know who I’m voting for in ’12. Maybe nobody. But I’m not voting for him.

The more things “change,” it appears, the more they stay the same. The election of Obama is just part of the polarization–the process–that could result in real change. Many people who voted for “change” in the person of Obama are moving on. Where will they go? Those who have the luxury might move to the mountain and raise chickens or…make the choice to begin the long, long, process of helping build organizations that represent the change you voted for, but aren’t getting.

You may want to look at the second United States Social Forum (USSF) in Detroit, Michigan, from June 22 to June 26, 2010. It is affiliated with the World Social Forum, whose slogan is, “Another world is possible,” reflecting the attempts of its participants not only to protest global capitalism – its exploitation, its oppression, its wars, its destruction of society and nature, and its neoliberal policies – but also to envision an alternative future. Activists and organizations from continents around the world have attended the convenings beginning in 2001. The WSF has been held in Latin America, Asia, Africa and the United States, and has grown from 15,000 to well over 100,000 participants at its gathering in Belem, Brazil.

Jim,

Thanks! Though i’m on the far end of the state from The City of Boom these days (up in the social and evolutionary cul-de-sac of America), it’s my home. I can roll that into a family visit.

Oh, and raise chickens if you can. They’re self-reliant omnivores that will give you more eggs than you can eat…as a farmer friend says, “A man can only eat so many 5 egg omelets.” Right before he begs me to take 18 off his hands. And they’re one of the most efficient animals at converting vegetable into protein.

Chickens for Freedom!

“Oblahblah and his minions and sponsors will ** hate ** you for every dollar.”

Fuck Freud.

Something else Obama is willing to take a stand on – Bernanke. Fan-tastic.

Evidence of the result of lack of principle and the social cost of rot at the top. When leaders set a bad example, it filters through the whole society.

Corruption threatens “soul and fabric” of U.S.: FBI

Glenn Greenwald on my president right or wrong, not 😉

“One of the most surprising things I learned as a young man working his way from the hinterlands of a multi-national behemoth into the lofty towers of headquarters is that quite simply, they do not know. They are too often just frightened people making it up as they go along. Decision making too often comes down to verbal acuity, cults of personality, tides of emotion, and totemistic tribalism…It is hard to think of a better characterization of the Obama Administration than a dysfunctional US corporation led by a high profile CEO surrounded by mediocre functionaries with enormous egos and retinues, bounded by special interests, losing its long-time monopoly status, foundering on the unyielding rocks of change. The decline of the Soviet Union redux, writ larger.” – http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/

“The Dem Establishment… is punking the progressive base…A real clash is developing between right wing and left wing populism”

To my way of thinking, working class and lower middle class [~ the lower 4 quintiles based on household income] have been punked sequentially by both party leaderships and they don’t have any political representation. The “left” (blog-go-sphere) has done as much (well…tried) to exacerbate the situation [present company & a few others exempted] by using cultural cues to ridicule the “teabaggers” (for lack of a better term) without any consideration to their legitimate concerns.

And Just to get Mandos Barking mad, that’s why I talk about FDR so much. FDR’s era ended around 1978-9, to be replaced by the Friedman/Reaganism Era. Reagan was not a saint, but the right wing nuts around him ought to be seen for the fascists they were, hence Reaganism. Friedman who will go down in history as the consummate propagandist (a man who was Gerbils equal), he was the minion who began the return of the US economy to it’s failed pre-depression/FDR configuration.

Lambert talks about a new party, but until somebody consistently voices the concerns [money/jobs/housing/medical/(cost of necessities)] of working lower – middle class folks, the raw wounds of identity politics will be salted by the elites. This used to be the job of Union Leaders, but those guys can be bought pretty cheap nowadays by DLC to “punk” their members.

Er, on second read of the link (and the comments appended thereto) I think I’ll take a wait and see attitude on this story. Maybe the guy really doesn’t have the authority. I’m not hopeful, but let’s how it plays out first.

Well, I sure don’t get it. I’d of thought O would want to cement his legacy with a second term; but seems to be throwing it away. Am I missing something?

Mandos Says: – “I think the problem lies with the fact that The Left has to reconcile two types of constituencies whose perceived interests are at odds.”

I don’t agree with this statement, since:

1] It is a well established fact that well provided workers tend toward liberal practices, which was the basis/result for/of the FDR coalition.

2] I was in fact the elitist Democrats working in concert with conservatives that de-industrialized the US. This happened not just through liberalized trade regimes, but through pollution laws that were written not to solve the problem, but to transfer it somewhere else. The concept that manual labor is “unskilled” once the exclusive domain of extremist right wing think tanks, is now one of the “progressive” (blog-sphere) main talking points. It is BTW, wholly untrue, but since “progressive” (blog-sphere) have no contact with manufacturing they are not even in a position to make a statement one way or the other on the subject. My disbelief at those who are wholly ignorant on the subject and yet expound profusely on a subject to which they have no training is unbridled. It disgust me in it’s profound and unsupported elitism and I am sure it would do the same to any working man who came across the “progressive” (blog-sphere) scribbling.

3] The acceptance Friedman/Reaganism Doctrine, which screws the bottom four quintiles in favor of the privileged few

Mandos Says: – “A lot of the working class are cultural conservatives (do any doubt that?).”

Yes this is a complete fabrication, on two levels:

1] It does not account for the role of women in working class families who are largely left/liberal out of necessity. Their lives hang by the remaining liberal policies left over from the FDR era. The attempt by the Obama campaign which included the majority of the “left” (blog-sphere) tried to turn these working class woman into sexist caricatures because their concerns were not going to be address by this administration.

Unlike you Mandos, I have a very recent example. The exclusion of lower income women’s reproductive medical needs by the Obama administration which includes the majority of the “left” (blog-sphere). Here is a direct, recent example that it is the upper class, that are both philosophically and in practice the cultural conservatives. And let us remember…Obama is nothing, if not upper class. His book was a clever set of omissions and half truths, but he is from an extremely wealthy class, the most expensive high school in Hawaii…Harvard on a whim

2] Working class males have been economically marginalized by co-operation of both Democratic and Republican Party elites. As a result of their collusion, corporate media sources have able to successfully show example of Democratic betrayal of FDR principles, while Democratic party policy is to remain silent on working class issues lest they be labeled “populous” by the Republican dominated media. Simply put, with a couple of notable exceptions, when the Democrats have always chosen not to risk THEIR JOBS, over labor issues and the good of the country.

In spite of this, when poling is done without cues, working-class people are surprisingly liberal in their policy choices. I say surprisingly, because this has become a widely disseminated right wing talking point…which you Mandos, whatever your source, have repeated faithfully. Examples of this are in job creation, technology development, minimum wage health insurance, drug enforcement, labor rules. No, the reason a certain segment of the population remains stuck in time is because their inflation adjusted wages are late fifties and their job security is late thirties, while their worker rights are pre-1932. So…you would expect a voting block to take a hike after all that…in fact, isn’t that what we’ve been talking about for the last three of Ian’s posts?

Mandos Says: – “While The Left in the USA has spent a few decades reconciling with black civil rights, feminism, and so on.”

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…feminism”

Really? I did not think this last campaign which featured Obama supporters, repeatededly yelling “bitch” and “[deleted]ing c-word” the height of feminism, in fact while I am not noted for feminist thought, I had to re-examine what I thought was a settled issue and I find it is the elites in the Democratic party, who are the most openly misogynistic I have seen since the ’70’s. Oh news for the left, Sarah isn’t running for President, she is just a huckster out to make a few bucks, calling her a c-word [or equivalent], makes Dems look like “cultural conservatives”…which many of them are.

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…black civil rights”

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity in medical care which starts pre-natal and extends to a black woman/man’s last days. Oh that’s right, medical care is not a civil right under the CURRENT Democratically ruled United States. If not now…WHEN?

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity incarceration rates and drug prosecutions?

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…anybody’s civil rights”

Quoting Ian two days ago: “Obama’s openly-gay head of the federal Office of Personnel Management, John Berry, said this weekend that he cannot follow a court order directing him to provide health benefits to the lesbian wife of a federal employee. Why? Because he says that he doesn’t have the legal authority to do so.”

The answer is not blow’n in the wind Mandos, the answer my friend…is blow’n it in the late 1970-80’s onward.

Mandos Says: – “One of the successes of US conservatism is that to reconcile with one requires throwing the other under the bus.”

A half truth here. After the Democratic party threw wholesale working class people under the bus, it became easy for US conservatives to pick off enough votes to accomplish their goals.

Mandos Says: – “The teabagger-mockery was conceived in this context. As the “mainstream” American Left is committed to sexual liberty/liberation, and many of its core constituencies are highly motivated by this (even if, as we see, actual practical politics aren’t doing much—not surprising, anyway), an alliance with people perceived as uncomfortable with this is not possible.”

This I believe is a correct observation with the proviso that “mainstream” be substituted with “elites & wannabee elite”. I agree that a significant number of today’s “progressives” [particularly the most media savvy] is not motivated by some vague concept of social justice, but rather by a desire to have their personal freedoms increased. It this in fact, which explains the duplicity above, “progressive” ideas remain firmly rooted within the scope of their personal space or enjoyment. Which goes back to my original point, the problem is the leadership of the Democratic party.

Mandos Says: – “Insofar as much of the working class values its cultural interest over its class interest, how can you expect the response from the mainstream progressive movement to be anything else but defensive derision?”

I think my response above explains the motivation for the “progressive movement to be anything else but defensive derision” as does your preceding sentence.

BTW, Do a spellcheck on Mandos…does Mangos come up?

In spite of this, when poling is done without cues, working-class people are surprisingly liberal in their policy choices. I say surprisingly, because this has become a widely disseminated right wing talking point…which you Mandos, whatever your source, have repeated faithfully. Examples of this are in job creation, technology development, minimum wage health insurance, drug enforcement, labor rules.

This blog’s comments section has been around the polling mulberry bush for some time now, and my position has been the following:

Yes, you can get the overwhelming majority of Americans to support Correct Policy on health care. But I haven’t seen a poll so far that has those kinds of numbers when the question is asked properly in various realistic policy contexts, like—for example—who else gets care, what happens to their existing insurance, etc, etc, etc. All of these are easy wedge issues.

But I’m not sure we disagree very much about the fact that the party establishments have created this situation. Our disagreement seems to lie in why it’s been hard to back out of it.

Mandos in order to score a cheap shot [covered below] you ingnore these points:

Mandos – “The Left has to reconcile two types of constituencies whose perceived interests are at odds.”

1] It is a well established fact that well provided workers tend toward liberal practices, which was the basis/result for/of the FDR coalition.
2] I was in fact the elitist Democrats working in concert with conservatives that de-industrialized the US. This happened not just through liberalized trade regimes, but through pollution laws that were written not to solve the problem, but to transfer it somewhere else. The concept that manual labor is “unskilled” once the exclusive domain of extremist right wing think tanks, is now one of the “progressive” (blog-sphere) main talking points.

3] The acceptance Friedman/Reaganism Doctrine, which screws the bottom four quintiles in favor of the privileged few

Mandos – “working class are cultural conservatives”

1] It does not account for the role of women in working class families who are largely left/liberal out of necessity. Their lives hang by the remaining liberal policies left over from the FDR era. The attempt by the Obama campaign which included the majority of the “left” (blog-sphere) tried to turn these working class woman into sexist caricatures because their concerns were not going to be address by this administration.

2] Working class males have been economically marginalized by co-operation of both Democratic and Republican Party elites. As a result of their collusion, corporate media sources have able to successfully show example of Democratic betrayal of FDR principles, while Democratic party policy is to remain silent on working class issues lest they be labeled “populous” by the Republican dominated media…In spite of this, when poling is done without cues, working-class people are surprisingly liberal in their policy choices. I say surprisingly, because this has become a widely disseminated right wing talking point…which you Mandos, whatever your source, have repeated faithfully…the reason a certain segment of the population remains stuck in time is because their inflation adjusted wages are late fifties and their job security is late thirties, while their worker rights are pre-1932. So…you would expect a voting block to take a hike after all that…in fact, isn’t that what we’ve been talking about for the last three of Ian’s posts?

Mandos Says: – “While The Left in the USA has spent a few decades reconciling with black civil rights, feminism, and so on.”

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…feminism”

Really? I did not think this last campaign which featured Obama supporters, repeatededly yelling “bitch” and “[deleted]ing c-word” the height of feminism, in fact while I am not noted for feminist thought, I had to re-examine what I thought was a settled issue and I find it is the elites in the Democratic party, who are the most openly misogynistic I have seen since the ’70’s. Oh, news for the left, Sarah isn’t running for President, she is just a huckster out to make a few bucks, calling her a c-word [or equivalent], makes Dem’s elite look like “cultural conservatives”…which many of them are.

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…black civil rights”

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity in medical care which starts pre-natal and extends to a black woman/man’s last days. Oh that’s right, medical care is not a civil right under the CURRENT Democratically ruled United States. If not now…WHEN?

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity incarceration rates and drug prosecutions?

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…anybody’s civil rights”

Quoting Ian two days ago: “Obama’s openly-gay head of the federal Office of Personnel Management, John Berry, said this weekend that he cannot follow a court order directing him to provide health benefits to the lesbian wife of a federal employee. Why? Because he says that he doesn’t have the legal authority to do so.”

The answer is not blow’n in the wind Mandos, the answer my friend…is blow’n it in the late 1970-80’s onward.

Now onto Mandos most recent demand:

Mandos Says: – “Show me polling data that shows that a majority of working class males would support, eg, the repeal of DOMA”

I presume to make a point, that working class are the “cultural conservatives”.

The Democratic leadership just told a Judge to stick-it up his ass [see Ian’s post above] when he gave them an order to follow the law in regard gay rights, so you point is “working class males” are the problem, that they are the “cultural conservatives” holding up the show, but you give a pass to the Democratic leadership for doing far worse than answer a poll question. Why is that?

So in my mind you’re shooting blanks on that count Mondos.

BTW, “Show me polling data that shows that a majority of [blacks], [Mexican immigrants], [upper-white class male] would support, eg, the repeal of DOMA”? Prop 8 passed with the support of Obama’s strongest demographic, black folks. Placing sole blame on working folks for pervasive, wide scale bigotry is pretty lame, but then the (Obama-a-sphere) / (blog-go-sphere) is full exactly the same sort of thing which acts to ossify rather than enlighten.

While I don’t have the time to proof read (and it shows), if you read through my points they are well supported and point squarely at the elite nature of the Democratic leadership. A leadership whose willingness to take personal political risks for the benefit of majority of Americans, such as Roosevelt [both of them*], Truman, JFK & LBJ is completely non-existent. Such weak leadership will inevitably result in what we see now.

Some years ago [circa 2003], Josh Marshall on his blog stated that physical courage was unrelated to political courage. That might be true for women…the cultural cues are different, but show me a man who wimped out every time out and I am pretty certain you will see the same in the political arena. The one thing I think the right wing media has right, the CURRENT Democratic leadership [with a couple exceptions*] are the biggest bunch of prancing pansies in the known universe. There are a lot of returning soldiers, who have embraced liberalism because of their life experience, true believers, because they know what works and what doesn’t…but the Democratic outreach is next to zero, because the Democratic leadership doesn’t want the risk of running real men…or women that have a record of fighting for the bottom 4/5ths.

The problem isn’t the people, it’s the gutless shits that make up the Democratic “leadership”

*Yes, I know which party Teddy was in.
** Jim Webb, this new guy Tommy Sowers, Wes Clark [an example of a guy who is systematically shunned by Democratic elitist] and others.

tjfxh,

I did not overlook Nixon’s, southern strategy, but Nixon never tried to break the FDR era, nor did his predecessor Ike, both were comfortable with FDR era policies. Let’s review, Nixon won by a squeaker in 1968 sans the war, most of his policies today would be consider radical left policies. He handled Camille like a champion, it was an A+ job. Try this, too few good paying jobs and when that happens…people blame identifiable groups. Chicago was once the beacon of liberalism, but a huge influx of folks running away from Jim Crow laws and the economic depressions in the late 19th & early 20th centuries, lead to deadly race riots. Did people become bigots overnight?

As for Reagan, I used the term, Friedman/Reaganism, my apologies.

S. Brennan, “While I don’t have the time to proof read (and it shows), if you read through my points they are well supported and point squarely at the elite nature of the Democratic leadership. A leadership whose willingness to take personal political risks for the benefit of majority of Americans, such as Roosevelt [both of them*], Truman, JFK & LBJ is completely non-existent. Such weak leadership will inevitably result in what we see now.”

This is true and I think that there is an overarching reason beyond lack of courage and venality. The Dem leadership rightly or wrongly supposes that the country is center-right and is still trying to capture the center as the GOP moves to the extreme right. This involves taking the base for granted.

I would still argue that the major plays that moved the county into the conservative camp were the Southern strategy and the Reagan revolution. Both were grounded in conservative values that many white workers shared. That is simplistic, I realize, since there were a lot of other things involved, including massive donations from rightist billionaires that funded not only political campaigns but also propaganda. Overall, this was a Straussian move on the part of the elite to harness the “rabble” to its wagon.

S. Brenan, I think it would be accurate to say that the center is what George Lakoff calls “biconceptual,” that is, holding some conservative views and some liberal views instead of being uniconceptual. Depending on the balance of views, the center is center-left or center right.

I would agree that poling indicates that the center is center-left at this juncture rather than center-right. But in other ways, the right is actually stronger than the left. Extremely conservative positions have a minimum of 20% support in most polls, and often 30%. Moderately conservative responses runs in the area of 40-45%. There are virtually no extreme leftists politically active in the US at this time, so they don’t even show up in the polls. Those answering as liberal/progressives come in at around 20% based on poll responses. But this is largely on values. When so-called liberals and progressives are often quite conservative with respect to fiscal responsibility, the deficit, concern about future unfunded obligations, and other conservative economic memes. I see very few progressives that think the truly progressive program that they would like can be funded realistically without breaking the budget and putting the country much deeper in debt.

I’m not disputing that the Dem leadership is to the right of the majority of Democratic voters, not only the base. I think that this is for several reasons, among which selling out to Big Money is up at the top. However, I also think that the Dem Establishment strategy is to create a permanent Dem majority by capturing the center-right, including moderate disgruntled Republicans, while relying on the base to come along for lack of an alternative. This is basically Rahm’s strategy, for example, and when Obama chose Rahm as WHCOS, he implicitly announced that this is his strategy too. His actions have borne this out.

Moreover, politics is based on expediency, that is, capture of likely voters, and in the general, the required number of electoral votes. It is true that the majority of the country may lean to the left in general. However, savvy politicians no longer look at general polls. They do lots of private polling of likely voters and have a bevy of statisticians to tell them the implications of every move in terms of people who will show up at what county voting booth. As far as the political strategists are concerned, races are now contested at the county level.

I will argue one more time for why I think that the Southern strategy and the Reagan revolution were and are still significant. The US was overwhelmingly liberal under and after FDR, after coming out of a conservative regime since McKinley. This continued until 1968, including a near total repudiation of Goldwater in 1964. I would not count Eisenhower, since he was a moderate Republican who had not be a political figure but instead the maximum war hero. That liberal trend began to end with Nixon’s election in 1968, and it was consolidated by Reagan in 1980, culminated in the Gingrich revolution that captured Congress in 1994, and crested with Bush’s final victory in 2004. We are now witnessing the denouement in the Obama administration, and perhaps the last gasp in 2010 and 2012, if the economy still sucks, as I think likely.

The country is still fixated on conservative economic principles. Witness Obama just this past week saying that the US is running out of money, even though it is definitionally impossible for a sovereign government that is the monopoly provider of a nonconvertible flexible-rate currency of issue to either become insolvent or default. As long as this established narrative persists, the US will be beholden to conservative policy, since all policy-making is dependent on funding, as we see with the present debate over health care, where it has all com down to cost control (conservative) instead of public purpose (liberal/progressive). Even Anthony Weiner is willing to give up the public option, but not his insistence of cost-control, and he is claiming that this is a top priority of the progressive caucus.

Ok, we disagree.

Mandos Says: “I’m not even sure what S Brennan is arguing against”

I think I’m pretty specific, why don’t you give it try…FYI, I do a point by point, I don’t pick one sentence to create a strawman…and I’m not impressed with yours or Tmxfh’s (blog-go-sphere) generalities.

Mandos – “The Left has to reconcile two types of constituencies whose perceived interests are at odds.”

1] It is a well established fact that well provided workers tend toward liberal practices, which was the basis/result for/of the FDR coalition.
2] I was in fact the elitist Democrats working in concert with conservatives that de-industrialized the US. This happened not just through liberalized trade regimes, but through pollution laws that were written not to solve the problem, but to transfer it somewhere else. The concept that manual labor is “unskilled” once the exclusive domain of extremist right wing think tanks, is now one of the “progressive” (blog-sphere) main talking points.

3] The acceptance Friedman/Reaganism Doctrine, which screws the bottom four quintiles in favor of the privileged few

Mandos – “working class are cultural conservatives”

1] It does not account for the role of women in working class families who are largely left/liberal out of necessity. Their lives hang by the remaining liberal policies left over from the FDR era. The attempt by the Obama campaign which included the majority of the “left” (blog-sphere) tried to turn these working class woman into sexist caricatures because their concerns were not going to be address by this administration.

2] Working class males have been economically marginalized by co-operation of both Democratic and Republican Party elites. As a result of their collusion, corporate media sources have able to successfully show example of Democratic betrayal of FDR principles, while Democratic party policy is to remain silent on working class issues lest they be labeled “populous” by the Republican dominated media…In spite of this, when poling is done without cues, working-class people are surprisingly liberal in their policy choices. I say surprisingly, because this has become a widely disseminated right wing talking point…which you Mandos, whatever your source, have repeated faithfully…the reason a certain segment of the population remains stuck in time is because their inflation adjusted wages are late fifties and their job security is late thirties, while their worker rights are pre-1932. So…you would expect a voting block to take a hike after all that…in fact, isn’t that what we’ve been talking about for the last three of Ian’s posts?

Mandos Says: – “While The Left in the USA has spent a few decades reconciling with black civil rights, feminism, and so on.”

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…feminism”

Really? I did not think this last campaign which featured Obama supporters, repeatededly yelling “bitch” and “[deleted]ing c-word” the height of feminism, in fact while I am not noted for feminist thought, I had to re-examine what I thought was a settled issue and I find it is the elites in the Democratic party, who are the most openly misogynistic I have seen since the ’70’s. Oh, news for the left, Sarah isn’t running for President, she is just a huckster out to make a few bucks, calling her a c-word [or equivalent], makes Dem’s elite look like “cultural conservatives”…which many of them are.

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…black civil rights”

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity in medical care which starts pre-natal and extends to a black woman/man’s last days. Oh that’s right, medical care is not a civil right under the CURRENT Democratically ruled United States. If not now…WHEN?

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity incarceration rates and drug prosecutions?

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…anybody’s civil rights”

Quoting Ian two days ago: “Obama’s openly-gay head of the federal Office of Personnel Management, John Berry, said this weekend that he cannot follow a court order directing him to provide health benefits to the lesbian wife of a federal employee. Why? Because he says that he doesn’t have the legal authority to do so.”

The answer is not blow’n in the wind Mandos, the answer my friend…is blow’n it in the late 1970-80’s onward.

Now onto Mandos most recent demand:

Mandos Says: – “Show me polling data that shows that a majority of working class males would support, eg, the repeal of DOMA”

I presume to make a point, that working class are the “cultural conservatives”.

The Democratic leadership just told a Judge to stick-it up his ass [see Ian’s post above] when he gave them an order to follow the law in regard gay rights, so you point is “working class males” are the problem, that they are the “cultural conservatives” holding up the show, but you give a pass to the Democratic leadership for doing far worse than answer a poll question. Why is that?

So in my mind you’re shooting blanks on that count Mondos.

BTW, “Show me polling data that shows that a majority of [blacks], [Mexican immigrants], [upper-white class male] would support, eg, the repeal of DOMA”? Prop 8 passed with the support of Obama’s strongest demographic, black folks. Placing sole blame on working folks for pervasive, wide scale bigotry is pretty lame, but then the (Obama-a-sphere) / (blog-go-sphere) is full exactly the same sort of thing which acts to ossify rather than enlighten.

While I don’t have the time to proof read (and it shows), if you read through my points they are well supported and point squarely at the elite nature of the Democratic leadership. A leadership whose willingness to take personal political risks for the benefit of majority of Americans, such as Roosevelt [both of them*], Truman, JFK & LBJ is completely non-existent. Such weak leadership will inevitably result in what we see now.

Some years ago [circa 2003], Josh Marshall on his blog stated that physical courage was unrelated to political courage. That might be true for women…the cultural cues are different, but show me a man who wimped out every time out and I am pretty certain you will see the same in the political arena. The one thing I think the right wing media has right, the CURRENT Democratic leadership [with a couple exceptions*] are the biggest bunch of prancing pansies in the known universe. There are a lot of returning soldiers, who have embraced liberalism because of their life experience, true believers, because they know what works and what doesn’t…but the Democratic outreach is next to zero, because the Democratic leadership doesn’t want the risk of running real men…or women that have a record of fighting for the bottom 4/5ths.

The problem isn’t the people, it’s the gutless shits that make up the Democratic “leadership”

*Yes, I know which party Teddy was in.
** Jim Webb, this new guy Tommy Sowers, Wes Clark [an example of a guy who is systematically shunned by Democratic elitist] and others.

tjfxh,

I did not overlook Nixon’s, southern strategy, but Nixon never tried to break the FDR era, nor did his predecessor Ike, both were comfortable with FDR era policies.

S Brennan permalink

Mandos Says: – “I think the problem lies with the fact that The Left has to reconcile two types of constituencies whose perceived interests are at odds.”

I don’t agree with this statement, since:

1] It is a well established fact that well provided workers tend toward liberal practices, which was the basis/result for/of the FDR coalition.

2] I was in fact the elitist Democrats working in concert with conservatives that de-industrialized the US. This happened not just through liberalized trade regimes, but through pollution laws that were written not to solve the problem, but to transfer it somewhere else. The concept that manual labor is “unskilled” once the exclusive domain of extremist right wing think tanks, is now one of the “progressive” (blog-sphere) main talking points. It is BTW, wholly untrue, but since “progressive” (blog-sphere) have no contact with manufacturing they are not even in a position to make a statement one way or the other on the subject. My disbelief at those who are wholly ignorant on the subject and yet expound profusely on a subject to which they have no training is unbridled. It disgust me in it’s profound and unsupported elitism and I am sure it would do the same to any working man who came across the “progressive” (blog-sphere) scribbling.

3] The acceptance Friedman/Reaganism Doctrine, which screws the bottom four quintiles in favor of the privileged few

Mandos Says: – “A lot of the working class are cultural conservatives (do any doubt that?).”

Yes this is a complete fabrication, on two levels:

1] It does not account for the role of women in working class families who are largely left/liberal out of necessity. Their lives hang by the remaining liberal policies left over from the FDR era. The attempt by the Obama campaign which included the majority of the “left” (blog-sphere) tried to turn these working class woman into sexist caricatures because their concerns were not going to be address by this administration.

Unlike you Mandos, I have a very recent example. The exclusion of lower income women’s reproductive medical needs by the Obama administration which includes the majority of the “left” (blog-sphere). Here is a direct, recent example that it is the upper class, that are both philosophically and in practice the cultural conservatives. And let us remember…Obama is nothing, if not upper class. His book was a clever set of omissions and half truths, but he is from an extremely wealthy class, the most expensive high school in Hawaii…Harvard on a whim

2] Working class males have been economically marginalized by co-operation of both Democratic and Republican Party elites. As a result of their collusion, corporate media sources have able to successfully show example of Democratic betrayal of FDR principles, while Democratic party policy is to remain silent on working class issues lest they be labeled “populous” by the Republican dominated media. Simply put, with a couple of notable exceptions, when the Democrats have always chosen not to risk THEIR JOBS, over labor issues and the good of the country.

In spite of this, when poling is done without cues, working-class people are surprisingly liberal in their policy choices. I say surprisingly, because this has become a widely disseminated right wing talking point…which you Mandos, whatever your source, have repeated faithfully. Examples of this are in job creation, technology development, minimum wage health insurance, drug enforcement, labor rules. No, the reason a certain segment of the population remains stuck in time is because their inflation adjusted wages are late fifties and their job security is late thirties, while their worker rights are pre-1932. So…you would expect a voting block to take a hike after all that…in fact, isn’t that what we’ve been talking about for the last three of Ian’s posts?

Mandos Says: – “While The Left in the USA has spent a few decades reconciling with black civil rights, feminism, and so on.”

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…feminism”

Really? I did not think this last campaign which featured Obama supporters, repeatededly yelling “bitch” and “[deleted]ing c-word” the height of feminism, in fact while I am not noted for feminist thought, I had to re-examine what I thought was a settled issue and I find it is the elites in the Democratic party, who are the most openly misogynistic I have seen since the ’70’s. Oh news for the left, Sarah isn’t running for President, she is just a huckster out to make a few bucks, calling her a c-word [or equivalent], makes Dems look like “cultural conservatives”…which many of them are.

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…black civil rights”

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity in medical care which starts pre-natal and extends to a black woman/man’s last days. Oh that’s right, medical care is not a civil right under the CURRENT Democratically ruled United States. If not now…WHEN?

Really? Hmmm…I must have missed it, since when have Democrats addressed the disparity incarceration rates and drug prosecutions?

Mandos Says: – “[R]econciling with…anybody’s civil rights”

Quoting Ian two days ago: “Obama’s openly-gay head of the federal Office of Personnel Management, John Berry, said this weekend that he cannot follow a court order directing him to provide health benefits to the lesbian wife of a federal employee. Why? Because he says that he doesn’t have the legal authority to do so.”

The answer is not blow’n in the wind Mandos, the answer my friend…is blow’n it in the late 1970-80’s onward.

Mandos Says: – “One of the successes of US conservatism is that to reconcile with one requires throwing the other under the bus.”

A half truth here. After the Democratic party threw wholesale working class people under the bus, it became easy for US conservatives to pick off enough votes to accomplish their goals.

Mandos Says: – “The teabagger-mockery was conceived in this context. As the “mainstream” American Left is committed to sexual liberty/liberation, and many of its core constituencies are highly motivated by this (even if, as we see, actual practical politics aren’t doing much—not surprising, anyway), an alliance with people perceived as uncomfortable with this is not possible.”

This I believe is a correct observation with the proviso that “mainstream” be substituted with “elites & wannabee elite”. I agree that a significant number of today’s “progressives” [particularly the most media savvy] is not motivated by some vague concept of social justice, but rather by a desire to have their personal freedoms increased. It this in fact, which explains the duplicity above, “progressive” ideas remain firmly rooted within the scope of their personal space or enjoyment. Which goes back to my original point, the problem is the leadership of the Democratic party.

Mandos Says: – “Insofar as much of the working class values its cultural interest over its class interest, how can you expect the response from the mainstream progressive movement to be anything else but defensive derision?”

I think my response above explains the motivation for the “progressive movement to be anything else but defensive derision” as does your preceding sentence.