Skip to main content

View Diary: Have the Oligarchs Won? (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They havent won yet. But its getting closer. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, Gooserock, Stude Dude, George3

    They had a major victory in the 70's when they convinced the left that they should reject Democrat achievements (and the politicans responsible for them) in their entirety if they felt those achievements were "insufficently left" or didn't happen quickly enough to suit them- instead of treating them as important achievements and vital building blocks for the future.

    The right wing knew full well that if the left adopted that atttitude, it would lead to massive electoral losses, which in turn would convince politicans that right wing policies are what the country wants; thus the left would end up enabling the policies they railed against - and the party they belong to would face a massive rightward pressure that they themselves would create(complaining about the party going right all the while).

    Sadly, there are many on the left who still don't get how they got played all those years ago, and are calling for harsher and quicker abandonment of the Democrats, thus guaranteeing that their efforts to strengthen social security will ultimately ensure its destruction - just for an example.

    The oligarchy can be beaten.  But it will require an acknowledgment by the left of how badly theyve been played for the past 40 years and a complete rethink/restructure of their electoral strategy, and sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 11:03:44 AM PDT

    •  yes...my way of putting it would be as follows... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, George3

      ...too many Democrats, for too many years, simply gave up on trying "frame" political issues (am not sure why, but my guess is that it seemed "too hard" to them (that's not an apology for them, it's just a guess, based on human nature...which too often...tends to make people too easily go the path of least resistance rather than the most desirable path).

      As a result, not only do Democrats usually find themselves behind the eight-ball, but they find themselves in a position to, first, have to try to change the framing itself...just to be able to get to the point of being able to persuade people to their thinking.

    •  Didn't Carter campaign as a conservative Dem? (9+ / 0-)

      That's how I remember it, but I was young. Anyway, he wasn't like Johnson. And Clinton was conservative- NAFTA, bank deregulation, media consolidation, 'welfare reform'.

      I think Dems could make a better case against the GOP if they were were more different from the GOP.

      •  Carter definitely positioned himself as a (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mookins, Stude Dude, kurt, George3, blueoasis

        "moderate" (i.e. conservative) Democrat...but one who staked out a more progressive position on race relations (and who acted on that in his own state as governor). In fact, the only 1976 Democratic candidate for president any more conservative would have been Henry (Scoop) Jackson, a military hawk (who happened to be an owned-bought-and-paid-for subisidiary of defense contractors).

        My candidate that year was...Sen. Fred Harris, a populist from Oklahoma (of all places), who proposed nationalizing the oil companies.

      •  Carter and Clinton were conservative (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, wdrath, DBunn, BrianParker14, George3

        because they saw the writing on the wall- the rightward push that the left's policy of abandonment was generating- and they wanted to get/keep their jobs.

        Clinton especially saw what happened to Carter when he (Carter) had a crisis of conscience and tried to govern liberally- how he was caught in the wave of rightward pressure.

        As for this:

        I think Dems could make a better case against the GOP if they were were more different from the GOP.
        I think the Dems would be more different than the GOP if they were rewarded for any difference (no matter how small) rather than being abandoned and villified that "the differences aren't big enough".

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except That Only an Idiot Would Regard Carter as (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wdrath, corvo, mickT, George3, mookins

          a gifted politician or message crafter. The fact that Carter had trouble didn't need to mean squat for Clinton and his superior political talents.

          BTW if the left is powerful enough to force the party to the right by abandoning it, wouldn't that suggest that there's an opportunity to win by the party choosing to move to the left and pick up all that strength?

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

          by Gooserock on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 05:05:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is very much an opportunity (0+ / 0-)

            to move the party back to the left.  It will, however, require the left to completely rethink their attitude and electoral strategy, which they seem unwilling to do.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:04:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The party has 40+ years (0+ / 0-)

            of history of the left being unreasonable and abandoning it for not moving left enough, fast enough (no matter how unrealistic it would be to move far enough left enough fast enough to suit the left) -They aren't going to move left on their own in the face of that history.

            The left is going to have to do some heaving lifting to convince the party that they will be rewarded for moving left,no matter how small the movement instead of abandoned for not moving far enough left, fast enough.

            Once the left does that; however, (and I'm not gonna lie, given the history, and especially after the crap the left pulled in 2010, it's gonna take more than a single election), the party will rush back left.

            Sadly, the left today seem to think they're "above" trying to be a constituency that rewards politicians for good behavior; they have an entitlement attitude and don't want to work the system.

            Which is sad, because unless and until the left changes their attitude and electoral strategy, the party (and by extension the country) will continue to drift further and further right.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:14:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed. Carter was a horrible president (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wdrath, George3

        who largely redeemed himself in retirement.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:52:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site