Thanks, Roger Cohen, for an outstanding column. Keep them coming.
15
Finally, after eight months of waiting, Cohen has it figured out!
6
Which section of the U.S. Constitution directs our politicians to build a middle class in China?
13
Hogwash Roger! Developing world poor lives have not risen to the extend that it should of or the there would not be a decandent 1%/10% of the world.
How stupid do you think we are. Paying and housing a person in a 12 story building that collaspes or burns down and giving him a $1 an hour instead of $.50 is not a reason to celebrate. He moved from his farm where he lived off the land that was stolen from him where he was able to feed his family a life maybe not one of us westerners but we are the ones that are driving the planet over the cliff.
Hogwash Roger.
How stupid do you think we are. Paying and housing a person in a 12 story building that collaspes or burns down and giving him a $1 an hour instead of $.50 is not a reason to celebrate. He moved from his farm where he lived off the land that was stolen from him where he was able to feed his family a life maybe not one of us westerners but we are the ones that are driving the planet over the cliff.
Hogwash Roger.
14
I agree with this analysis wholeheartedly, but for two points:
First, the passive voice you employ - "has vanished"- as though it was some mystical force, when it was clearly created by poor policy decisions of the 80's and 90's.
Second, you are off on timing. It won't be another two decades until the "social breakdown". Political malfeasance and greed, rising certainty of ecological disaster, and weaponry strewn everywhere means that mayhem has already begun in some parts of the globe and its further spread is right around the corner.
First, the passive voice you employ - "has vanished"- as though it was some mystical force, when it was clearly created by poor policy decisions of the 80's and 90's.
Second, you are off on timing. It won't be another two decades until the "social breakdown". Political malfeasance and greed, rising certainty of ecological disaster, and weaponry strewn everywhere means that mayhem has already begun in some parts of the globe and its further spread is right around the corner.
7
I wonder why it has become conventional wisdom, an Cohen buys into the that, that homo-non-sapiens, the one that is so easily coned by the Con Artist Supreme deserves the rewards of a fiercely competitive world.
Now it would have been fair if when drawing the contrast between the neo, neocon- artist- and Senator Sanders Cohen had not reduced it to a one-liner: "unserious and incoherent" vs non of the above. Next time elaborate on the incoherence, not just of Trump's but of the millions who have fallen for the cause, not the solution to the inequalities.
True, not all of them are the uneducated and the perennially bigots, you will be surprised at the support the Con gets among the educated -well, on paper: did not G.W. Bush get degrees from Yale and Harvard? But for the really aggrieved, as opposed to the bigots, period: If they show such a lack of discerning power, frankly so little IQ, why on earth and heavens they deserve not to be left behind?
Now it would have been fair if when drawing the contrast between the neo, neocon- artist- and Senator Sanders Cohen had not reduced it to a one-liner: "unserious and incoherent" vs non of the above. Next time elaborate on the incoherence, not just of Trump's but of the millions who have fallen for the cause, not the solution to the inequalities.
True, not all of them are the uneducated and the perennially bigots, you will be surprised at the support the Con gets among the educated -well, on paper: did not G.W. Bush get degrees from Yale and Harvard? But for the really aggrieved, as opposed to the bigots, period: If they show such a lack of discerning power, frankly so little IQ, why on earth and heavens they deserve not to be left behind?
1
In the bevy of analyses of the malaise that haunts the Western World, why haven’t historians taken an active part? Scholars who have described the rise and falloff past civilizations can surely provide a broader prospective than has been evident in the current rhetoric.
It may be that we are witness to a historic process that defies understanding on the basis of a generation or two. There have been thinkers who anticipated the decline of the West (Marx, Spengler).
It may be that we are witness to a historic process that defies understanding on the basis of a generation or two. There have been thinkers who anticipated the decline of the West (Marx, Spengler).
4
Stop comparing Bernie to Trump. Trump wants to build a wall. No one in the media has asked him, will American officers shoot unarmed Mexicans who try to climb over the wall, as the East Berliners did to their people? Bernie welcomes immigrants.
That is only one item of major difference, but a yuge one.
That is only one item of major difference, but a yuge one.
8
If the backlash in the United States meant success for "radical" candidates, then Sanders and Trump wouldn't be where they are today. Radical? Voter suppression is radical. Taxing the poor to subsidize the rich is radical. Making medical care and education inaccessible and unaffordable is definitely radical. Angry? maybe, but considering that the candidate in each party espousing the best policies are leading, the voters are looking for anything but radical.
6
Citizenship in America has been subordinated by consumerism. The power to chose meaningful alternatives via the vote has been replaced by a never-ending choice of things to buy. Political dissatisfaction from either wing amounts to no more than entertainment and can not overcome the ability to live like kings and queens compared to even recent ancestors. And the model has been exported to all nations inevitably replacing the power of the vote with the mesmerizing promise of an ever-advancing standard of living.
Unable to vote for collective positive outcomes, we chase after short-term material gains for ourselves and families. But still convinced that the prize is good-heartedness for all of humanity, we hope for the inevitable turn of the Big Wheel to reset our path forward.
Unable to vote for collective positive outcomes, we chase after short-term material gains for ourselves and families. But still convinced that the prize is good-heartedness for all of humanity, we hope for the inevitable turn of the Big Wheel to reset our path forward.
2
One might infer from Mr. Cohen's "As in the United States, right and left produce distinct politicians who tap an overlapping pool of resentments" ... that this is all politicians do: tap resentments.
And sadly that seems reasonably so in this current election. But our nation cannot survive if "tapping resentments" continues to be the nature of our politics.
But then we get to Mr. Cohen's "A rising tide may raise all yachts. It does not raise all boats."
Oh really? What boats does a rising tide not raise? Those sunk already at the bottom of the ocean? Those aground on the reef too high for the tide to lift?
That was a cheap incoherent metaphor -- the merest dilapidated row-boat rises equally with the fanciest yacht ... as long as they are both floating.
And sadly that seems reasonably so in this current election. But our nation cannot survive if "tapping resentments" continues to be the nature of our politics.
But then we get to Mr. Cohen's "A rising tide may raise all yachts. It does not raise all boats."
Oh really? What boats does a rising tide not raise? Those sunk already at the bottom of the ocean? Those aground on the reef too high for the tide to lift?
That was a cheap incoherent metaphor -- the merest dilapidated row-boat rises equally with the fanciest yacht ... as long as they are both floating.
2
Rapid innovation, driven by increasing headcount costs (wages, SS, and healthcare), will drive out the middle class as jobs get taken by automation and off-shoring. What is scary is that Clinton is pushing to have increases in all three cost drivers ... wages, SS and healthcare. Her policies will accelerate the rate of American middle worker displacement from the work force.
The issue then, is how we fund Social Security and Healthcare. Should these very important programs be slapped on labor's back? Should employers add the costs of these programs to the cost of wages? Is labor burdened by the cost of these programs in other countries that compete with the US for share in world markets?
My recommendation is to fund SS and Healthcare via a more general tax like the income tax. This would do two things:
1. Free American employers to raise wages while maintaining competitiveness on world markets.
2. Shift the burden of financing these programs to the more wealthy. For example, if the top 1% pay over 20% of the taxes associated with income tax (Democrats ... say thank you), they would bear a large share of the burden (not labor in the form of increased headcount costs).
Labor would be happy ... a way to enable increased wages. Employers would be happy ... they could increase wages w/o making their products and services too expensive to compete.
Most importantly, the wealthy would be paying to keep America working vs. paying those who aren't able to work.
The issue then, is how we fund Social Security and Healthcare. Should these very important programs be slapped on labor's back? Should employers add the costs of these programs to the cost of wages? Is labor burdened by the cost of these programs in other countries that compete with the US for share in world markets?
My recommendation is to fund SS and Healthcare via a more general tax like the income tax. This would do two things:
1. Free American employers to raise wages while maintaining competitiveness on world markets.
2. Shift the burden of financing these programs to the more wealthy. For example, if the top 1% pay over 20% of the taxes associated with income tax (Democrats ... say thank you), they would bear a large share of the burden (not labor in the form of increased headcount costs).
Labor would be happy ... a way to enable increased wages. Employers would be happy ... they could increase wages w/o making their products and services too expensive to compete.
Most importantly, the wealthy would be paying to keep America working vs. paying those who aren't able to work.
1
We can't blame a system voted in power by the people for doing exactly what is what meant to do: Return lost power to the (mostly ethnic European) elites by gradually undoing post-WWII liberal economic reforms. The blame rests with us for not knowing demagogues, opportunists, and daydreamers from sincere, capable leaders.
Can we put down our smartphones long enough to actually begin serious contemplation? Not likely, which is why we'll continue to be led by the noses to whatever social experiments the smarter, richer, or more ideologically driven people deem fit for us.
Can we put down our smartphones long enough to actually begin serious contemplation? Not likely, which is why we'll continue to be led by the noses to whatever social experiments the smarter, richer, or more ideologically driven people deem fit for us.
5
I would like to be wrong, but what I see the first quarter of the 21st century showing is that money talks, the more money the louder the talk. This is as true for Clinton as it is for Cruz and Trump. The "Panama Papers" (another subject, but pertinent to this one) seem to confirm my thoughts.
So does reading about the politics, monetary policies and social conditions of the first quarter of the 20th century.
“What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
So does reading about the politics, monetary policies and social conditions of the first quarter of the 20th century.
“What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
11
The idea that liberty would have to be curtailed, if considered as a recognition and understanding of limits, actually allows freedom since anything one could support would be in accordance with the social limit. We do explore the solar system but it is likely we won't be sending space travelers before we solve the more mundane problems here at home.
If the rise in tide were that, instead of the tsunami that is destroying small craft, those with boats of any sort would be able to work things out. As it is the small boats are simply overloaded, swamped, and lost. Even those with good bailing apparatus can't keep up.
The "working class", those who blend mind and body into a pursuit demanding their temper match their strength, are simply springing up in another location. The rewards of this relocation are not being shared by those who made and those who now make it possible as the owners and shareholders take a bigger cut, touted as another success of capitalism, which would be fine if the materials used in the production and the profits were not measured in the lives of other human beings.
We have to change and those who back either Mr Sanders or Mr Trump know this and are telling the rest among us to pay attention to what is being said.
I don't know what either can do with ascendency to a House divided or what any other can do.
We may discount the messengers this time, but they won't allow us to discount their message the next time, if there is one, around.
If the rise in tide were that, instead of the tsunami that is destroying small craft, those with boats of any sort would be able to work things out. As it is the small boats are simply overloaded, swamped, and lost. Even those with good bailing apparatus can't keep up.
The "working class", those who blend mind and body into a pursuit demanding their temper match their strength, are simply springing up in another location. The rewards of this relocation are not being shared by those who made and those who now make it possible as the owners and shareholders take a bigger cut, touted as another success of capitalism, which would be fine if the materials used in the production and the profits were not measured in the lives of other human beings.
We have to change and those who back either Mr Sanders or Mr Trump know this and are telling the rest among us to pay attention to what is being said.
I don't know what either can do with ascendency to a House divided or what any other can do.
We may discount the messengers this time, but they won't allow us to discount their message the next time, if there is one, around.
7
It could be argued that the distress of a middle class over its inability to advance (the oft-cited "do you expect to have a better life than your parents?" question) is not at odds with a system in which personal wealth is the ultimate goal. Of course there are numerous ways to counter this, and the disparity between the wealthiest and poorest members of society and the horrifying amount of power exercised by a small but incredibly wealthy demographic is dispiriting at best. Revolution (political or armed) is almost always understandable and justifiable; whether it produces real changes or simply creates new elites is another question.
3
In Europe the citizens were told that it was the "humanitarian" thing to do by accepting millions of "immigrants". To suggest that millions more were coming was to be labeled prejudice and uncaring. Citizens, again, listened to their leaders and went along with the program. Now it appears that was a mistake. As in the US, leaders with "visions" can be a threat to the future. Their ideas sound good and are altruistic, but flawed because of a lack of pragmatic considerations. Well meaning people, in many countries, are learning you can do the wrong things for the right reasons. Given the direction of both Europe and the US it's only a matter of time before the proverbial torches and pitchforks come out.
5
The only candidate in the American presidential race who advocates policies that would enact Isaiah Berlin's vision is Bernie Sanders.
Sadly, it appears he will not win the nomination of the Democratic Party.
But we, his supporters, can remain grateful to him for putting this vision squarely before the eyes of the American electorate and, when he or she emerges, elevating a future candidate of Bernie's mold into the Oval Office.
Let us hope the country as we know it can survive Hillary's minimalism and triangulation to get there.
It will not survive a Cruz or Trump regime.
Sadly, it appears he will not win the nomination of the Democratic Party.
But we, his supporters, can remain grateful to him for putting this vision squarely before the eyes of the American electorate and, when he or she emerges, elevating a future candidate of Bernie's mold into the Oval Office.
Let us hope the country as we know it can survive Hillary's minimalism and triangulation to get there.
It will not survive a Cruz or Trump regime.
14
The people want the governments to be liberated from the power of money to buy influence that no longer makes democracy "of the people, by the people, for the people" as Lincoln so eloquently restated. The government in the US has never been free of influence but the more people were enfranchised, the more the capitalists seemed to invest in lobbying because the majority who could vote were no longer on the inside prospering from the business as usual quid pro quo. Governments began in fits and starts to try to even the playing field because representation began to be not just from the ruling class. We have arrived in the 21st century with new ideas of society and are now 'engaged in a great civil war' to see if this nation can 'long endure'. (I acknowledge that Lincoln wrote these great words)
14
A famous historical quote reads: "Let them eat cake." Spoken by Marie Antoinette, the queen of France, in response to the people's outcry against the price of bread. As the following years of revolution and chaos revealed, once again, the people will rise up against their oppressors. Then and now.
17
My biggest concern with the present situation: Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders have uncovered a previously hidden constituency which I believe is the vanguard of one who is going to emerge more and more -- those whose lobs have been replaced by automation, whose jobs have been taken by robots, but who have coped relatively poorly with this. This has already happened to many of us, the difference is that we have recognized it, we have coped, we have retrained, moved into the sharing economy, taken early retirement, learned how to live and entertain ourselves without a job or career. Neither Trump nor Sanders have a practical approach of dealing with the problem, however; one can in no way bring the jobs back by isolating the country or socializing it. My worry is that when Trump and Sanders are defeated, we will again mostly forget about these people instead of implemented the structural reform needed: the negative income tax and universal health care being the core elements.
David Mills, futurist, author of "Our Uncertain Future."
David Mills, futurist, author of "Our Uncertain Future."
15
Ordinary people in the West have been hurt by globalization and they have obviously given up expecting their governments to help or protect them. The response from the elites has been to tell them to suck it up. Free trade is good for poor living in the Third World, we should be pleased. Trump and Bernie have different solutions, but their message is similar, charity begins at home.
26
I'm afraid it's not that simple. Short of outright colonizing the Third World, the West cannot stop the poorer countries from acquiring the information and technology to compete forcefully on the global stage. In other words, the new era we have been ushered into after the Cold War is a time of intense global competition and multiple bases of power, instead of the convenient, and highly abnormal, bipolar world of US-Soviet competition.
It is no doubt a painful transition for many, but wishing for the blessings of the past setup to return is foolish because the system that generated those blessings is long gone.
It is no doubt a painful transition for many, but wishing for the blessings of the past setup to return is foolish because the system that generated those blessings is long gone.
2
Read "Listen, Liberal," Thomas Frank's new book. He makes it clear that the Democratic establishment is just as enthrall to ideology as are the Republicans. Theirs is the unshakeable conviction that technology and "innovation" - their respected innovators include hedge fund managers - can solve all our problems, including income disparity. They believe the "creative, innovative" class deserve and have earned absurdly high remuneration. They won't acknowledge the mathematical absurdity of their notion that education can make us all possessors of the kind of knowledge that brings big incomes, probably because if they did acknowledge that absurdity they would have to favor strong income redistribution measures. They see the places where they live - Boston, NYC, San Francisco - becoming great places to live, and they refuse to see that all of the people who maintain their cherished amenities can't afford to be their neighbors and must commute long distances. They may mouth platitudes about a level playing field in education, but their behavior screams loud and clear that they don't want it. They're not all that different from the medieval rich who lived in castles and took for granted the peasants who slogged in every day to bring provisions, clean the stables and carry out the night soil.
8
At least the Democratic "establishment" (except for Harry Reid and Sanders) have a base line vision of equal rights, conflict resolution through diplomacy, track record of reform, and knowledge that government services are a good force to have, especially in a crisis. Add some sprinkles such as gun control, women's rights, responsible markets reform and responsible debt restructuring, I'll bet the country's good future on the inspirational, brilliant and experienced Hillary Clinton over the other 4 candidate-wags every day and twice on Sunday. You should too.
3
There are 5 candidates standing. Clinton, Kasich and Cruz, campaign rhetoric aside, economically represent the oligarchy status quo, with the biggest differences lying in their social viewpoints. So far, about 60% of the country has voted for them.
Sanders and Trump have amassed 40%.
Sanders is the one who essentially says "it's us, and we need to fix that."
Trump says "it's all of them, and we need to get rid of them." His economically populist message has been diminishing in the rear view mirror for a couple of months now.
The smart leader (are you listening, Hillary?) is the one who starts taking this "throw the bums out" 40% close to their heart, addressing their concerns. No matter what happens in November, a revolution of some form is coming post-election. Too many people are incredibly, passionately committed to big change. A leader is being sought that will make the lives of the no longer "silent plurality" substantially better.
The job of post election governance will demand someone who can speak to both sides and address the problems underlying the hard truths of our fractural lives. There are a lot of pitchforks and torches close at hand. If we don't like mob rule, we'd better find a latter day Atticus Finch (warts and all) who rises above the small factional part of their thinking to serve a true greater good.
Sanders and Trump have amassed 40%.
Sanders is the one who essentially says "it's us, and we need to fix that."
Trump says "it's all of them, and we need to get rid of them." His economically populist message has been diminishing in the rear view mirror for a couple of months now.
The smart leader (are you listening, Hillary?) is the one who starts taking this "throw the bums out" 40% close to their heart, addressing their concerns. No matter what happens in November, a revolution of some form is coming post-election. Too many people are incredibly, passionately committed to big change. A leader is being sought that will make the lives of the no longer "silent plurality" substantially better.
The job of post election governance will demand someone who can speak to both sides and address the problems underlying the hard truths of our fractural lives. There are a lot of pitchforks and torches close at hand. If we don't like mob rule, we'd better find a latter day Atticus Finch (warts and all) who rises above the small factional part of their thinking to serve a true greater good.
8
who needs to listen is not just Hillary. It is the bums in congress who are much more likely to be owned by the plutocracy than any president could be. The states need to wake up and see that winning on tertiary social issues like abortion and gay marriage is not going to be acceptable forever. Most important, the plutocrats who have created this mess need to listen and be prepared to make a lot of sacrifices for the greater good. Or else.... just not sure what will come next.
4
I do not see that much political backlash, may be I am naïve or blind. Lot of young people specially college students are very enthusiastic for a Democrat socialist (who has been an independent senator) candidate Bernie Sanders because he promises stars and moon like free tuition, interest free student loan, free healthcare etc. Another one is questionable Republican, Donald Trump who does not what he believes in. But he has White nationalistic slogans which makes the less educated poor white people very excited. The main problem in our country is greed of 1% super rich people and their undue influence in politics and in our lives. The biggest problem is political polarization and extreme partisanship of our elected leaders. We have most ineffective and nonworking congress.
5
Cohen does a nice job summarizing his perspectives on what we are seeing play out in a recent sampling of elections from around the western world. Two places I'd add and change. 1. Add - He correctly points out the people getting squeezed are "the middle swath" just under the top 5% and above the bottom 33%. They are seeing stagnation and erosion of their relative financial position and don't benefit from the current rigged political, tax and distribution system that favors the big corporations and investors (5%) who own them as well as the lower 33% who receive tax payer subsidies and benefits without any form of contribution. In the US this "rigged system" has been pushed to the max by 8 years of "Liberal" leadership doubling the national US debt to soon exceed $20 TRILLION!! Guess who this growing IOU falls on? The "swath in the middle". The system is even more extreme when you factor in this massive IOU yet to come. 2. - Change - His last two paragraphs fail to present anything to help address this squeeze on this middle class swath. It's a continued prescription for the bottom 33% in the form of more redistribution which ultimately hits the middle class much more that the top 5%. 3. Change - The title should be the "Backlash on Politics". The current middle swath is leaning to Trump and the aspiring young middle swathers to Sanders, both "outsiders". Clinton as correctly pointed out is the product of the current rigged system that needs to change.
4
Americans could not reasonably expect, as less than 5% of the world's population, to continue consuming 20+% of the earth's resources - not unless we are willing to enslave or militarily control, large swaths of the planet. That approach worked for a while, but we can no longer afford the cost in dollars or blood. As our share goes down, so that others' boats could rise, we could have adjusted collectively, with all Americans taking a hit proportional to their means, or those with power and influence could use the opportunity to further enrich themselves while the rest of us slip down the slope towards insolvency. Greed is winning so far, and the end result will not be pretty if it is allowed to continue.
18
Globalization could have been designed to bring everyone up. Instead it was designed to bring everyone down. We could have demanded that our trading partners (who wanted access to the world's largest market) create policies that take care of people and the environment. Instead we created policies that take care of global corporations and forced all governments to compete by lowering wages and environmental controls. Corporations like Walmart bargain hard on both ends of trade pressuring suppliers to cut costs to the bone and their workers to work for as little as possible. This has given the family that owns Walmart as much wealth as the poorest 40% of the U.S. population, while gutting the middle class and impoverishing the already poor.
After decades of globalization a few hundred people have as much wealth as half the planet. They say they are smarter and work harder, but there is no way that a few hundred people are as productive as 3.5 billion people. This means that they must be taking productivity from the rest of us. Trillions of dollars of our productivity have been stolen by using trade rules designed to make trade "free" for global corporations who manipulate all markets so that they can skim wealth from them, but less free for those of us that are the victims of their scams.
And if that is not bad enough, when a government rejects this model of "free" trade, the U.S. is lobbied to put our covert and overt force into play to change those governments.
After decades of globalization a few hundred people have as much wealth as half the planet. They say they are smarter and work harder, but there is no way that a few hundred people are as productive as 3.5 billion people. This means that they must be taking productivity from the rest of us. Trillions of dollars of our productivity have been stolen by using trade rules designed to make trade "free" for global corporations who manipulate all markets so that they can skim wealth from them, but less free for those of us that are the victims of their scams.
And if that is not bad enough, when a government rejects this model of "free" trade, the U.S. is lobbied to put our covert and overt force into play to change those governments.
33
Mr. Cohen is right, the manifestation of the dominance of the top one-percent, who once lobbied for schools but now lobby for prisons and hope for perpetual war - 'cause profits are the result' - is being felt as injustice by many in the developed nations.
We see injustice in the family, criminal, civil and administrative courts. Some of those who are intent on the destruction of long-established welfare programs do so by favoring the immigrant (or lying to say they do) when a humbled family applies for food stamps. The fallen middle class person waits and waits while the immigrant is served heightening the perception of injustice.
Where I object to Mr. Cohen's analysis is with the notion that the progress to fight poverty world-wide is the fault and problem. This is actually a great accomplishment.
The only problem is that this progress was engineered by the top one-percent who profited from the move (world-wide) but made virtually none of the sacrifice.
For example, does anyone seriously believe that the status of the US as the sole military superpower has not led to world-wide economic progress by suppressing wars and making places as disparate as China, India, Bangladesh, Maylasia, S. Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc., etc., safe places to invest?
Yet the top one-percent took a massive tax break and placed the burden of paying on the middle class, which suffered from the export of their jobs to the locations. That is the injustice.
We see injustice in the family, criminal, civil and administrative courts. Some of those who are intent on the destruction of long-established welfare programs do so by favoring the immigrant (or lying to say they do) when a humbled family applies for food stamps. The fallen middle class person waits and waits while the immigrant is served heightening the perception of injustice.
Where I object to Mr. Cohen's analysis is with the notion that the progress to fight poverty world-wide is the fault and problem. This is actually a great accomplishment.
The only problem is that this progress was engineered by the top one-percent who profited from the move (world-wide) but made virtually none of the sacrifice.
For example, does anyone seriously believe that the status of the US as the sole military superpower has not led to world-wide economic progress by suppressing wars and making places as disparate as China, India, Bangladesh, Maylasia, S. Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc., etc., safe places to invest?
Yet the top one-percent took a massive tax break and placed the burden of paying on the middle class, which suffered from the export of their jobs to the locations. That is the injustice.
28
"But of course what I called a global backlash is not really one. It’s confined to Western developed societies."
No it isn't! If anything, the Western developed societies are a trailing indicator: The left-wing governments elected in Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras, and Bolivia were all exactly the same response to the same problem - the rich soaking up too much of the resources leaving too many of the poor to starve. Same with the Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and the unsuccessful attempts at similar changes in Libya and Syria) - even if not entirely successful and with misguided results, that was a response to widespread economic despair. In South Africa, it manifests itself in miner strikes.
The countries where it isn't happening are those that put down such attempts by force of arms, such as Bahrain. Or in some cases, such as Egypt and Honduras, the electoral choices of the masses were undone with coups (often with full backing of the US State Dept, I might add).
There's a reason why, in the current climate, the following rings more true than it did when it was first written:
"You have nothing to lose but your chains. Workers of the world, unite!"
No it isn't! If anything, the Western developed societies are a trailing indicator: The left-wing governments elected in Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras, and Bolivia were all exactly the same response to the same problem - the rich soaking up too much of the resources leaving too many of the poor to starve. Same with the Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and the unsuccessful attempts at similar changes in Libya and Syria) - even if not entirely successful and with misguided results, that was a response to widespread economic despair. In South Africa, it manifests itself in miner strikes.
The countries where it isn't happening are those that put down such attempts by force of arms, such as Bahrain. Or in some cases, such as Egypt and Honduras, the electoral choices of the masses were undone with coups (often with full backing of the US State Dept, I might add).
There's a reason why, in the current climate, the following rings more true than it did when it was first written:
"You have nothing to lose but your chains. Workers of the world, unite!"
11
During the first wave of Central American children, I asked an immigrant advocate at a demonstration whether she believed in the nation state, that nations have the right to maintain borders> Her response, I believe, is indicative of her kind, to wit, she replied that nations would have the right to maintain their borders and regulate population inflows once wealth was equitably distributed throughout the northern and southern hemispheres. Until then, the only moral course was for northern "developed" nations to unquestioningly absorb whatever migrants or refugees presented themselves for admittance. Well sorry, you can call me an embittered old white man, but I am not on board. The birth rate in much of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East is still eight or nine children per woman. Until these regions start acting as if they actually belong in the developed world and stop this, and other atavistic practices, I'd just as soon they stayed where they are at.
10
amen to that. And those who come here-- primarily poor mexicans-- do not adapt to our more sensible norm of 1-3 children per household-- they procreate as in the old world but expect first world care and resources for the brood.
1
Uh, Mr. Cohen? That thing you're describing? That's actually called, "creative destruction?" You know--the thing Schumpeter et al insist is what's best about this other thing called, "capitalism?"
The only thing "neo-liberal," here is the insistence on blaming this on policy and politics, and pretending that this isn't inherent in capitalism.
The only thing "neo-liberal," here is the insistence on blaming this on policy and politics, and pretending that this isn't inherent in capitalism.
5
The words liberal and conservative have been misconstrued in this country. In the rest of the world 'liberalization' means 'free' markets. Neo-liberal is ideology of tax cuts, deregulation and ultra-austerity for the rest of us.
3
The truth always prevails. The American people blame Republicans and Democrats for the “skewed” system of economic injustice that favors “Wall Street.” They look for work/no employers – they are supporting presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders because they aren’t part of the corrupted political “establishment.”
And now, women are turning against the Republican Party for wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Like a Gestapo, they want to impose their religious belief upon any pregnancy - monitoring any female until the child is born. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a child victim of incest, a teenager, a healthy or sick woman whose life could be at risk - or whether the female is living in poverty, immature or without any motherhood instincts; the child needs to be born period. More alarming, they would prosecute a female for terminating her pregnancy.
They want women to abstain women from receiving any type of contraception – but won’t dare go after men for having a vasectomy, a surgical procedure issued to prevent fertilization.
And now, women are turning against the Republican Party for wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Like a Gestapo, they want to impose their religious belief upon any pregnancy - monitoring any female until the child is born. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a child victim of incest, a teenager, a healthy or sick woman whose life could be at risk - or whether the female is living in poverty, immature or without any motherhood instincts; the child needs to be born period. More alarming, they would prosecute a female for terminating her pregnancy.
They want women to abstain women from receiving any type of contraception – but won’t dare go after men for having a vasectomy, a surgical procedure issued to prevent fertilization.
5
samuelwhicks abq, nm usa
in my mind, the answer is a plan to redistribute wealth in the developed world
that allows these people that are left behind to benefit from improved job
training, health care, retirement planning and continued eduction. after retiring
from the financial services industry for 30 years, i know for a fact that these companies put the firm and themselves first before the clients. globalization will
work best if no one is left behind. education and job training should be the top
prioirities in the developed world. i have learned that globalization is here to stay and the benefits far outweigh the negatives; therefore, the only real answer is
education and job training for the 'workers' in the developed world that are left behind. all this talk of revolution is counterproductive. the key is to always reform a system and move forwards. we should be very happy that 100's of millions of people, in the developing world, have been 'pulled' out of dire
poverty. now, we 'reform' and 'reform' to benefit the middle class in n. america and the eu. in short, the statistics are there. inequality of wealth needs to dealt with thru 'progressive' tax policies. globalization, free trade, the incentive to work and better your family and yourself needs to be supported by progressive
income tax policies. it is time for, basically, all future legislature to 'radically'
increase spending on job training and education.
in my mind, the answer is a plan to redistribute wealth in the developed world
that allows these people that are left behind to benefit from improved job
training, health care, retirement planning and continued eduction. after retiring
from the financial services industry for 30 years, i know for a fact that these companies put the firm and themselves first before the clients. globalization will
work best if no one is left behind. education and job training should be the top
prioirities in the developed world. i have learned that globalization is here to stay and the benefits far outweigh the negatives; therefore, the only real answer is
education and job training for the 'workers' in the developed world that are left behind. all this talk of revolution is counterproductive. the key is to always reform a system and move forwards. we should be very happy that 100's of millions of people, in the developing world, have been 'pulled' out of dire
poverty. now, we 'reform' and 'reform' to benefit the middle class in n. america and the eu. in short, the statistics are there. inequality of wealth needs to dealt with thru 'progressive' tax policies. globalization, free trade, the incentive to work and better your family and yourself needs to be supported by progressive
income tax policies. it is time for, basically, all future legislature to 'radically'
increase spending on job training and education.
4
I like the word evolution more than revolution, but Sanders is talking about a revolution of political participation, not overthrowing the government.
And we do need people to get involved in governing. Voting once every couple years is not enough. The politicians just go back to business as usual (selling us out) the day after.
And we do need people to get involved in governing. Voting once every couple years is not enough. The politicians just go back to business as usual (selling us out) the day after.
7
Bernie is an old socialist (like myself). He and I know what "revolution" means. Don't sanitize it.
1
Most of these problems result from the opening of china , a huge educated , hard working population, unlike the rest of the 3rd world at the time. In no way was Joe 6 pack going to compete with 1.00 a day . Then we had the GOP takeover of the government resulting in hordes of Lobbyist, buying Senators and enacting legislation to gut any progress made by the working class since FDR. Take the two together , fast froward 35 years and here we are. No job security, no wage increases, no pensions, no healthcare, period. Plenty of things going up however, housing, education, food. The internet has given those with out a voice(and some with out a brain) the chance to mobilize and protest.Currently they are voting as a mob, unless the 1% changes its' way the violence comes next.
23
Just what is the "trust issue" with Hillary? Seems to me to be the same as the email "scandal", the Benghazi "scandal", whitewater, vince foster and on and on. None amounted to anything, but the media won't let them die.
13
Actually, no it is the 40 year political reputation of the Clintons that is causing the trust issue. The media actually only recently started to pick up on it.
Thank you Joe. Sometimes I feel so lonely reading the comments.
1
I think the argument about unfair distribution of wealth is a bit disingenuous, given that it only seems to have become a problem once it started impacting the white community, it didn't seem to be much of problem for the 300 years when people of color were the main victims
8
Why do the middle classes find it easier/more palatable to punish the poverty-stricken of the world for their setbacks when it is the top quarter that is actively diverting all cash flow from the middle classes to the developing world and pocketing the savings for themselves?
8
It has been quite clear for some time now, those at the top have intentionally advanced the notion of divide and conquer achieved by deflecting the real culprits for these issues, THEM, by saying it is the blood suckers and poor people and those on welfare that are creating all of the problems of the middle class. Donald Trump has taken it a step further by blaming a multitude of ethnic groups as well.
People whom mistakenly buy in to this notion have to take a step back and take a serious look at who is really causing the problems here and it is not those about whom they are told.
People whom mistakenly buy in to this notion have to take a step back and take a serious look at who is really causing the problems here and it is not those about whom they are told.
3
I'm tired of those who see themselves as victims of some nebulous "government" that they blame for all their problems. These are the people who agree with the statement, ‘People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.’ If you want a say in what government does, you have to turn off the TV, get up off the couch and do something about it. And, I don't mean hold up a sign at a political rally. That does nothing. It certainly doesn't give you any participation in government. Educate yourself about how government works, and I don't mean by listening to the nut jobs on the radio spout their conspiracy theories. I mean, educate yourself about government,--attend a city or county council meeting. What issues are discussed? Listen, learn, participate--but, do so with respect. Screaming like a right-wing radio host gets you nowhere, but escorted from the room. Learn about your state government. Communicate with your state representatives. The most important thing is to educate yourself on issues, people, policies, laws. All this takes time and effort. Sitting in your living room complaining won't get you anywhere. But, the more you learn, the more effective you can become in representing the issues that are important to you. Maybe even run for something yourself. Stop being a passive victim. Drop the cynicism. Find out how government really operates and you'll learn that you can participate and you might make a difference. You won't know if you don't try.
16
MsPea, I could not agree more with your posting, and I certainly could not have put it as well as you did. Nothing is more irritating than whiners who refuse to try to fix the things they are whining about. And yes it is hard and does take a lot of time, but it's a lot more productive than sitting on the couch watching the latest reality show installment.
Your statement that standing at a rally with a sign is not actually doing anything is bang on. Many people feel they are participating in something when they do that, but in fact it's just more whining with national coverage.
Your statement that standing at a rally with a sign is not actually doing anything is bang on. Many people feel they are participating in something when they do that, but in fact it's just more whining with national coverage.
1
"both draw support from constituencies that feel stuck, reject politics as usual, and perceive a system rigged against them."
Pundits need to explain why Trump--the boor, racist, misogynist, neo Nazi, ignoramus--appeals to so many Americans. And to excuse them for it.
1. "Reject politics as usual." Both are campaigning as usual to be the nominee of a major political party, as usual.
Even Sanders reliance on small contributions is not that unusual--Obama did it too.
Trump's funding isn't clear. Maybe his entire campaign is a fundraiser for the deal maker braggart.
2. "Rigged system" True--they both rail against free trade agreements.
Trump boasts he would have negotiated better deals for "US" worse for "them". Details later as well responses of them.
Sanders advocates (pundits spin this as "campaign promises" lambasting him for not being omnipotent) systemic change: Health care (more like Canada); Free(er) post secondary education; Ending regime change foreign policy--to make the world safe for corporate investment by propping up despots. Summed up as a revolution against US plutocracy--what "Conservative" really means--conserving the fortunes of the 1%).
3. Their Fans
Trump: Why not just say his fans are boors, racist, misogynist, neo Nazi ignoramuses too?
Oh--this insults a lot of Americans. And it doesn't excuse them.
But it exposes the dark side of Americana.
Sanders: Why not say his fans agree with him, just as Trump's do? Let's hope there's enough of them.
Pundits need to explain why Trump--the boor, racist, misogynist, neo Nazi, ignoramus--appeals to so many Americans. And to excuse them for it.
1. "Reject politics as usual." Both are campaigning as usual to be the nominee of a major political party, as usual.
Even Sanders reliance on small contributions is not that unusual--Obama did it too.
Trump's funding isn't clear. Maybe his entire campaign is a fundraiser for the deal maker braggart.
2. "Rigged system" True--they both rail against free trade agreements.
Trump boasts he would have negotiated better deals for "US" worse for "them". Details later as well responses of them.
Sanders advocates (pundits spin this as "campaign promises" lambasting him for not being omnipotent) systemic change: Health care (more like Canada); Free(er) post secondary education; Ending regime change foreign policy--to make the world safe for corporate investment by propping up despots. Summed up as a revolution against US plutocracy--what "Conservative" really means--conserving the fortunes of the 1%).
3. Their Fans
Trump: Why not just say his fans are boors, racist, misogynist, neo Nazi ignoramuses too?
Oh--this insults a lot of Americans. And it doesn't excuse them.
But it exposes the dark side of Americana.
Sanders: Why not say his fans agree with him, just as Trump's do? Let's hope there's enough of them.
8
I completely agree with Isaiah Berlin--there is a sweet spot--but I have no idea what "neo-liberal" means. I infer from the "rising tide" quote that you must define it as Reaganism. Globalization was done without the transfers necessary to keep the working class whole. That was Reaganism, and that is why we now have a backlash. Let's stay away from those who want to replay that movie.
10
In the USA the reason for resentment sit deep and unrecognized in the psychic background of the citizenry. America with its myth of American Exceptionalism was supposed to be a great nation, and ultimately one were we all worked together, rich and poor and middle classes for our real or imagined ideals and the good old USA. Much of the populist discontent stems from a changing society where the rich of our country have stopped caring about the USA and the people who live here. The one percent and the one tenth of one percent with the elites in tow have become steadily more global, and constantly more mendacious—
While caring only for what they can take, what they can get from our nation. (Look at Hilary Clinton and her speaking fees. She may actually think she deserves hundred of thousands for a few opinions) These ‘citizens’ or noncitizens are much worse than the Robber Barons of Twain's Gilded Age. Today Cornelius Vanderbilt would be global not national. He would not care about America’s railroads. Americans sense this even if they do not verbalize it.
While caring only for what they can take, what they can get from our nation. (Look at Hilary Clinton and her speaking fees. She may actually think she deserves hundred of thousands for a few opinions) These ‘citizens’ or noncitizens are much worse than the Robber Barons of Twain's Gilded Age. Today Cornelius Vanderbilt would be global not national. He would not care about America’s railroads. Americans sense this even if they do not verbalize it.
7
Comments written in SmartPhone could not be sent so now with laptop before me here is what I wrote.
Calm and serious presentation by Roger, we need more like this with comments at same level and even perhaps a Marie Tessier follow up would be good.
A modified final sentence of Roger's is a good place to start: Many things in Americanare not at all what they should be, and we learn this by comparing the situation of people less well off than myself living inother countries.
I write from Göteborg, one of my two cities here, the other being Linköping. Consider these and compare with your experience in the city of your choice:
Seamless mass transportation system, Universal Health Care with good access for all, higher level education including Med School basically free, a general view that infrastructure must be well maintained, advanced level of renewable energy systems working well.
So when I am in Providence, Albany, and Burlington VT this summer I will be looking more carefully at the two I know very well and the one, Albany, I am learning to know.
Day-to-day life here is very fine for me and appears to be better for my many friends and acquaintances who came here as refugees and are now having children than it appears to be for their counterparts in the cities I name.
Bernie Sanders appears to understand the benefits I refer to above and is willing to point them out as is no other prospective President.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US-SE
Calm and serious presentation by Roger, we need more like this with comments at same level and even perhaps a Marie Tessier follow up would be good.
A modified final sentence of Roger's is a good place to start: Many things in Americanare not at all what they should be, and we learn this by comparing the situation of people less well off than myself living inother countries.
I write from Göteborg, one of my two cities here, the other being Linköping. Consider these and compare with your experience in the city of your choice:
Seamless mass transportation system, Universal Health Care with good access for all, higher level education including Med School basically free, a general view that infrastructure must be well maintained, advanced level of renewable energy systems working well.
So when I am in Providence, Albany, and Burlington VT this summer I will be looking more carefully at the two I know very well and the one, Albany, I am learning to know.
Day-to-day life here is very fine for me and appears to be better for my many friends and acquaintances who came here as refugees and are now having children than it appears to be for their counterparts in the cities I name.
Bernie Sanders appears to understand the benefits I refer to above and is willing to point them out as is no other prospective President.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US-SE
10
Larry,
I applied for a job in Sweden (IKEA) because the agism here in the US is so bad. The job was advertised internationally.
Although I have 20 years experience in the job offered I was rejected by the Swedish company as well. I am sure it was due to my age.
Ageism is universal- even in Sweden.
Best Regards,
Anna
I applied for a job in Sweden (IKEA) because the agism here in the US is so bad. The job was advertised internationally.
Although I have 20 years experience in the job offered I was rejected by the Swedish company as well. I am sure it was due to my age.
Ageism is universal- even in Sweden.
Best Regards,
Anna
2
@ Anna - Thanks for the information. Certainly possible but without knowing who was finally hired I am not sure your conclusion can be supported. By writing that I do not mean at all that ageism is not a factor in Sweden, I simply cannot even recall seeing anything about it.
What one reads of every week, occasionally with a comparison with the US, is that any applicant with a name not like my Swedish name, Lundgren, immediately goes lower on the list. Occasionally there have been articles comparing the success of Somali-born here and in the US. The most recent notes that there are more bureaucratic hurdles here than in the US. I visit a Somali-Bantu in Winooski VT who had done well - Halal Market, Banadir Store, a restaurant - thanks to obvious personal drive but last summer that area had been gentrified and all ethnic shops were gone.
Best regards,
Larry
The resident expert here is vacationing in Spain so when she comes back I will ask her what she knows about ageism. Since she has so many Swedish friends she may know.
What one reads of every week, occasionally with a comparison with the US, is that any applicant with a name not like my Swedish name, Lundgren, immediately goes lower on the list. Occasionally there have been articles comparing the success of Somali-born here and in the US. The most recent notes that there are more bureaucratic hurdles here than in the US. I visit a Somali-Bantu in Winooski VT who had done well - Halal Market, Banadir Store, a restaurant - thanks to obvious personal drive but last summer that area had been gentrified and all ethnic shops were gone.
Best regards,
Larry
The resident expert here is vacationing in Spain so when she comes back I will ask her what she knows about ageism. Since she has so many Swedish friends she may know.
1
That "rotten"something is clearly the Republican Party.
9
everyone talks about the t imbalance of wealth and resource distribution in the nation along with the resulting consequences, yet no one is willing to redesign, or even discuss, the the distribution system.
where's the conversation about possible alternatives?
where's the conversation about possible alternatives?
3
Leaders and media really need to address real causes, which in part employees vying for jobs against local and internal competition. Politicians can holler to the moon, but solutions are in technical skills and professional fields. Low skilled workers need government backed employment in manner of 1930s. And we will still be underwater for those wanting full-time living wage opportunities. New reality is "no more countries just companies." Network
1
I can't help but notice that in paragraphs 2 and 3, both Trump's and Clinton's names are linked to more articles about them, while Sanders' name is not. What's up with that, NYT?
3
Bernie is not a Democrat. Trump is at best a lukewarm Republican. The vaunted two-party system is in danger of collapsing unless its leadership actually starts courting candidates to run for office and creating platforms that are in line with Americans' current needs and aspirations.
5
This article, though superficial, seems correct in many of its claims about the political panorama of the Global North. Yet the picture of the Global South, both in political and economic terms, leaves much to be desired.
The bottom and middle thirds of the global population have advanced??!! Tell this to the people of any African state, to the people of Mexico or of India. If you acknowledge that well-being cannot be judged in terms of absolute access to goods but has to be indexed to a rising global standard, then the situation of the masses in the global south has worsened. Combine that with the environmental elements -- the lack of access to clean air and water -- and their situation is disasterous.
In the face of this situation, Berlin's idea of restraining liberty ever so slightly in favor of equality -- a principle shared by John Rawls -- will fall far short of a solution to the increasing polarization of the globe.
The bottom and middle thirds of the global population have advanced??!! Tell this to the people of any African state, to the people of Mexico or of India. If you acknowledge that well-being cannot be judged in terms of absolute access to goods but has to be indexed to a rising global standard, then the situation of the masses in the global south has worsened. Combine that with the environmental elements -- the lack of access to clean air and water -- and their situation is disasterous.
In the face of this situation, Berlin's idea of restraining liberty ever so slightly in favor of equality -- a principle shared by John Rawls -- will fall far short of a solution to the increasing polarization of the globe.
1
Would this exist if the world's population was 1/2 what it is now, say 3.5 billion? Overpopulation IS the cause, and both conservatives and liberals are culpable.
1
Backlash? Trump and Sanders are the only anomalies referred to in this article. The UK/European examples are in fact typical of the post-war history of those countries - Greece with a hard-left government, France with a strong crypto-facist movement (influential but not in power) and the UK with a socialist Labour leader (importantly, in opposition with no chance of taking government). You could be referring to 1956, 1976 or 2016 in any of those cases. The major US parties, however, have tended to chart a middle-course with occasional slight left tilts (e.g. Carter) and slight right tilts (e.g. Reagan). Clinton will clearly be the Democratic candidate and, given the desperate disorganisation of the GOP, will also be the next President. The GOP will retreat and re-organise, taking on whatever lessons it can from its disastrous primary season. The ship will right itself. The rest of the world will stumble along as it usually does. The worst thing the US can do now is retreat into isolationism. It's strongest prospects now rest on a strong, active and (most importantly) positive engagement with the rest of the world. Free trade, mutual defence pacts and unwavering support of democracy are key to the future (ongoing) success of the US model.
1
Many here have commented on the decline of unions. No one talks about where that decline came from. Surely there was a coordinated attack from the Right, with laws that allow opt-outs and that limit union efforts to recruit and serve members.
But who is it that has voted against unions, opted out, and refused to join? The fools who were told and believed that they didn't get anything from their dues. The ones who thought that they would be better off saving the dues and trusting to the kindness of the boss without that nasty union in the way. Or the would-be free riders like those who lost at the Supreme Court this week who felt they didn't need to pay dues to support the union that won them higher wages and better working conditions.
If union haters stopped resenting their dues and looked at the bigger picture of what they actually get from a union's efforts, they'd see how much better off workers are with a union. They complain about having no power, but despise the one group that used to provide them with work-place strength.
Coming from a family of auto worker and teacher union members, it is difficult for me to see why the very workers unions help most are so hostile. I can only conclude it is from a steady diet of misinformation from Faux News and Rush Limbaugh et al.
But who is it that has voted against unions, opted out, and refused to join? The fools who were told and believed that they didn't get anything from their dues. The ones who thought that they would be better off saving the dues and trusting to the kindness of the boss without that nasty union in the way. Or the would-be free riders like those who lost at the Supreme Court this week who felt they didn't need to pay dues to support the union that won them higher wages and better working conditions.
If union haters stopped resenting their dues and looked at the bigger picture of what they actually get from a union's efforts, they'd see how much better off workers are with a union. They complain about having no power, but despise the one group that used to provide them with work-place strength.
Coming from a family of auto worker and teacher union members, it is difficult for me to see why the very workers unions help most are so hostile. I can only conclude it is from a steady diet of misinformation from Faux News and Rush Limbaugh et al.
12
One of the most common thoughts I hear from the age group of 35-50 is this: "Unions used to be useful in the old days, but have outlived their usefulness and are no longer effective." When I try to explain to them that the reason they have lost their effectiveness is because of the 8 destructive years of Reagan and the constant echo of people like yourself repeating the idea that unions are no longer useful, they get almost hostile with me. Where did we get such a generation of people that can't even see what is in their best interest and utilize it? It puzzles me endlessly. I was in the Teamsters Union for 25 years in a strong local in northern CA. There is no other real way to make a go of it in a blue collar job than a good union.
5
your commentary does not address the development of leaders and the most important question of the current leaderless quality of this country.
1
This author is correct about the huge improvements in living standards in developing world. While I've seen significant evidence of this in LatinAmerica my own region of origin, nowhere is more evident than in the country of India. Until the late 80s India had like 95% of its population in absolute levels of poverty. Today there is somewhere like a 30 percent middle class. To put that in perspective, that's more than 300 million people or same as the entire US population.
But as the author mentions for the First world countries this is nothing more than wealth transferral. And it is.
But as the author mentions for the First world countries this is nothing more than wealth transferral. And it is.
3
And where, pray tell, did your first world find its wealth in the first place? Under a mushrump? In the cabbage patch?
I can not comment on Europe, however the backlash here is caused by both parties being at the extreme. The GOP has been so obsessed on breaking President Obama they have just about shut down the government and have little concern how it hurts the average person. The GOP controlled states have been busy breaking unions, denying health care, striking out at the gay community and restricting voter access. Many in the DEM party want to create a welfare/socialists state as shown by the popularity on Bernie and double the size of government. I believe the average American is in the middle and just wants the government to function.
6
Thank you Mr. Cohen for the seminal wake up call.
Absent consensus and rational agreement for fundamental social, economic and political reform, the alternatives will tend toward ever greater dysfunction and chaos that is very likely to end in some form of fascism.
The current election spectacle in the U.S. both hints at this and serves as a smoke screen to obscure the depth of the problem.
Absent consensus and rational agreement for fundamental social, economic and political reform, the alternatives will tend toward ever greater dysfunction and chaos that is very likely to end in some form of fascism.
The current election spectacle in the U.S. both hints at this and serves as a smoke screen to obscure the depth of the problem.
4
Yes, Pope Francis and Jonna Ivin get it. Both underscore profound opposition to the rise of the poor and disadvantaged. It appears to be in the nature of man to dominate and oppress in the service of dominion and personal gain. There is no enduring appreciation and support for the reality that we are all members of the community of mankind. We remain primitives enthralled in the continuing narrative of primus inter parres voiced in every domain including sports and politics. Gladiators abound. The only means we have to modify these derivatives of evolution is to attend to children and their needs within stable families and competent and vibrant communities. Does any politician grasp these most elemental realities? Hillary seemed to get it wrtiing that it takes a village but has that slipped away in her current pleas with us? Bernie knows it profoundly but few others do or even dare to mention that reality. Cohen nails it. Thank you.
3
"A rising tide may raise all yachts. It does not raise all boats."
Nice!
Nice!
7
The difference between Clinton/Obama et al. and Trump is not that Trump is "unserious and incoherent." It is that the unserious and incoherent essence of Clinton/Obama et al. is cloaked in proper political doublespeak. To borrow from Scalia, those clowns come as pols.
One has simply to look at the current state of affairs after eight years of Obama/Clinton to understand just how unserious and incoherent those two clowns really are.
One day in the not too distant future, when our children and grandchildren are suffering the consequences of Barack Obama and the Clintons, they will ask us why we put those unfit people in office in the first place, and why, when their existential threat to us and the world became obvious, we did not immediately remove them for unfitness, our constitutional right... and our duty.
One has simply to look at the current state of affairs after eight years of Obama/Clinton to understand just how unserious and incoherent those two clowns really are.
One day in the not too distant future, when our children and grandchildren are suffering the consequences of Barack Obama and the Clintons, they will ask us why we put those unfit people in office in the first place, and why, when their existential threat to us and the world became obvious, we did not immediately remove them for unfitness, our constitutional right... and our duty.
3
He's bleck, too, ain't he?
More seriously, I despise this sort of gun-waving from white guys who won't get up off the couch, or so much as put down Dinesh d'Souza's latest ridiculous screed and read up on the actual state of the nation.
More seriously, I despise this sort of gun-waving from white guys who won't get up off the couch, or so much as put down Dinesh d'Souza's latest ridiculous screed and read up on the actual state of the nation.
2
But McCain and Romney would have been much, much better, right? Get a grip on the real world here.
4
oh yes, now GW Bush...there was a great president. That may be what ignorant children and grandchildren will be saying, but it sure will not be educated historians with real perspective. The Clintons and Obama = Bush? what nonsense.
3
In a message for those who "wish to dominate"- Villanova's captain won the championship last night by passing the ball. The Virtue of Selfishness is a work of fiction- here in reality it takes all of us to survive and thrive.
4
Ms Clinton represents the problem: Someone too cozy with those at the top who wield excessive influence due to their wealth or power as executives.
The Clintons left the White House begging for money and are now firmly entrenched in the 1%. Most of that money was made catering to and associating with the very people average citizens feel have outsized influence and power in our political system. Many ordinary citizens see thew Clinton Global Initiative as a wealth reading machine for the Clintons and their cronies and they may well be right.
Change rarely comes from within; Gorbachev is an outlier in that respect. Ms Clinton is about as insider as one can get as the Clintons have both been connected to the power structure of our nation and insiders longer than many voters have been alive. I am 54 and Bill was Governor when I came of age- that is an incredible amount of time to be involved in politics at a high level.
Yes, I connected Hillary to her husband and that is more than fair. They marketed themselves as a 2 for 1 deal when he ran for President so she gets to own his record - warts and all.
Here is a Vanity Fair Article from that time
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1992/05/hillary-clinton-first-lady-presid...
The Clintons left the White House begging for money and are now firmly entrenched in the 1%. Most of that money was made catering to and associating with the very people average citizens feel have outsized influence and power in our political system. Many ordinary citizens see thew Clinton Global Initiative as a wealth reading machine for the Clintons and their cronies and they may well be right.
Change rarely comes from within; Gorbachev is an outlier in that respect. Ms Clinton is about as insider as one can get as the Clintons have both been connected to the power structure of our nation and insiders longer than many voters have been alive. I am 54 and Bill was Governor when I came of age- that is an incredible amount of time to be involved in politics at a high level.
Yes, I connected Hillary to her husband and that is more than fair. They marketed themselves as a 2 for 1 deal when he ran for President so she gets to own his record - warts and all.
Here is a Vanity Fair Article from that time
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1992/05/hillary-clinton-first-lady-presid...
10
Cohen's statistics are deceptive. Virtually all of the improvement in the conditions of the worlds poor has been in China where a socialist revolution laid the foundations for later economic growth by radically redistributing land, and extending education and healthcare to the poorest and most remote villages. In much of the rest of the global south the more modest growth of urban middle classes has been accompanied by the further immiseration of the rural and urban poor. The picture Cohen paints of a rising tide lifting all boats in the global south is nonsense. It also ignores the global consolidation of wealth in the hands of the 1% and its ecomic and ecological unsustainability and inconsistency with a decent standard of living for most of the rest of humanity.
3
Much of the economic improvement in China was about doing away with Mao's doctrines and moving people out of rural areas into the cities.
3
Back that up one second. China had a communist revolution (not a socialist one) and the Maoist insanity of the 50s through 70s ruined the country like only a crazed personality cult could (see also North Korea for a current example). It was Deng's tilt towards capitalism in the late 80s that set the stage for the enormous economic growth that country has seen in recent times. Your analysis also ignores what has been achieved by a true democracy and another southern power - India.
4
Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for an excellent synopsis of why the world seems to be in turmoil. The Good News is that average people around the world finally understand that the top 1% global financial elite have hijacked resources and democracy around the world, causing the rest of us immense hardship. Fortunately there are global movements to tax back the stolen wealth and resources. American politics and governments need an overhaul - not a revolution. Along with clawing back stolen wealth and imposing a hefty tax on offshore wealth as Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton proposes we must implement Social Democracy and Social Capitalism in America so that one-half of the GROSS profits created from OUR taxpayer investments (government contracts) be returned to OUR governments to support Social Good. Right now all the profits are going into private pockets and causing immeasurable wealth disparity. We must DEMAND change to preserve true democracy in America.
3
This is an excellent time to finally 'Cement' our progress. Hillary can do the sorely needed follow up to President Obama's incredible record of moving us forward into the 21st Century.
2
You lost me there.." Along with clawing back stolen wealth and imposing a hefty tax on offshore wealth as Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton proposes..". In the past 20 years Hillary and Bill have amassed wealth, connections, in ways not seen before. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/17/clinton-foundation-am...
and
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/11/Clinton-Foundation-Subpoenaed-S...
In the light of the Panama Papers, we should all be wary of our politicians and their kith and kins..it has come to light that its a global phenomenon of the rich, powerful engaging in money laundering, tax evasion and off shore tax shelters. Lets hope that Foundations like Clinton Family initiative have all operated in lines with the ever changing tax laws...
and
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/11/Clinton-Foundation-Subpoenaed-S...
In the light of the Panama Papers, we should all be wary of our politicians and their kith and kins..it has come to light that its a global phenomenon of the rich, powerful engaging in money laundering, tax evasion and off shore tax shelters. Lets hope that Foundations like Clinton Family initiative have all operated in lines with the ever changing tax laws...
3
So you think the powerful Americans involved with the off-shore accounts will be revealed in the Panama Papers as crooks? HA! The American Press is owned by those same 1 percent (who may be on the list) and will excuse all the other powerful as "legitimate" users of off-shore banking and argue there is no proof of criminal activity. The American Press will tear you apart if you are mid-side game like a gazelle with no ability to strike back. If you are an apex predator like a lion and well covered by other dangerous in the I percent the press is merely lapdogs. How many powerful Bankers have we sent to jail since 2009 as we have sent tens of thousands mostly minorities off to jail for a little weed?
2
The social contract is a two way street. The individual acts in accordance with social norms and lives up to expectations, and the greater society provides the backdrop and the means to achieve a rich and balanced life. GOP spokesmen are great at detailing the roles each individual is expected to live up to, but is mute on the obligations a functional society must provide.
The GOP is has spend decades now ripping up all the social contracts and covenants needed for a functioning society by shipping jobs overseas thereby denying and individual a means to make a living, making it more difficult to vote, denying funding for our infrastructure which is the tableau of our lives, increasing mass incarceration, trying to shame women and trying to deny them autonomy over their reproductive choices, helping corporations pollute the environment in which we must live by repeatedly trying to loosen and repeal standards on the books for decades. Unfortunately, I could go on and on.
When the GOP wakes up to it's part in the covenant by owning its responsibility to fairly govern everyone in the country, not just the 1%, then we can talk.
The GOP is has spend decades now ripping up all the social contracts and covenants needed for a functioning society by shipping jobs overseas thereby denying and individual a means to make a living, making it more difficult to vote, denying funding for our infrastructure which is the tableau of our lives, increasing mass incarceration, trying to shame women and trying to deny them autonomy over their reproductive choices, helping corporations pollute the environment in which we must live by repeatedly trying to loosen and repeal standards on the books for decades. Unfortunately, I could go on and on.
When the GOP wakes up to it's part in the covenant by owning its responsibility to fairly govern everyone in the country, not just the 1%, then we can talk.
47
Yet the Democrats are just as responsible for economic policy that eviscerated working people, regardless of their surface-projections. Republicans are just more shameless about it.
5
"When the GOP wakes up".That will never happen and we know that.
3
Give credit where credit is due! It isn't just the GOP. They have been enabled by a feeble and venal crop of Democrats, lead by the greatest enabler of all, Chuck Schumer.
The model for these Democrats is Bill Clinton, who happily threw the poor under the bus to please the wealthy. He presided over the worst deregulation of the banking industry for which he and his wife have been amply rewarded. Third Way Democrats are the orginial DINOs. They should be blamed, shamed, and primaried out of office. Starting NOW.
The model for these Democrats is Bill Clinton, who happily threw the poor under the bus to please the wealthy. He presided over the worst deregulation of the banking industry for which he and his wife have been amply rewarded. Third Way Democrats are the orginial DINOs. They should be blamed, shamed, and primaried out of office. Starting NOW.
4
The warning actually is two-pronged: there is the economic issue of equitable rewards described here, but there is also the rabid unthinking nasty mob that is catered to by Trump and world-wide rabble rousers. History indicates that it is this vicious mob mentality that is easiest to rally, and that leads to dictatorships and despotism. That is the more immediate problem. It may be that discontent can be ameliorated by "justice and fairness", but time for that is limited and running out. The present congress is catalyzing a terrible future, and it's worrisome whether the next president can put things in the right direction.
17
Good work here again Mr. Cohen. Concise and distilled precis of what's happening now. Thanks again and keep after it.
The fear for me- and big part of the uncertainty of today- is how to fix and hold this "huge gain for humanity" that is of course relative to the very lack of it at that moment of hopeful advancement. It can't be just a regional relocation or trade-off of these blessings from one group to another. That's just more buy low and sell high.
The fear for me- and big part of the uncertainty of today- is how to fix and hold this "huge gain for humanity" that is of course relative to the very lack of it at that moment of hopeful advancement. It can't be just a regional relocation or trade-off of these blessings from one group to another. That's just more buy low and sell high.
11
As good and fair an analysis of the year of voter backlash as I've read. Thank you, Roger Cohen.
15
Our predicament is not a new one. As Berolt Brecht said in Three Penny Opera in 1928, "What is the burgling of a bank to the founding of a bank?"
It's just that with globalization, the problem is magnified. The people taking advantage of us appear to feel less connection to any particular country and its people, and therefore no real sense of obligation to anyone but themselves.
Greed is a peculiar thing. In the US, we could have enacted laws that would have greatly undermined those who are now rending our social fabric by their lack of concern for American well-being. In fact, we did enact some of those laws, and the resulting prosperity of the American middle class in the mid-20th century was impressive. But our very own Congress has largely undone those laws and has convinced many of us that regulation -- not its opposite -- is the creator of our economic woes.
Perhaps we humans are just too stupid to figure this one out without experiencing some kind of breakdown first.
It's just that with globalization, the problem is magnified. The people taking advantage of us appear to feel less connection to any particular country and its people, and therefore no real sense of obligation to anyone but themselves.
Greed is a peculiar thing. In the US, we could have enacted laws that would have greatly undermined those who are now rending our social fabric by their lack of concern for American well-being. In fact, we did enact some of those laws, and the resulting prosperity of the American middle class in the mid-20th century was impressive. But our very own Congress has largely undone those laws and has convinced many of us that regulation -- not its opposite -- is the creator of our economic woes.
Perhaps we humans are just too stupid to figure this one out without experiencing some kind of breakdown first.
26
Not stupid, dpr. Trusting, disinterested because things were going good and not wanting to admit we allowed it - that is why people are so angry.
2
The first sentence is one of the 10 most erudite on the op-ed page in the last year; we would add that the ' populists ' at each end of the spectrum in the U.S. fully indicate that such things allowed to fester can change entire generations of voters, as well as their kids - the follow on effects of not taking care of the electorate are actually almost incalculable in terms of the future.
15
It is not clear from the final paragraph just who "those who wish to dominate" actually are. I think Mr Cohen means the usual suspects, "the 1%", but the logical force of his argument points to a wider group: the globe's top "20%", which would include all of Trump's supporters, and Sanders', and Corbyn's and Le Pen's, as well as NYT readers. In either case (top 1% of US or top 20% of world) it is not clear why Mr Cohen targets "liberty" at the end of his article. And just what kind of "liberty" does he want to curtail? Liberty of action (the 1% exploiting the rest of us) or liberty of speech (the 20% complaining when their livelihoods are exported overseas)?
4
Hillary Clinton's predicament, apart from the trust issue.....Give me a break, Mr. Cohen...If you have something to say, say it... no more continuous repeating of innuendo and slurs.
16
She's constitutionally dishonest. She lies and misleads instinctively. She instructs others -- proxies-- to lie and mislead on her behalf. While she has certainly been the victim of sexist attacks and right wing slanders, the vast right-wing conspiracy did not force her to claim that her vote for the war on Iraq was something else or that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia or in 2008 to circulate photos of Obama intended to inflame racial animus against him or to "oppose" when it as election time free trade agreements she had aggressively promoted when in office. Anyone with a decent memory or access to Google can quickly assemble an accurate list of multiple instances of serious dishonesty on Clinton's part, often accompanied by disastrous human consequences. Most people do not trust her because she is not trustworthy. She is, as someone else said, like Nixon in a pantsuit. I would no more buy a used car from her than I would have from Tricky Dick. She is a terrible candidate to put up against Trump and while I think she can beat him I worry that she won't because she is almost as thoroughly loathed and distrusted as he is. I hoe my fellow New Yorkers have the sense to vote for Sanders on April 19 to forestall that outcome.
4
Hillary's trust issue is reinforced daily by ... Her campaign! She changes her mind and her positions to suit the audience. She is a plagerizer. She steals and repeats other candidates positions verbatim. Where she a collage student, she would be in danger of being dismissed from school. It simply is not allowed.
You, of course, do not believe me. Go to material on the internet. In September, she was a self-described "moderate". By January, she was insulted by being called a moderate; she was now a progressive with nothing to back up the claim. In September, she never used the phrase "rigged economy", which her opponent has used for years (Check out his speech to Congress on the bailout back in 2010.) She was for the TPP, calling it the "gold standard" of trade deals. Now, she is against it. She was for the Keystone pipeline until she discovered she was standing alone. She was against gay marriage, until it became the law. Her stand on fracking is all over the place - depending on the place where she is speaking. She is the only Democratic candidate who would not sign a pledge not to take donations from the gas and oil industry back in the fall. Both O'Malley and Sanders signed it on the spot. As they say, one could go on....
So, tell us, when a "progressive" has a record like that, why should anyone believe her? Will the real Hillary please stand up? Like a gridle, she will snap back to her old positions as soon as the primary is over.
You, of course, do not believe me. Go to material on the internet. In September, she was a self-described "moderate". By January, she was insulted by being called a moderate; she was now a progressive with nothing to back up the claim. In September, she never used the phrase "rigged economy", which her opponent has used for years (Check out his speech to Congress on the bailout back in 2010.) She was for the TPP, calling it the "gold standard" of trade deals. Now, she is against it. She was for the Keystone pipeline until she discovered she was standing alone. She was against gay marriage, until it became the law. Her stand on fracking is all over the place - depending on the place where she is speaking. She is the only Democratic candidate who would not sign a pledge not to take donations from the gas and oil industry back in the fall. Both O'Malley and Sanders signed it on the spot. As they say, one could go on....
So, tell us, when a "progressive" has a record like that, why should anyone believe her? Will the real Hillary please stand up? Like a gridle, she will snap back to her old positions as soon as the primary is over.
5
Hillary's problem, in point of fact, is that she's got NOTHING IN COMMON WITH POST-WAR LIBERALS. Free college, affordable health care, price controls, low interest student loans, diplomacy before illegal intervention, increasing awareness of the environment, a war on poverty, an expanding social safety net and protection of American jobs - all things that Hillary and her donors ignore or actively oppose - were a given, even for many conservatives in the post-war period. No, Hillary is losing ground because of, what by any historical or international standard, must be seen as her extreme conservatism. The American people have embraced Bernie Sanders because we can't be fooled by the Clinton's flip-flops and misrepresentations of her record or her allegiances any more.
20
That statement is a pure and utter lie. Hilary Clnton not for health care? Really? She didn't just fight for it, she achieved it for kids in NY. She is for free community college for all, which is an achievable goal, both monetarily and for most of the people who need it. She spent hours upon hours on diplomacy, or what do you think all that travel was? She was repairing our relationships. I don't know why the left has decided it is now for going against the will of the people in Arab countries and for propping up dictators but that wasn't traditionally lefty politics. She supported financial reform(and yes she did support it, she did not back out). She is not a protectionist, but then that was never a traditional leftist stance either because it is a bad idea. You are not bringing back manufacturing jobs that way and that is the truth. She has spoken/worked for environmental issues as well. For lord's sake, she is the 9th or 10th most liberal senator and the most hated politician by the right, it is utter delusion to suggest that she is anything but a committed liberal. The difference is that she doesn't lie about the challenges ahead. She accurately predicted the challenges Obama would face and was scoffed at. Knowing how right she was then, now you double down and call her a republican for planning for reality?
6
Hillary, and her "extreme conservatism"? Another cheap shot that's making the Breniac's rounds go deeper and farther into dishonesty. I guess when someone gets close to the Icarus Sun, then crash and drop like a stone on fire is the future that Mr. Cohen must be referring too. Both Trump & Sanders never thought they would get this far. When it happened anyway, out went the original message and everyone there gets all serial about winning, at any cost: including integrity.
3
Once truth goes everything else follows in short order. Simply put we believe in lies, In winning at any cost. And we will pay the consequences.
9
Did did you read the Panama papers? Well similar ones are overdue, inevitable for Americans politicians and the uber rich, wealthy and connected. Like the Clinton foundation donors. Something similar came to light when Romney ran for president with some talk of offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands. But that was just a brief preview of what is still to come.
16
You are exactly right: Ms. Clinton can't generate enthusiasm because she offers us a kinder Corporatist America: 10 Billion in benefits to small business, but not a penny for reigning in the avarice of drug manufacturers, banks or agribusiness. I wish she could actually voice call for equality and the desire for an upwardly mobile society, rather than just refer to her past goodness. Remember past results do not guarantee future outcomes. There's no room for heros, she just wants every Democrat who opposes her to get with the program. It's a message lacking inspiration; it belongs to Mitt Romney. But he is a Republican, and
9
amen
1
You can also expect a backlash against Sanders from victims of gun violence as people learn of Sanders fundraising history with the NRA and the suspected blood money coming in from rank and file NRA members angered by Hillary Clinton's tough stance on guns. Those who accept this money and those that support them are as responsible for the thousands of gun violence deaths as the person who squeezes the trigger of the assault rifle. That is something we will never forget.
4
Explain Sanders' D rating from NRA. He supports stronger background checks, but he does not support liability for sellers of guns, just as sellers of knives or ropes are not held liable for deaths. He also represents a rural state.
2
Please give us your references. Sanders has a D- rating from the NRA. LAPierre came out publicly against him several months ago.
2
Give me a break. Sanders has a D- from the NRA, practically unheard of for a Senator from a very rural state. Clinton is hyping the one issue where she can claim a marginally more progressive record than Sanders and it is transparently cynical. Some of us can remember back in 2008 when she ran against Obama as the pro-gun candidate, acting, in his words "like she was Annie Oakley." Neither candidate has a perfect record, but one of them has a ton more integrity and a much more solid claim to advocating for poor and working people and standing up to the 1% than the other. Gun violence is a scourge in poor communities of color but that has as much to do with the loss of jobs under free trade agreements promoted by Clinton that fuel crime and desperation as it does with gun regulations.
1
WI has some of the harshest voter ID laws, targeted at minorities and students.
Won't it be ironic if Clinton wins WI and therefore the White House due to voter suppression - specifically because thousands of students get turned away in WI?
Won't it be ironic if Clinton wins WI and therefore the White House due to voter suppression - specifically because thousands of students get turned away in WI?
8
That would nothing to applaud. You are cheering GOP voter supression and that underscores the meme that Hillary is Republican lite. Is that really your stance? Like the GOP, win at any cost?
1
This article is interesting, but does not state the main point: A small group of Americans have hijacked the politcal system, the courts and the banks to create a monopoly of power, and a consolidation of the productivity gains (profits) of the last forty years. This mean unions were crushed, jobs moved to other countries, profits untaxed offshore. America needs to break up and perhaps destroy this monopoly, or else we are doomed. The NYT should research the players and the methods of this American Oligarchy.
128
malika, sadly the NYT is part of it. The Clintons donated $100,000 to the NYT group before she received the endorsement. http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-donated-100k-to-new-york-times-gr...
3
@ Malika ---I doubt the NYT would do such a thing. They are part of this system...look no further than their endorsement of HRC. They barely report on Sanders success and every other article is to bash Trump. No....the NYT is part of the problem; a society of condescending elites who cannot relate to the average/suffering middle class.
4
If Bernie fails to win the nomination, there are three things that need to happen to prevent me writing his name in come November.
1. Hillary must release her speeches.
2. She must debate Sanders in New York.
3. She must admit that Sanders is more than a one issue candidate.
The DNC, along with Hillary and the corporate media, cannot ask voters to act against their own integrity. They caused the problem….now own it.
1. Hillary must release her speeches.
2. She must debate Sanders in New York.
3. She must admit that Sanders is more than a one issue candidate.
The DNC, along with Hillary and the corporate media, cannot ask voters to act against their own integrity. They caused the problem….now own it.
12
How can she "admit" he is more than a one issue candidate when he doesn't speak about any other issue?
I could write just such a list, such as Bernie supporters admit that I am not voting for her because she is Just a woman but because she is eminently qualified. And that she is clearly and distinctly a liberal, Or that there this entire "distrust" issue is something created by republicans. Or Or Or Or.....
But I am not a petulant child, and understand how important it is that we do not elect a democratic.
I could write just such a list, such as Bernie supporters admit that I am not voting for her because she is Just a woman but because she is eminently qualified. And that she is clearly and distinctly a liberal, Or that there this entire "distrust" issue is something created by republicans. Or Or Or Or.....
But I am not a petulant child, and understand how important it is that we do not elect a democratic.
1
If Clinton were going to release the Goldman Sachs speeches, she would have done so by now. She won't and she can't because she knows that if voters were to learn what she said, she would lose both the nomination and the general election. Instead she invents a transparently bogus explanation for not doing so, saying that she will release the speeches only if other candidates do the same. She knows full well that only one other candidate is seeking the Democratic nomination and that he never gave speeches to Wall Street firms.
Clinton's high polling for dishonesty is well deserved. It is one of many reasons why this long-term Democrat will never vote for her.
Clinton's high polling for dishonesty is well deserved. It is one of many reasons why this long-term Democrat will never vote for her.
1
Go ahead, help elect another dumb Republican to the Presidency. That'll teach us! Just what happens then? Another ground war in the Muslim world? Greater non-reglatory, open hunting season on the environment? Another lost opportunity to pull ourselves into the 21st Century. Good plan Bernie Bros. Words & Deeds.
4
"…mass immigration"
Is on the mark, while 'racism' misses the real issue. 160 years ago people complained about the Irish, 110 years ago it was complaints about the Italians and other southern Europeans. Circumstances are different these days as most of the immigrants are darker skinned. The same types of prejudices have formed around 'them', but what were the prejudices called when the subject was other whites?
Is on the mark, while 'racism' misses the real issue. 160 years ago people complained about the Irish, 110 years ago it was complaints about the Italians and other southern Europeans. Circumstances are different these days as most of the immigrants are darker skinned. The same types of prejudices have formed around 'them', but what were the prejudices called when the subject was other whites?
9
This is all too true: "Republican primary voters are 86.5 percent more likely to favor Donald Trump if they ‘somewhat agree or ‘strongly agree’ with the statement, ‘People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.'" But it should not be forgotten that the Republican party's propaganda for the last 35 years in an attempt to weaken government as much as possible has led people to think such things.
14
Let's not forget excessive political correctness, an overbearing, politicized judiciary and serious anti-religious feelings as sources for anger.
You only need to look at the erroneous SCOTUS decision on gay marriage to see a source of anger that fuels the rise of Donald Trump.
Many people of faith see gay marriage as a slap in the face and special treatment for a small, select group with a lot of money and political influence who are getting attention because they "cut to the front of the line" while more "normal" people who have rights too are ignored. They don't like the heavy handed Supreme Court throwing out votes of the people in favor of privileged treatment for another special interest group. That seems decidedly undemocratic and authoritarian.
This anger is not confined to Trump's support base of working class white males---it spans the political spectrum to include moderates, independents and radical youngsters all who feel cheated and want real change.
I'm an older, well educated straight white male and a practicing Catholic who would identify as a progressive Democrat. But I'm angry too---at gridlock and dysfunction in government (I don't live too far away from the Flint water disaster---a major government failure). I'm angry at long standing morals being demolished before my eyes for the dubious advantage of "equal treatment" that seems to do nothing for me.
Yes I and many others are angry. We want to know what government is going to do besides fall apart.
You only need to look at the erroneous SCOTUS decision on gay marriage to see a source of anger that fuels the rise of Donald Trump.
Many people of faith see gay marriage as a slap in the face and special treatment for a small, select group with a lot of money and political influence who are getting attention because they "cut to the front of the line" while more "normal" people who have rights too are ignored. They don't like the heavy handed Supreme Court throwing out votes of the people in favor of privileged treatment for another special interest group. That seems decidedly undemocratic and authoritarian.
This anger is not confined to Trump's support base of working class white males---it spans the political spectrum to include moderates, independents and radical youngsters all who feel cheated and want real change.
I'm an older, well educated straight white male and a practicing Catholic who would identify as a progressive Democrat. But I'm angry too---at gridlock and dysfunction in government (I don't live too far away from the Flint water disaster---a major government failure). I'm angry at long standing morals being demolished before my eyes for the dubious advantage of "equal treatment" that seems to do nothing for me.
Yes I and many others are angry. We want to know what government is going to do besides fall apart.
2
I certainly get "older straight white male and practicing Catholic" from your comments, but fail to see the well educated progressive Democrat. And you do a disservice to a lot of practicing Catholics who would hardly blame everything wrong in this country on gay marriage.
2
Well let me say that you are being excessively self righteous and judgmental. Of course so am I but I have millions of years of biology and thousands of years of human physiology, history, law and religion behind me that says gay marriage is wrong or at least not something that society as a whole should actively promote. If gay marriage is such a great idea why didn't it develop as an equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why are they so many negatives from so many disciplines---psychiatry, human physiology, anthropology, history, law and religion? While I am not an advocate of criminalizing gay sexuality or the gay lifestyle I simply don't think it should be given the same status as heterosexual marriage because while heterosexual marriage is a well established social convention gay marriage has few if any reliable precedents and is of no apparent benefit to me or society as a whole. Why should I support a social contract that has few precedents, that many people of faith consider unnatural, abnormal and immoral and that I and many other people view as an excessively politically correct sop to a small, select special interest group with a lot of money and political influence? I can understand why gay marriage is important to gays but I have no idea why promoting gay marriage helps me or society in the least. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Why are they so many negatives from so many disciplines---psychiatry, human physiology, anthropology, history, law and religion? While I am not an advocate of criminalizing gay sexuality or the gay lifestyle I simply don't think it should be given the same status as heterosexual marriage because while heterosexual marriage is a well established social convention gay marriage has few if any reliable precedents and is of no apparent benefit to me or society as a whole. Why should I support a social contract that has few precedents, that many people of faith consider unnatural, abnormal and immoral and that I and many other people view as an excessively politically correct sop to a small, select special interest group with a lot of money and political influence? I can understand why gay marriage is important to gays but I have no idea why promoting gay marriage helps me or society in the least. Maybe you can enlighten me.
1
William was using the gay issue as an example of a minorities issue getting support from Dems, AT THE EXPENSE OF supporting working class whites. I believe this is a valid point that should be address by Dems, not ridiculed.
1
There is something I am trying to understand that perhaps runs in the face of this. When I was a kid, we did not have much. Our neighbors did not either. None of us had all of the things that "improve" modern life. We did not have a TV, cell phones, or computers. Now, for the most part, everyone has these things. Houses and apartments are bigger today. We did not fly places. A poor person today in many ways has much more than a middle class person of fifty years ago. One big change is that there appears to be more people doing very well. Other people see this and want this. So, it may be income inequality that is driving a great amount of angst. But, on the whole, things are not bad, just unequal. Add to the wealth inequality the population explosion which makes life harder for everyone as a factor.
1
When you were a kid, middle class families went on vacations and owned summer cottages, paid for their kids to attend overnight camp and collage, and had their houses paid off before retirement. They had pensions with health care coverage in retirement. Only one parent needed to work outside the home to do this.
Don't confuse that type of financial security with tech gadgets that may speed life up but do not produce either happiness or security.
Don't confuse that type of financial security with tech gadgets that may speed life up but do not produce either happiness or security.
3
The common thread running through the Trump/Sanders dipole is the populism of "feeling you were sold a bill of goods." For Trump's blue collar supporters it's that whole multiculturalism thing (i.e., immigration) and trade taking the types of jobs and ruining the dreams as their parents had. For Sanders's white collar supporters it's the failure of their college education (and that college loan debt) to produce the jobs and the bright futures they we convinced (by universities and parents alike) they were entitled to. Both sides need to grow up. Because the truth is (and no one is saying this), "but you can't always get what you wa'ant"....
5
Sanders supporters are against "free" trade agreements that have hollowed out the American economy and have sent living wage jobs overseas. Sanders supporters think US citizens are entitled to free health care and free college education -- which we all know citizens of other major nations enjoy. It's a matter of priorities. Do we continue to fund the military extravagantly or do we take care of our citizens.
2
And these days you can't even get what you need. That's what the anger is about.
2
Billionaires and the psychopathically violent are the outstanding individuals of our age:
The trend in the U.S. and over the world as a whole seems a conformity or leveling whether we speak of right or left wing political parties. In the U.S. the right wing tries to conform people to military, religious, business/corporate thinking, while the left is suspicious of virtually any great difference between people, which is to say the left takes aim at especially economic difference but has had its greatest inroads in first assuring no great intellectual feats separate individuals (thus helping ethnic, racial, sexual equality), with predictable result that over society as a whole we have no, say 30% over 70% vibrant intellectual life of towering individuals in various fields routinely in media eye but instead the infamous 1% of the very wealthy over the 99% from whom we see the routine emergence of the psychopathically violent. Again, towering individuals today are not composers or physicists or writers or what have you of yesteryear but rather billionaires and the terroristic...The life of too much individualism some complain about today is actually a rather petty selfishness, loud clothes, big mouth, extroverted lifestyle more than anything else, or safe, committee agreed upon individuality like that of movie stars or sports figures. We have no true culture of individuality, high capacity but rather a roiling mass, billionaire, terrorist scene on this oil/cargo/cruise ship.
The trend in the U.S. and over the world as a whole seems a conformity or leveling whether we speak of right or left wing political parties. In the U.S. the right wing tries to conform people to military, religious, business/corporate thinking, while the left is suspicious of virtually any great difference between people, which is to say the left takes aim at especially economic difference but has had its greatest inroads in first assuring no great intellectual feats separate individuals (thus helping ethnic, racial, sexual equality), with predictable result that over society as a whole we have no, say 30% over 70% vibrant intellectual life of towering individuals in various fields routinely in media eye but instead the infamous 1% of the very wealthy over the 99% from whom we see the routine emergence of the psychopathically violent. Again, towering individuals today are not composers or physicists or writers or what have you of yesteryear but rather billionaires and the terroristic...The life of too much individualism some complain about today is actually a rather petty selfishness, loud clothes, big mouth, extroverted lifestyle more than anything else, or safe, committee agreed upon individuality like that of movie stars or sports figures. We have no true culture of individuality, high capacity but rather a roiling mass, billionaire, terrorist scene on this oil/cargo/cruise ship.
1
" If this election cycle can be viewed positively, it is as a clear warning that something is rotten in America and must change." And the question is, "When will the change occur?"
7
A primary rational for government is mutual protection against domination by others. For example, we have an army against external invaders, we have laws against internal criminals. And the same is needed against those who might use money to dominate us all. So yes, liberty to dominate "the People" through arms, crime or economics is contrary the purpose of our government. The liberty to accumulate wealth should be balanced against the protection of workers from exploitation, and economic stagnation due to non-productive capital. It is just a question of how ...
5
Folks need to organize...it has worked before. But coming together for presidential elections is not nearly enough. Change is a full time job.
2
"If this election cycle can be viewed positively, it is as a clear warning that something is rotten in America and must change."
It won't be long before the revelations emerging from the million-plus documents that comprise the Panama Papers begin to implicate the corrupt politicians and corporate rich who control America and its supposedly-free press.
Interested in rottenness and corruption? You ain't seen nothing yet.
It won't be long before the revelations emerging from the million-plus documents that comprise the Panama Papers begin to implicate the corrupt politicians and corporate rich who control America and its supposedly-free press.
Interested in rottenness and corruption? You ain't seen nothing yet.
11
The working stiff was sold out by the establishment leaders. He/she was sacrificed at the alter of "creative destruction" and "trickle down". No surprise the pitchforks would at some point come out. Now they need to be used.
9
Something is rotten in America and It is not the American people. It is politics. As a naturalized citizen, I have the direst opinions of the stupidly archaic electoral college, gerrymandering, unlimited congressional terms, and corporations now basically given voting rights. Get rid of those blights and we will see a better America.
7
What is Brexit anyway?
Brexit is in short, freeing London top 1% from EU financial regulation. Practically enabling London finance sector crime as usual, like keep doing what Panama papers showing.
Prove me ,it isn't?
Brexit is in short, freeing London top 1% from EU financial regulation. Practically enabling London finance sector crime as usual, like keep doing what Panama papers showing.
Prove me ,it isn't?
3
Excellent analysis. Mr. Cohen points the way. Tax at 90% making 100 million a year or more is my solution. Government is not a business.
4
Incremental progressive is an oxymoron.
Hillary Clinton promised 200,000 new jobs to upstate NY, when she was running for the NY Senate,
but upstate NY ended up losing 35,000 jobs!
How does that pie-in-the-sky taste, NY?
Hillary Clinton promised 200,000 new jobs to upstate NY, when she was running for the NY Senate,
but upstate NY ended up losing 35,000 jobs!
How does that pie-in-the-sky taste, NY?
4
The issue is not the emergence of the rest, the issue is inequality in advanced nations which is not driven by this emergence. Governments have to varying degrees been captured by the wealthy in advanced nations and have lowered taxes and have enabled and turned a blind eye to avoidance of taxes by the wealthy. Effective taxation of wealth and redistribution could solve this problem, the reasons it doesn't lie firmly in the political systems of the advanced nations. That's where we need to look for solutions.
7
Kudos to Mr. Cohen for an excellent column.
One point is hardly ever made, but is very relevant. The worst effects of globalization in the United States were self-inflicted: we could have raised tariffs instead of lowering them. Tariffs are taxes on a nation's own citizens. But not all taxes are the same. Higher tariffs would have prevented the loss of tens of millions of good-paying American jobs, most of which we lost (but could still get back) not so much because of currency manipulations but because of extremely low wages in our trading "partners".
Another point that is usually not recognized is that the loss of millions of jobs also lowered wages in jobs which had nothing to do with globalization. Why? Because when the demand for labor goes down, all wages (except the obscenely high) go down. Duh!
One point is hardly ever made, but is very relevant. The worst effects of globalization in the United States were self-inflicted: we could have raised tariffs instead of lowering them. Tariffs are taxes on a nation's own citizens. But not all taxes are the same. Higher tariffs would have prevented the loss of tens of millions of good-paying American jobs, most of which we lost (but could still get back) not so much because of currency manipulations but because of extremely low wages in our trading "partners".
Another point that is usually not recognized is that the loss of millions of jobs also lowered wages in jobs which had nothing to do with globalization. Why? Because when the demand for labor goes down, all wages (except the obscenely high) go down. Duh!
7
Hillary Rodham Clinton gave many $225,000 speeches to Wall Street and Big Pharma to become a multi-millionaire.
She's a 1%er now.
She knows who she has to thank for her good fortune,
And you know which side she's on!
She's a 1%er now.
She knows who she has to thank for her good fortune,
And you know which side she's on!
8
Ronald Reagan gave $1 million speeches in Japan. That was OK?
1
Oh Mr. Cohen there is plenty rotten in America and most, if not all of it, is a direct result of the GOP and it's devolution into a mob of angry racists in service to the oligarchy.
5
Democrats are not blameless. As a whole the party has played "good cop" to the GOP's "bad cop" but at root they are merely two factions of the same party, the Party of Money.
4
Steven Weisman, in his intriguing book “The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization,” observes that in recent decades the bottom third of the world’s population have gained “with many of them escaping destitution.”
This assertion is very weak. Unless working in sweatshop constitutes progress.
This assertion is very weak. Unless working in sweatshop constitutes progress.
4
We have two choices: either we get a democratic control over corporate capitalism, or we will have class war. It is a mistake to have a Second Amendment next to rampant amoral rapacity of corporate capitalism--they are like gasoline and fire.
8
Moving but oversimplified. Can someone please do a real study on the declining wages of the less skilled throughout the industrialized world? Obviously the breakdown of unions and the loss of manufacturing jobs have significance, but where does this assumption that it is the root of the shift of wealth from workers to the capitol class come from?
When I order my Chinese products through Amazon, their efficient system requires no dialogue with a human being or the usual amount of construction of brick and mortar. Most of the time I checkout at Home Depot it's just me and the computerized checkout.
If those manufacturing jobs had stayed, how many of those jobs would already have shifted to robotics?
Please, lets deal with these issues with more than our hearts and get the facts before we begin raising out pitchforks to battle the plutocracy. Every disappearing job puts money in the pockets of those who own companies and takes it from the unemployed workers. How much of the overall shift in wealth is the result of technological "progress"?
When I order my Chinese products through Amazon, their efficient system requires no dialogue with a human being or the usual amount of construction of brick and mortar. Most of the time I checkout at Home Depot it's just me and the computerized checkout.
If those manufacturing jobs had stayed, how many of those jobs would already have shifted to robotics?
Please, lets deal with these issues with more than our hearts and get the facts before we begin raising out pitchforks to battle the plutocracy. Every disappearing job puts money in the pockets of those who own companies and takes it from the unemployed workers. How much of the overall shift in wealth is the result of technological "progress"?
But the problem is that the financial benefits of using robotics (or automatic check-out machines) goes to the executives only. Most people used to believe that if the company does well, all who work there should benefit. Now, the belief, and the reality, is that top executives only benefit and the "family" of workers lose their jobs and/or see no improvements. This needs to change.
4
Of course that's part of it, which shows that the centiries-old economic model we are functioning in is as obsolete as the jobs lost to automation are. We must use technology to work FOR us, not against us.
1
Advocates of globalization like to point to "the reduction of the number of people , worldwide, living on under two dollars a day," since 1970. That's a good thing, but that also corresponds with the same period of time as the reduction of organized labor power and the shrinking of the great american middle-class. Simply put, whereas many of the worlds poor have reaped the 'some' benefits from unfettered globalization, the increased profits of same have disproportionately accrued to a handful with the cost accruing to the American (and world) middle-classes. That's the problem!
2
" If this election cycle can be viewed positively, it is as a clear warning that something is rotten in America and must change."
I liked this line.
Roger: it's nice you took a day off from beating the war drums.
I liked this line.
Roger: it's nice you took a day off from beating the war drums.
5
You got that right, brother!!!
Vote for the political revolution!
Vote Bernie!
Vote for the political revolution!
Vote Bernie!
4
"Anger over the direction of globalization — particularly the meltdown of 2008 (and the impunity of its financial architects) and the austerity that followed — explains the election of the left-wing Syriza government in Greece, headed by Alexis Tsipras. On the European right, Marine Le Pen and her National Front party in France, and the Sweden Democrats, draw support from anti-immigrant and anti-globalization sentiments.". there are other explanations and moreover, each situation has its own explanation.
When very few amass 2 much power that doesn't ruin the lives of a segment of the society but they r killing a whole nation as well as causing disruption of lives in their region and beyond.That is demonstrated by what took place in Syria,Iraq,Afgh., Somalia, Eritrea, S.Sudan, etc. These despots they insist on deciding 4 everyone on all aspects of life.But when it comes to Economic dominance things r a lot more tricky.4 instance Wall Street and the Fed r not necessarily spoilers : Commodities,as long as they r not exclusively produced 4 a given domestic consumption only, their prices (+cur) r managed pretty much by WS and 2 a lesser extent by its equivalent in other Economic Power commercial Capitals.The folks at WS they grasp that 2 much overpricing will make the demand dwindle and 2 much under pricing kills the incentive 2 stay in the business.This is a pivotal role.Also say American investors 2 stay competitive invested overseas and made lots of money.It is clear that a significant portion of that they will bring back and spend it in b it luxury accommodation or other ventures.It doesn't seem the case that they will stash a pile of money and hide in it to keep warm during winter.Yes,more effort have to b made to keep prices as fair as possible, engage more in job creation to make up 4 the lost 1, augment benefits.There r unexploited areas of potential production and consumer base being wasted by senseless conflicts all over.BS's and DT's policy may decrease jobs not +.TMD.
The unfortunate reality is that, at the macro level at least, the global economy is a zero-sum game: one sector's win is another's loss, with win-win arrangements a fantasy used to mask the ulterior motives of the wealthy class.
The resulting anger in developed societies, now in evidence in Europe and the United States, can be a positive force for honesty and transparency. However, that anger is just destructive when channeled into support for a Bozo candidate like Trump or Cruz.
The energy that comes from anger needs to be tempered with reality.
The resulting anger in developed societies, now in evidence in Europe and the United States, can be a positive force for honesty and transparency. However, that anger is just destructive when channeled into support for a Bozo candidate like Trump or Cruz.
The energy that comes from anger needs to be tempered with reality.
3
Readers 100/ Cohen 29. What is fascinating about this column by Roger Cohen
is that the readers have a greater depth and understanding than the
author. Is original journalism dead? Mr. Cohen, as long as you are in Paris, I
suggest you interview some survivors of the Charlie Hebdo massacres. That story
has not been covered.
is that the readers have a greater depth and understanding than the
author. Is original journalism dead? Mr. Cohen, as long as you are in Paris, I
suggest you interview some survivors of the Charlie Hebdo massacres. That story
has not been covered.
100% Roger.
Out of the ball park.
What middle class?
Our middle class is the lower class.
Out of the ball park.
What middle class?
Our middle class is the lower class.
Calm and serious, just right. More of the same from this dual citizen.
Life here in my 2 cities, Göteborg this week, Linköping next seems better for those less well off than me, specifically the many refugees I know.
Seamless public transportation, superior renewable energy systems, access to health care for all, free education even for med students.
My own life could not be better. But 2 puzzles. I live next to Linköping University 20, 000 students but it offers nothing for"us" that is comparable with what UVM, Brown, Univ. Rochester offer "us" - "en gåta" a puzzle -. And Sweden builds too few hyresrätter - rental apts..
When I am in Providence, Burlington, and Albany I an going to study them hard. Stay tuned. Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Life here in my 2 cities, Göteborg this week, Linköping next seems better for those less well off than me, specifically the many refugees I know.
Seamless public transportation, superior renewable energy systems, access to health care for all, free education even for med students.
My own life could not be better. But 2 puzzles. I live next to Linköping University 20, 000 students but it offers nothing for"us" that is comparable with what UVM, Brown, Univ. Rochester offer "us" - "en gåta" a puzzle -. And Sweden builds too few hyresrätter - rental apts..
When I am in Providence, Burlington, and Albany I an going to study them hard. Stay tuned. Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
1
Why has it taken so long for this columnist and others to say this?
3
Because the professional pundit-class are servants of the established order. Its just that today the extreme disparities in the world are getting impossible to ignore, even for them.
2
By globalizing this ‘winter of our discontent’ Cohen is making the US look not so bad. But our capitalism is more unregulated, so we’re worse by many measures, and that’s what’s suppressed in our news media.
Living in Europe, Mr. Cohen has 1st hand experience with the differences. Starting with h/c for all at lower cost for generations—and other benefits which their rw parties like Marine Le Pen want to keep with govt guarantees, vs our Gop aiming to destroy ACA and privatize SS.
With all their troubles, the values of the advanced social democracies still protect their citizens better than the US, which has a much weaker safety net, as centrism in our politics.
We have less economic mobility, more inequality and poverty than other advanced nations. And govt action to remedy these is called left wing by many here, thus we see such fierce opposition to Sanders in the media.
Canada started h/c for all in the 1960s, and it’s banking regulations saved it from the 2008 crash. No other modern country would even tolerate ACA, as it leaves out millions, and as the Times reported, some are dropping insurance due to high premiums.
Abroad they protect their citizens better than the US from globalization. stronger unions with more members. France's rw Marine Le Pen wants to keep their safety net. It starts with public funding of elections. Any comment on that, Mr. Cohen?
Living in Europe, Mr. Cohen has 1st hand experience with the differences. Starting with h/c for all at lower cost for generations—and other benefits which their rw parties like Marine Le Pen want to keep with govt guarantees, vs our Gop aiming to destroy ACA and privatize SS.
With all their troubles, the values of the advanced social democracies still protect their citizens better than the US, which has a much weaker safety net, as centrism in our politics.
We have less economic mobility, more inequality and poverty than other advanced nations. And govt action to remedy these is called left wing by many here, thus we see such fierce opposition to Sanders in the media.
Canada started h/c for all in the 1960s, and it’s banking regulations saved it from the 2008 crash. No other modern country would even tolerate ACA, as it leaves out millions, and as the Times reported, some are dropping insurance due to high premiums.
Abroad they protect their citizens better than the US from globalization. stronger unions with more members. France's rw Marine Le Pen wants to keep their safety net. It starts with public funding of elections. Any comment on that, Mr. Cohen?
4
I'm happy to see neo-liberalism called out for the failure that it is in the NYTimes.
Bravo.
Please now elucidate as there are too many unfamiliar and unaware of what we've been living under, and who's for what. And why it's so important.
Democrats still trying to pretend neoliberalism = centrist, trying to mask the rot that must begin to be faced and cast aside.
There's a paradigm shift happening nationwide, in both parties, and their political establishments scream when not in control.
Come on, press, now is the time to take on neoliberalism, with whiffs of neo-Fascism in the air.
Bravo.
Please now elucidate as there are too many unfamiliar and unaware of what we've been living under, and who's for what. And why it's so important.
Democrats still trying to pretend neoliberalism = centrist, trying to mask the rot that must begin to be faced and cast aside.
There's a paradigm shift happening nationwide, in both parties, and their political establishments scream when not in control.
Come on, press, now is the time to take on neoliberalism, with whiffs of neo-Fascism in the air.
4
It's really not so complicated. When you've sucked the wealth from the majority of consumers - the working and middle class - for almost forty years, your consumer-driven economy is going to slow down and eventually crash, which it did. The Great Bail Out was triage, not a cure. We needed to reverse the supply-side ("trickle down") policies that created it, and have yet to do so. Sanders understands this and has ideas to address it. Trump, not so much. Clinton? M.O.T.S. (More Of The Same).
9
Exactly. A market-economy based on cyclical-consumption does not work when the majority of people lack expendable income. Supply is not the problem, but demand most certainly is.
2
This column mixes up global statistics and those of the affluent West. The top 5% number over 300 million world wide. I'd guess that about 60 million of those live in the US. That's almost 20% of the US population. The 20% below those, whose incomes are stagnating, number 1.2 billion world wide, but most of those live in advanced Western economies; and only a tiny percentage of the "middle third" that has benefitted (two billion people) live in places like the US. There is no "bottom third" (in world terms) in the US at all, since those people make two or three dollars a day, But there is a genuine underclass in America, living on minimum wage jobs, of probably 15-20 per cent of the population. So the American picture is this: 20% are doing very well, up to 20% are desperately poor relative to the society as a whole, and about 60% constitute the stagnant middle class, which ranges from near poor to making a go of it but insecure.
Undoing globalization isn't in the cards: there are still two billion unimaginably poor people in the world to raise up, and they are next in line for skill acquisition and the jobs that come with it. But the US has a great advantage over other advanced economies in having a huge wealthy class (the 20%, not 1%) to tap for redistribution, via increased taxation. The first priority is to raise up the bottom 20% and the near poor. Much of the middle 60% will probably continue to stagnate, which considering where they are, isn't too bad.
Undoing globalization isn't in the cards: there are still two billion unimaginably poor people in the world to raise up, and they are next in line for skill acquisition and the jobs that come with it. But the US has a great advantage over other advanced economies in having a huge wealthy class (the 20%, not 1%) to tap for redistribution, via increased taxation. The first priority is to raise up the bottom 20% and the near poor. Much of the middle 60% will probably continue to stagnate, which considering where they are, isn't too bad.
2
A good place to start change: work with other western countries to completely shut down tax havens.
In the recent Panama report they mention Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and British Virgin Islands. England, our ally, can help shut those down. Other haven countries, such as Panama and Singapore can perhaps be pressured with tough economic sanctions.
If, as reported, 8% of the world's wealth is being hidden in just a few "outlaw" countries, we can certainly unite to shut that devious practice down, and thus gain hugely from taxing those off-shored, hidden money accounts.
In the recent Panama report they mention Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and British Virgin Islands. England, our ally, can help shut those down. Other haven countries, such as Panama and Singapore can perhaps be pressured with tough economic sanctions.
If, as reported, 8% of the world's wealth is being hidden in just a few "outlaw" countries, we can certainly unite to shut that devious practice down, and thus gain hugely from taxing those off-shored, hidden money accounts.
3
Bloomberg also reported that the US has now become the new favorite tax haven as our government has Not signed the OECD.
1
Indeed something is rotten in America and must change. Cenk Uygur says Hillary Clinton was bribed $2.9 million for twelve Wall Street speeches. He adds that reportedly, Hillary repeatedly told Wall Street that she will serve them. Not you the citizens. Watch Cenk's video at https://youtu.be/0XQ8DqLOeBA
Read more critics of Hillary' behavior at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Hillary.Clinton.Critics/
- - -
As an alternative Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, is a candidate for the 2016 United States presidential election. Read more at https://berniesanders.com
- - -
Speaking for myself, I am 100% for a woman as president conditional to her serving the interest of citizens. Instead of serving the interest of corporations or a few billionaires. Same conditions for any man president. Unfortunately Hillary past behaviors demonstrated that she served the interest of corporations, not the interest of citizens. Find above video for supporting evidences. So her current talk about serving citizens as little or no credibility. I suggest to demand all presidential candidates to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States, and not be tied to the interest of corporations. Any other women interested in being president and serving the interest of citizens, instead of serving the interest of corporations?
Read more critics of Hillary' behavior at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Hillary.Clinton.Critics/
- - -
As an alternative Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, is a candidate for the 2016 United States presidential election. Read more at https://berniesanders.com
- - -
Speaking for myself, I am 100% for a woman as president conditional to her serving the interest of citizens. Instead of serving the interest of corporations or a few billionaires. Same conditions for any man president. Unfortunately Hillary past behaviors demonstrated that she served the interest of corporations, not the interest of citizens. Find above video for supporting evidences. So her current talk about serving citizens as little or no credibility. I suggest to demand all presidential candidates to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States, and not be tied to the interest of corporations. Any other women interested in being president and serving the interest of citizens, instead of serving the interest of corporations?
5
Do people who feel that they are not heard vote in every election? Do they vote for school board or city councils? If voter turnout stats mean anything, the answer is "no." They are not being heard because they don't vote on local matters and they don't vote except in presidential elections maybe. To be heard you have to be informed and you have to take the right to vote seriously. And even if you vote consistently, you have to start voting for people who will enforce laws to limit the role money plays in elections. And you have to vote for people who want campaign contribution transparency. Knowledge is power but getting knowledgeable takes work.
1
When greed is mixed with racism, there is a special cause for concern. Republicans have for decades been able to mask their true economic and social instincts in flags, wars, and faux patriotism. The working class bought it hook, line and sinker; but now the Donald has spilled the beans. The wars were costly and fake, the flags were cheap but the tax cuts for the rich were really expensive, and now the working class voters want their share. But for Donald's big mouth, they might have continued to deny blacks the right to vote, to employ illegal Latino labor on the cheap and keep those tax cuts coming, even as the bridges fall and the roads deteriorate. Hillary better fix this mess, or else...
3
The disconnect of the white population, and their contempt, anger and disregard of the their workplace bosses and political leaders is striking. It is true among Democrats and Republicans. It is not common ground, just a shared disgust.
Things have been worse, much worse. 2000 saw the appointment of a leader of the executive branch by the judicial branch, overriding the popular vote and short circuiting the lower courts. And the 1930s, through the end of the 1940s, that was a low, mean and tough decade. But we got through it.
Things have been worse, much worse. 2000 saw the appointment of a leader of the executive branch by the judicial branch, overriding the popular vote and short circuiting the lower courts. And the 1930s, through the end of the 1940s, that was a low, mean and tough decade. But we got through it.
The anger arises when people say, why are we lifting the boats of other places while sinking the boats of those in our own country?
And why are the cries of those whose boats are sinking ignored?
People want to elect those who listen to those questions, and have answers. They can do so in a responsible, ethical way. Or they can ignore the questions, and watch those like Trump rise to power.
And why are the cries of those whose boats are sinking ignored?
People want to elect those who listen to those questions, and have answers. They can do so in a responsible, ethical way. Or they can ignore the questions, and watch those like Trump rise to power.
4
Here is some news for Sanders supporters. There is not going to be a peaceful or a violent revolution in this country, maybe some sporadic violence from the Right if Trump is denied the Republican nomination. Raising the minimum wage and free college for all are not going to alter economic inequality in any major way, any time soon. Obamacare and Dodd-Franks have been rather successful. College kids should not emerge with their degrees and a lifetime debt burden but neither should taxpayers be subsidizing a beer binging, sexually assaulting, partying sub culture of part time, long term, intermittent so-called students. I understand that Hillary's experience, contacts, sense of how to get things done all smack of business as usual, but this is a huge, varied country, and there is going to be compromise and coalitions, or there is going to be deadlock. Sanders stands alone. He is not even officially a Democrat. His invocation of small racially and ethnically homogeneous, Scandanavian countries as a model is not going to be that appealing or relevant.
23
The main problems are racism, poverty, and injustice. Income inequality is nothing new, and to concentrate on it represents the old politics of envy.
@dR Johnson: envy? I don't think so. People do not envy insatiable greed and excess, and are tired of supporting a parasitic elite who produce nothing of value, but merely suck profit out of the system via connections to political power. Income inequality is not some permanent-state of being ordained by God that cannot be changed. To believe such tripe demonstrates regressive, Malthusian-Trap type thinking.
2
Gee, you know some big words. Pity you don't match them with thinking.
There are many problems with the present economic system that we have now. Perhaps one of the greatest is income inequality. With the transparency and immediacy of modern communications this inequality is readily visible to those left in the dust which creates a great anger. The wealthy are the beneficiaries of stable societies, but often do not recognize that this stability is what allows them to accumulate the wealth that they have. They often mistakenly claim their own prowess to be the genesis of their success. Thus creates the friction.
There needs to be a societal mechanism that requires the corporate culture to have a significant social responsibility rather than a sole fiduciary responsibility. Without such a mechanism, our society is skating on thin ice.
There needs to be a societal mechanism that requires the corporate culture to have a significant social responsibility rather than a sole fiduciary responsibility. Without such a mechanism, our society is skating on thin ice.
29
With Mr. Cohen's summary in mind, it seems that Bernie Sanders is articulating the message most clearly, and the Scandinavian countries have implemented those policies long ago. Sanders is often accused of peddling a fantasy of a Garden of Eden, unattainable in this life, while in reality his vision of a democratic society has been implemented in a whole swath of European countries. Not coincidentally, one of them, Denmark, is also according to survey, the happiest on earth.
31
Know what? America is not Scandinavia! I've lived there, and respect that they've been working on democracy and governance for over a thousand years. America is an infant in comparison. Go to Texas and tell them about Sweden...and then run.
1
And it is also rated by Forbes as the best place to do business!
1
"There is a global backlash against rising inequality, stagnant middle-class incomes, politicians for sale, social exclusion, offshoring of jobs, free trade, mass immigration, tax systems skewed for giant corporations and their bosses, and what Pope Francis has lambasted as the “unfettered pursuit of money.”"
Yes. It is surprising it has taken this long to build, or perhaps this long to have any effect.
"Hillary Clinton’s chief predicament, apart from the trust issue, is that she represents the past."
No, she represents THAT past. She is more of it.
"“People want to be heard. They want to believe their voices matter."
That is the problem with "Shut up and vote for Hillary anyway, because Republicans are worse and this is the only choice we'll give you."
"something is rotten in America and must change"
Yes, and the NYT's two endorsements, Hillary and Kasich, are for those exact rotten things, no change.
"current trends are untenable. Another two decades of neo-liberal, reward-the-rich, trust-globalization-to-deliver politics will lead to social breakdown"
It already has. Brazil is in chaos for example, the EU is falling apart, and the US is voting for somebody like Trump just to get away from this.
Yes. It is surprising it has taken this long to build, or perhaps this long to have any effect.
"Hillary Clinton’s chief predicament, apart from the trust issue, is that she represents the past."
No, she represents THAT past. She is more of it.
"“People want to be heard. They want to believe their voices matter."
That is the problem with "Shut up and vote for Hillary anyway, because Republicans are worse and this is the only choice we'll give you."
"something is rotten in America and must change"
Yes, and the NYT's two endorsements, Hillary and Kasich, are for those exact rotten things, no change.
"current trends are untenable. Another two decades of neo-liberal, reward-the-rich, trust-globalization-to-deliver politics will lead to social breakdown"
It already has. Brazil is in chaos for example, the EU is falling apart, and the US is voting for somebody like Trump just to get away from this.
28
Mark Thomason is a wise commentator but significantly wrong I think in his assessment of Hillary.
She is not part of our plutocratic precursor.
She spearheaded national health insurance in the 1990s, the last major unfinished portion of the American welfare state.
More people like Hillary in the past few decades and the US would have a genuine middle class rather than a lower class that calls itself middle class.
She is not part of our plutocratic precursor.
She spearheaded national health insurance in the 1990s, the last major unfinished portion of the American welfare state.
More people like Hillary in the past few decades and the US would have a genuine middle class rather than a lower class that calls itself middle class.
Iced Teaparty -- There is nobody who is always right about everything. I do try to make sense as I see it, but I realize that I must be wrong sometimes.
That admitted, I feel strongly about this, after careful thought. I hope that those who respect my opinions on other things will pause and consider that I just might be right on this.
For example where you say, "She spearheaded national health insurance in the 1990s, the last major unfinished portion of the American welfare state." She bungled that. She bungled it with her mania for secrecy. She bungled it with her attempts to compromise what was needed with all the many interest groups she tried to serve. She set back health care by decades when she bungled it.
I fear more of that, her secrecy near paranoia, her triangulating and pandering to the elite, her hawkish foreign policy, her neo-liberal economic beliefs, her support of the exact trade agreements that have done so much damage and that she negotiated again as Sec of State, all will produce absolute disaster that you too would consider disaster.
That admitted, I feel strongly about this, after careful thought. I hope that those who respect my opinions on other things will pause and consider that I just might be right on this.
For example where you say, "She spearheaded national health insurance in the 1990s, the last major unfinished portion of the American welfare state." She bungled that. She bungled it with her mania for secrecy. She bungled it with her attempts to compromise what was needed with all the many interest groups she tried to serve. She set back health care by decades when she bungled it.
I fear more of that, her secrecy near paranoia, her triangulating and pandering to the elite, her hawkish foreign policy, her neo-liberal economic beliefs, her support of the exact trade agreements that have done so much damage and that she negotiated again as Sec of State, all will produce absolute disaster that you too would consider disaster.
4
Berlin said - "Equality may demand the restraint of the liberty of those who wish to dominate; liberty — without some modicum of which there is no choice and therefore no possibility of remaining human as we understand the word .............. to leave room for the liberty of others, to allow justice or fairness to be exercised". The sentiment equally applies to religion. Religious supremacists have set the Middle East on fire. Freedom of religion should not mean freedom to hate other religions.
11
I learned about Isaiah Berlin because of my refugee professor, George L. Mosse of the University of Wisconsin-Madison History Department. Professor Mosse taught us that "Liberal Democracy" was more than elections and/or private property protections. Rather Liberal Democracy incorporated protection for minorities and a social welfare net. Almost all republican leaders (99%) seemed to have missed those classes, but sadly so did many of the democratic leaders.
17
Excellent piece! Hillary may still win the election due to her position as the " continuity Democrat because the U. S. isn't ripe yet for a revolution.
1
Revolution will not come until at least 70% of the US population is sufficiently poor to miss at least 3 meals per week, and the homeless population exceeds 30%. According to my napkin calculations, this is at least 20 years in the future. Voting laws and anti-voting laws will not matter. Riot police will be the new "way to make a decent living". Soylent Green was prescient.
1
Since WWII populations in developing countries exploded, with many of them growing fivefold (!!) in just one person's lifetime. I recall the Palestinian taxi driver who, while driving me through the Jerusalem suburbs, waved his hand in front of some hills and said he herded sheep in those hills as a child in the 1950s. Today they were covered with apartments and condos, with the population of Jerusalem growing from 28,000 to over a million in that taxi driver's lifetime. This little vignette can be multiplied a millionfold throughout the world. It's no coincidence that the "happiest" countries today are those that have not undergone such explosive population growth.
If Roger Cohen would look at these simple demographic facts he would cease scratching his head, perplexed with the state of the world today. The root cause of all this "mayhem" is pretty easy to understand, it's a simple fact of human biology.
If Roger Cohen would look at these simple demographic facts he would cease scratching his head, perplexed with the state of the world today. The root cause of all this "mayhem" is pretty easy to understand, it's a simple fact of human biology.
11
The poorest of the world have risen in the last decades and the middle class of the developed world have had to shrink to accommodate them. That should be acceptable. The total corruption that is now obvious in Brazil, US, China, Russia, Everywhere. That isn't.
3
If you had a happy childhood, you had enough and focused on being a child, not helping your family survive, then you should be satisfied with a little more as your life progresses. You don't need a lot more because you were already happy. However, governments, corporations (abetted by mass advertising), celebrities and media have all encouraged those who already had enough not to be satisfied to have that and a little more before they pass the baton to their children (who presumably are also growing up happy), while the rest of humanity catches up. As a result, they feel as though something is being stolen from them, either by "them" or by government on "their" behalf. The only time I have ever bristled about having to pay taxes in the US, though I live and work abroad, is when the Iraq War was being prosecuted by George W. Bush, not because some of my money was being used, for example, to educate those who weren't getting the excellent education I did, even though we were a working-class, non-union family when I was young, living from paycheck to paycheck. I don't have to live from paycheck to paycheck today, so I figure I have come out way ahead. I don't have to come out way way way way ahead to be happy. I am not trying to set myself up as someone to be venerated for his saintliness. To me, this is the natural way of looking at things, while we have become unnaturally attached to rapid increases in the standard of living for those who are already living pretty well.
2
$150 Million Super-Pac woman Hillary Clinton represents the brazen hypocrisy of the Democratic Establishment.
5
I suppose the GOP candidates are begging on the streets to fund their campaigns.
1
The sound of a neo-liberal looking in the mirror on a bad hair day?
While Mr. Cohen sees a backlash against economic and social injustice on his bad hair day, others see a mass media incited riot by poorly educated hooligans who think their low status is due to politically favored but undeserving, despicable inferiors, and their collective tantrum is media sanctioned as justified and rational. That's us, of course, and no one else, though there's a red thread of racial, religious and cultural chauvinism that runs through all populist protests.
Discontent is universal human history. It's in our DNA. It's always been dry kindling awaiting the spark of convergent circumstances. Cynicism, misery, ignorance, anger, demographics, herd instinct, mass psychology, mob morality, communal license. All are low level infections in every body politic and held in check by cultural immune systems.
Fast forward to our moment and add the hegemony of commercial mass media that profits from hard wiring our attention to a constant "New" and its addictive adrenaline. Mobilizing dormant discontent, dressing it in fashionable, flattering colors, lavishing it with false gravity so the gullible are intoxicated with the elevation of delusional moral purpose. And feel licensed to hate, distrust, and identify as victims with no responsibility for their own misery caused by malicious conspiracy.
Life is good when many think life is bad. And media plays god.
Perception isn't reality, Mr. Cohen.
While Mr. Cohen sees a backlash against economic and social injustice on his bad hair day, others see a mass media incited riot by poorly educated hooligans who think their low status is due to politically favored but undeserving, despicable inferiors, and their collective tantrum is media sanctioned as justified and rational. That's us, of course, and no one else, though there's a red thread of racial, religious and cultural chauvinism that runs through all populist protests.
Discontent is universal human history. It's in our DNA. It's always been dry kindling awaiting the spark of convergent circumstances. Cynicism, misery, ignorance, anger, demographics, herd instinct, mass psychology, mob morality, communal license. All are low level infections in every body politic and held in check by cultural immune systems.
Fast forward to our moment and add the hegemony of commercial mass media that profits from hard wiring our attention to a constant "New" and its addictive adrenaline. Mobilizing dormant discontent, dressing it in fashionable, flattering colors, lavishing it with false gravity so the gullible are intoxicated with the elevation of delusional moral purpose. And feel licensed to hate, distrust, and identify as victims with no responsibility for their own misery caused by malicious conspiracy.
Life is good when many think life is bad. And media plays god.
Perception isn't reality, Mr. Cohen.
6
You need to walk a mile in a minimum wage earner's shoes.
3
Marx was wrong . . . the Enlightenment did not acquire a proletarian or popular embodiment. The ‘people’ became instead the mass base for right wing, nationalist, racist, xenophobic cognitive modalities, political cultures, and socio-culturally contextualized character formations. These are ontologically prior to the political forces that utilize, absorb, and manipulate them (Trump & GOP—see Wikipedia article on Lee Atwater for the latter's Lacanian analysis of the GOP's constantly evolving chain of signifiers). That is why answers to such questions as What’s the Matter With Kansas? cannot be given in political terms or through political analysis.
On the other hand, Marx did foresee globalization, but so what? He was wrong about politics, wrong about the modes of subjectivity then developing among the species homo sapiens, and thus wrong about history. Nietzsche got right what Marx got wrong.
Yet here we are, talking class and capitalism again. Good enough, if all we want to do is wallow in a language of victimization and cling to our habits of consumption and our precious identities.
Maybe it’s time to read Nietzsche (while revisiting the real history of the New Deal). Maybe what is required is that we become the kind of beings equal to our situation.
What is to be done? I have no idea.
On the other hand, Marx did foresee globalization, but so what? He was wrong about politics, wrong about the modes of subjectivity then developing among the species homo sapiens, and thus wrong about history. Nietzsche got right what Marx got wrong.
Yet here we are, talking class and capitalism again. Good enough, if all we want to do is wallow in a language of victimization and cling to our habits of consumption and our precious identities.
Maybe it’s time to read Nietzsche (while revisiting the real history of the New Deal). Maybe what is required is that we become the kind of beings equal to our situation.
What is to be done? I have no idea.
2
What distinguishes us from countries like afghanistan or ukraine is just the level of corruption and nepotism. But all western styled democracies are rigged and the gilded class fiddles on the fears and envy of the middle and lower class. And the only way to break this seems to break everything.
Reminds me of Batmans Joker: "You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! ... Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. ... Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!"
Reminds me of Batmans Joker: "You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! ... Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. ... Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!"
3
Interesting that Cohen chose Ohio as his example of places in the US that have "lost out" and therefore turned to Trump. Trump lost there. But he won almost everywhere in the South, which has not lost out. Similarly, Cohen casts the rise of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK as symptomatic of the "backlash" of "losers", but everyone knows that Corbyn won the leadership of the Labour Party through a series of missteps by the party and its MPS. Polling of Trump supporters is unlikely to find that many are racists - who admits that?
1
If the south has not "lost out" is because their bar was so much lower. Or are you saying LA, AL, MS should be markers for the rest of us? No thanks, I will take CA!
I love this column. One of the best, most succinct summaries of the situation I have seen. "A rising tide may raise all yachts. It does not raise all boats." Perfect.
4
Marie Antoinette may have never said, "Let them eat cake," but to the shopwomen from the streets of Paris, facts were irrelevant. The US may be the ungrateful beneficiaries of the rigid hierarchy of French society, but we're fools if we forget the Terror that followed the Glorious Revolution.
A certain amount of inequality is natural; lowering it should always be a goal, but promising results is pandering to the mob. May those who would repeat history share the fate of those who have made these choices in the past.
A certain amount of inequality is natural; lowering it should always be a goal, but promising results is pandering to the mob. May those who would repeat history share the fate of those who have made these choices in the past.
2
It is not all sweetness and light in the third world where people have risen from poverty. The price is breathtaking (sometimes literally) environmental destruction. "When they get rich they will clean it up" doesn't cut it. Sometimes the damage is permanent.
11
Too bad you weren't around to tell Americans the same thing as they rose from relative poverty to wealth over the past century. Now that the industrialized countries have altered the environment on the way to getting rich, the countries developing now are supposed to sacrifice...yet again, while the developed world continues to get richer and richer. Is it any surprise that this sort of thinking is a hard sell in China, India, Brazil, and other large countries that are pushing for economic improvements for their people? The damage from centuries of economic disaster is also permanent.
For some reason folks think the post-war boom years (1945-1973) were guaranteed to continue and defined our country. Neither one was the case.
In the 1950's over 95% of vehicle sold in the US were assembled here with a large percentage of US manufactured components. Now that figure is about 45% of vehicles sold in the US if you count the transplants. Component content has dropped significantly. You don't have that sort of drop in one portion of the manufacturing sector along with similar decrease in other portions and have the middle class humming along as though nothing happened.
And a large part of that has been driven by consumer decisions, right, wrong, good or bad. Public works projects will provide a short-term boost (the money will eventually be siphoned off by all the consumer goods purchased) but that and no amount of wind turbine blade manufacturing will replace demand for skilled and semi-skilled labor that powered the post war boom.
The solution? Look to Sweden. Double our per-capita arms exporting business to follow Sweden's example.
In the 1950's over 95% of vehicle sold in the US were assembled here with a large percentage of US manufactured components. Now that figure is about 45% of vehicles sold in the US if you count the transplants. Component content has dropped significantly. You don't have that sort of drop in one portion of the manufacturing sector along with similar decrease in other portions and have the middle class humming along as though nothing happened.
And a large part of that has been driven by consumer decisions, right, wrong, good or bad. Public works projects will provide a short-term boost (the money will eventually be siphoned off by all the consumer goods purchased) but that and no amount of wind turbine blade manufacturing will replace demand for skilled and semi-skilled labor that powered the post war boom.
The solution? Look to Sweden. Double our per-capita arms exporting business to follow Sweden's example.
2
This country has had lousy governance for decades from both parties. Bill Clinton deregulated the banks leading to the '08 banking meltdown and mortgage debacle. Obama bailed out the banks but demanded no reforms from them, Bush lied us into Iraq with Democrat support destabilizing the Middle East and creating ISIS which threatens the EU and has spread across Northern Africa. The Republicans obstruct and try to close down government because they hate it. The Democrats focus on their social hot button politically correct issues rather than on meaningful reform. The political parties expect us to swallow another Bush or another Clinton, who , with her husband, Bill, amassed a fortune while in public service!
Our country is being destroyed by the politicians of both sides.
The American public is rightfully furious with the incompetence, corruption and dysfunction of our politicians in Washington.
Our country is being destroyed by the politicians of both sides.
The American public is rightfully furious with the incompetence, corruption and dysfunction of our politicians in Washington.
14
"Bush lied us into Iraq with Democrat support destabilizing the Middle East and creating ISIS which threatens the EU and has spread across Northern Africa."
Obama stated in the 2012 elections that he ended the war in Iraq and left it with a stable government. He also called ISIS the junior varsity. Obama also claimed ISIS was contained. His SOS also crowed that "we came, we saw, he died" when asked about Kahdaffy's death in Libya.
Obama's cerebral approach to foreign policy the Middle East has left it in flames from end to end. Good job.
Obama stated in the 2012 elections that he ended the war in Iraq and left it with a stable government. He also called ISIS the junior varsity. Obama also claimed ISIS was contained. His SOS also crowed that "we came, we saw, he died" when asked about Kahdaffy's death in Libya.
Obama's cerebral approach to foreign policy the Middle East has left it in flames from end to end. Good job.
1
The voters who listened to all the baloney being parceled out during the campaigns and voted for the politicians of the last 35 years are not at all responsible? I wasn't aware that anyone was forced to vote for George W. Bush in 2004 after the Iraq disaster had already begun, for example. They chose to give him a majority in the Electoral College. Why did they believe that he could be a competent leader or that his minions were explaining the world to us honestly, when it was clear that was not the case? That's just one example. One thing is advertising. If only voters would choose to try the products (including candidates) that are advertised the least, instead of those that are advertised most. If advertising were actually honestly informative instead of a blatant sales pitch, using every psychological trick in the book, it might be useful. Ignore the advertising and read the facts and opinions on all sides about each product or candidate. The info is all out there on the internet. "Ah, but that would take so much time and I wouldn't have much time left for fun things." Yeah, well, I can't deny that the cornerstones of American society today are money and entertainment, enjoyed passively. And so, you get Donald Trump. Is that surprising?
Talk about a backlash when Trump or Sanders, if elected, will be totally unable to deliver salvation for their angry constituents. Just as politicians before them, big on promises but no plan to keep them; cynicism rules the day.
2
The cynicism to which you refer, that would be your cynicism?
1
In tegh West is a rebellion against the establishment --- all of it.
Politicians need to truly embrace it and promote complete transparency or step or be swept aside.
Politicians need to truly embrace it and promote complete transparency or step or be swept aside.
2
People are angry because we have had decades of bad governance. Bill Clinton deregulated the banks which led to the '08 meltdown and the mortgage crisis, Bush lied us into a war which destabilized the Middle East for years , Obama's lack of leadership further aggravated Middle East chaos resulting in ISIS which now threatens the EU. The Republicans in Congress refuse to participate in governing, spending all their time obstructing and trying to close down government.
The American public shows good sense in being furious with politicians in Washington. Years of mismanagement, lies, bad judgement and corruption in both parties are threatening to destroy this country. Hard working Americans are right to be sick of politicians.
The American public shows good sense in being furious with politicians in Washington. Years of mismanagement, lies, bad judgement and corruption in both parties are threatening to destroy this country. Hard working Americans are right to be sick of politicians.
2
You seem to forget Repubs have BOTH the House and Senate and what exactly have they done? Despite all the lies and promises they made.
It's not "neo-liberal, reward-the-rich policies" that have created this environment. It's neo-conservative. Otherwise, an excellent article.
4
I think the issues are less complex than many of the pundits posit. For the west, we've seen a mass tidal wave of immigration without assimilation that has changed society little bit by little bit, until the identity of western countries has come under threat. The wars of the Middle East and the drug/social wars of Latin America have caused westerners to look inward and shun intervention. And as economies have slowed and wages stgnated, the rise of the gig economy and unaccountable noxious mega-businesses (think seemingly gleeful airline seat shrinkage), has fueled a growing sense of distrust in business and government. Politics is local, except when it isn't. What people are reacting to are outside forces that the current political parties won't respond to, or (as in illegal immigration) embrace because it suits their longer term electoral demographic model regardless of the harm it will do in the years ahead.
4
The politics of backlash is also the politics of hope. It is the necessary precursor to change. We need change, badly. Power has corrupted the 1% whose influence over politicians has, in turn, corrupted the process of governing in the US. What we have today isn't capitalism with competition in a free market. it's crony capitalism where the unfree market is rigged against competition and profit depends on cheap labor and trashing the poor and unfortunate while distracting the people with Bread and Circuses. Our entertainment is as cruel and violent as the shows in the Coloseum. Movie violence is faked but the violence that has become acceptable after years of watching is real. Neoliberal economics is unsustainable.
Backlash isn't limited to the West. In the ME it's called jihad. The inequality is more extreme and more cruel in the ME and jihad is correspondingly more extreme and more violent and so vicious it cannot be labeled "political backlash". It is existential backlash and the biggest social movement of the day.
Under FDR we changed for the better and we were Good Winners when we were the Last Economy Left Standing. We helped the economies of our former enemies with the Marshall Plan instead of looting at will. That was the basis of the Pax Americana. Try telling that to the current set of elites.
.
Backlash isn't limited to the West. In the ME it's called jihad. The inequality is more extreme and more cruel in the ME and jihad is correspondingly more extreme and more violent and so vicious it cannot be labeled "political backlash". It is existential backlash and the biggest social movement of the day.
Under FDR we changed for the better and we were Good Winners when we were the Last Economy Left Standing. We helped the economies of our former enemies with the Marshall Plan instead of looting at will. That was the basis of the Pax Americana. Try telling that to the current set of elites.
.
7
Both parties stopped actually listening to their voters, rather than counting them, decades ago. It was the big contributors that got entree to the exclusion of everyone else. (I'd still like to know who thought up the Bush tax cuts after the 2000 election. Fat cats from Texas?)
For those who want to experience how influential they can be, try writing your Senator or Congressperson about a policy matter rather than a specific request for case work. Unless you're flagged as a big contributor, what you'll usually get back is a canned, highly generalized bromide signed by a mechanical pen. The mechanical pens came from the 1960s. By now, they've probably have machines to read the mail and reply automatically, after counting whether you're for or against whatever is being counted and classifying you by your demographic characteristics..
If you want to write a committee chair, you can't. Email sent from outside the chair's home district or the senator's home state of them winds up spinning somewhere around Pluto. If my recollection is accurate, Senator Arlen Specter's people pioneered that innovation.
For those who want to experience how influential they can be, try writing your Senator or Congressperson about a policy matter rather than a specific request for case work. Unless you're flagged as a big contributor, what you'll usually get back is a canned, highly generalized bromide signed by a mechanical pen. The mechanical pens came from the 1960s. By now, they've probably have machines to read the mail and reply automatically, after counting whether you're for or against whatever is being counted and classifying you by your demographic characteristics..
If you want to write a committee chair, you can't. Email sent from outside the chair's home district or the senator's home state of them winds up spinning somewhere around Pluto. If my recollection is accurate, Senator Arlen Specter's people pioneered that innovation.
7
Justice and fairness have lost out in the West to “those who wish to dominate.”
Say no more.
Say no more.
6
Sorry! I will say more. Justice and fairness are illusory, and may have looked like winning here for a while. An illusion. And that's part of the problem of American politics--a misunderstanding of history.
A real aspect of the divide is disparities in capital base. Wide fluctuations in the market for jobs or houses, penalize those with light capital reserves. When all the houses went bankrupt, deep pockets moved in and swept them up for nice returns. When jobs got lost in the recession, wage and hour concessions were put in place that still exist.
The result is not simply that income has been stagnant, but rather that the hours of work expectation have gone haywire; the realization that if you take a 2 week vacation and you are not missed than your job is likely gone (private sector), that if you lose a job or your skills become obsolete there is no support system, in actuality, beyond a set of pencils and a cup to sell them in. That it takes two 'breadwinners' to be able to save.
Here are the words lifted from a want add for a local IT position:
‘put in long hours, regular nights and weekends for 6 months while they learn ….. afterwards, 44-55 hours and occasional after hours and weekend support would be expected’.
The position also called for serious technical skills which take many years to acquire.
So Bernie is on to something intuitively, if not precisely expressed. Hillary’s emphasis on identity politics and concomitant entitlement on the other hand, only rubs salt in the wounds for many.
The result is not simply that income has been stagnant, but rather that the hours of work expectation have gone haywire; the realization that if you take a 2 week vacation and you are not missed than your job is likely gone (private sector), that if you lose a job or your skills become obsolete there is no support system, in actuality, beyond a set of pencils and a cup to sell them in. That it takes two 'breadwinners' to be able to save.
Here are the words lifted from a want add for a local IT position:
‘put in long hours, regular nights and weekends for 6 months while they learn ….. afterwards, 44-55 hours and occasional after hours and weekend support would be expected’.
The position also called for serious technical skills which take many years to acquire.
So Bernie is on to something intuitively, if not precisely expressed. Hillary’s emphasis on identity politics and concomitant entitlement on the other hand, only rubs salt in the wounds for many.
4
We've got to help the working class somehow. If only to defend ourselves against the growth of fascism in our midst.
The choices, if we want to help the working class, seem to be:
1) Establish fortress America. Shut out the world. Make everything here. No question the working class lost their jobs because of globalization. So put walls up. Tariffs. And make all those robots pay income taxes.
2) Create new jobs. Somehow. A massive infrastructure program maybe? Make the government the employer of last resort.
3) Put in place a universal minimum income guarantee for all adult citizens. A thousand dollars a month maybe. No work required.
Maybe do bits and pieces of all of these.
The choices, if we want to help the working class, seem to be:
1) Establish fortress America. Shut out the world. Make everything here. No question the working class lost their jobs because of globalization. So put walls up. Tariffs. And make all those robots pay income taxes.
2) Create new jobs. Somehow. A massive infrastructure program maybe? Make the government the employer of last resort.
3) Put in place a universal minimum income guarantee for all adult citizens. A thousand dollars a month maybe. No work required.
Maybe do bits and pieces of all of these.
1
See Charles Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' and begin to understand how natural selection works in the real world. Nature is indifferent, necessarily results in disparate impact upon different groups of people dependent upon their innate abilities. Unfair, perhaps, but not complicated.
" There is a global backlash against rising inequality, stagnant middle-class incomes, politicians for sale, social exclusion, offshoring of jobs, free trade, mass immigration, tax systems skewed for giant corporations and their bosses, and what Pope Francis has lambasted as the “unfettered pursuit of money.”"
Instead of scratching the surface of the so called backlash with opaque rhetoric perhaps you could write about the "Panama Papers" and how they demonstrate how deeply corrupt globalization has become. What was a perception "of a system rigged against them" is now shown to be a reality not only for the US but globally; Europe, Asia, Russia,....
Instead of scratching the surface of the so called backlash with opaque rhetoric perhaps you could write about the "Panama Papers" and how they demonstrate how deeply corrupt globalization has become. What was a perception "of a system rigged against them" is now shown to be a reality not only for the US but globally; Europe, Asia, Russia,....
4
From the article, "Isaiah Berlin, who witnessed the ravages of Fascism and the destruction of Europe, wrote that, 'Equality may demand the restraint of the liberty of those who wish to dominate...'"
That is funny, because restraint of liberty as a prerequisite for obtaining other benefits was exactly what Hitler, Mussolini and many other fascist and socialist despots offered in return for installing their repressive regimes. The author is right to fear a backlash, but the most potent resentment whose eruption could change everything is found among taxpayers who have been mulcted to pay for the policies of equality foisted upon them by politicians of both the left and the right, all of whom reap personal benefits from every dollar of government spending. It isn't that taxpayers aren't sympathetic to the plight of those less fortunate than themselves, it is simply because they realize that government benevolence is nothing more than a euphemism for the biggest scam of all time. In the eyes of the pols, the poor are nothing but an excuse for skimming the cream off the top of all transfer payments.
Let us hope the backlash comes in the form of tax resistance rather than violence, but it must be understood that taxation itself is a forcible, violent construct, and violence tends to beget more of the same.
That is funny, because restraint of liberty as a prerequisite for obtaining other benefits was exactly what Hitler, Mussolini and many other fascist and socialist despots offered in return for installing their repressive regimes. The author is right to fear a backlash, but the most potent resentment whose eruption could change everything is found among taxpayers who have been mulcted to pay for the policies of equality foisted upon them by politicians of both the left and the right, all of whom reap personal benefits from every dollar of government spending. It isn't that taxpayers aren't sympathetic to the plight of those less fortunate than themselves, it is simply because they realize that government benevolence is nothing more than a euphemism for the biggest scam of all time. In the eyes of the pols, the poor are nothing but an excuse for skimming the cream off the top of all transfer payments.
Let us hope the backlash comes in the form of tax resistance rather than violence, but it must be understood that taxation itself is a forcible, violent construct, and violence tends to beget more of the same.
Those who wish to dominate are also doomed to dominate, because the alternative to domination and going up is being dominated and on the way down. The structure of our free market economy does not allow peaceful coexistence to be arranged or preserved, at least not overtly. Everything becomes suffused with competition; charities and schools compete and lose sight of their official missions, and the world becomes one-dimensional, shrinking to the single axis of winning and losing.
The spectacle of professional sports is intense competition within a socialistic, heavily-regulated environment designed to make it very difficult for any team to be very good or very bad for too long, so that the competition is kept interesting and the sport prospers. The world needs such regulation to avert wars and oppression, but we would not know how to do it even if we were willing to accept it. All we know is that the invisible hand will not do it for us without carefully designed rules that the invisible hand has no way of generating.
The spectacle of professional sports is intense competition within a socialistic, heavily-regulated environment designed to make it very difficult for any team to be very good or very bad for too long, so that the competition is kept interesting and the sport prospers. The world needs such regulation to avert wars and oppression, but we would not know how to do it even if we were willing to accept it. All we know is that the invisible hand will not do it for us without carefully designed rules that the invisible hand has no way of generating.
1
Economic well -being need not be a zero sum game. Workers in de-industrialized regions of the US and Europe have not simply lost out to workers in developing countries, they lost out to a financial class (domestic and foreign) that extracted more than its share of the benefits of globalization. Then, in classic political manipulation, these billionaires urge against class-based politics or income redistribution while urging the poor and working class people in one country to fight against the poor and working class people of other countries.
16
An excellent article. I teach a course on ancient Roman history, and am struck by the resemblance of the late Roman Republic (2nd and 1st centuries BC) with the situation in the developed world today. With money and slaves flowing in from overseas conquests, Roman politicians and military men such as Caesar and Pompey could capture the political system and turn it to their own almost exclusive advantage. A huge influx of slaves from foreign wars led to unemployment among the poorer Roman citizens, since they couldn't compete with "no wage" (not just low wage) slaves in the labor market, especially in rural areas where the rich established huge latifundia (plantations) worked by slaves.
The Roman Republic collapsed, to be replaced by a relatively moderate absolute monarch, Caesar Augustus, who along with most of his successors ruled competently until the 3rd century AD.
I wonder who America's Augustus will be if the present system is not reformed, and whether he will be as competent and conscientious as the original.
The Roman Republic collapsed, to be replaced by a relatively moderate absolute monarch, Caesar Augustus, who along with most of his successors ruled competently until the 3rd century AD.
I wonder who America's Augustus will be if the present system is not reformed, and whether he will be as competent and conscientious as the original.
21
It's not just just inequality stagnant middle-class incomes, politicians for sale, social exclusion, offshoring of jobs, free trade, mass immigration etc etc
It's that the rich now can get away unpunished for their crimes. Not a single individual was prosecuted for causing the great recession.
It didn't used to be the case. After the much smaller S&L crisis, more than 200 bankers were sent to jail.
It's that the rich now can get away unpunished for their crimes. Not a single individual was prosecuted for causing the great recession.
It didn't used to be the case. After the much smaller S&L crisis, more than 200 bankers were sent to jail.
128
I spent 33 years working with felonious young men. A lot of them went on to do years of confinement. After your note I was trying to find some form calculus
That would tell me if they did more harm to the whole of society than some Wharton's MBA who got hundreds/thousands thrown out of their homes and jobs.
I want a world in which rich dishonest guys go to prison when they violate the law. The criminal law is not a standard to which poor white, African American
and Hispanics should be held and from which very well paid Corporate managers and fund managers should be excluded.
That would tell me if they did more harm to the whole of society than some Wharton's MBA who got hundreds/thousands thrown out of their homes and jobs.
I want a world in which rich dishonest guys go to prison when they violate the law. The criminal law is not a standard to which poor white, African American
and Hispanics should be held and from which very well paid Corporate managers and fund managers should be excluded.
9
We can thank Obama, and his Justice Dept. under Holder for failing to prosecute the bankers who led us to the last economic collapse.
I happily voted for Obama twice. But, his and Holder's failure will be written about in history books. A bitter and huge part of Obama's legacy. That failure has engendered the rage of both the right and the left that will be with us for quite a while.
Why did Obama and Holder choose not to prosecute Wall Street? Is it that Holder wanted to make sure he kept his lucrative law practice? What was Obama's incentive? Does he hope to work in some capacity in the financial sector in the future?
Other than due to personal greed, their failure is incomprehensible.
I happily voted for Obama twice. But, his and Holder's failure will be written about in history books. A bitter and huge part of Obama's legacy. That failure has engendered the rage of both the right and the left that will be with us for quite a while.
Why did Obama and Holder choose not to prosecute Wall Street? Is it that Holder wanted to make sure he kept his lucrative law practice? What was Obama's incentive? Does he hope to work in some capacity in the financial sector in the future?
Other than due to personal greed, their failure is incomprehensible.
1
Sorry, Woof. It was the case more often throughout history than not.
Excellent paragraph on Hillary (versus Bernie), which I quote below. Please sent it to each of the superdelegates. And circulate it to the New York Times election news and opinion folks, in hope of awakening them to responsible election coverage.
"Hillary Clinton’s chief predicament, apart from the trust issue, is that she represents the past in a world where the post-cold-war optimism that accompanied her husband’s arrival in the White House almost a quarter-century ago has vanished. To embody continuity these days is political suicide."
"Hillary Clinton’s chief predicament, apart from the trust issue, is that she represents the past in a world where the post-cold-war optimism that accompanied her husband’s arrival in the White House almost a quarter-century ago has vanished. To embody continuity these days is political suicide."
15
have the working class people in those emerging markets done well, or have all the gains of those economies gone to the top, as has been done here? I don't see the working class people in China or East Asia doing so very well, and I am skeptical that the one percent would pay them anything like a decent living wage. Living in a dormitory is not what we consider a rising standard of living.
7
Blame both Republican and Democratic policies for this swath of inequality. Republican "trickle down" economics and Democrat out of control "social spending" has wreaked havoc on everyone. We can't sustain this much longer folks. The "breakaway" candidates Trump and Sanders, although diametrically opposed, actually have more in common with each other than many would like to believe. Both are Nihilistic Isolationists and propose a radical approach to the way government spending needs to be reigned in and reallocated. Trump may scare people with his rhetoric- but that is his way of asking for the impossible up front in order scale down [or in his words "negotiate"] to his real objectives. Sanders, believe it or not is flat out nuts- as he strives for a 60's era socialist utopia, hopefully he too will scale down his grand vision and realize that a pragmatic approach with a combination of capitalism and neo-socialism is more attainable. YES- we CAN have both! Yet the establishment candidates [Hillary, Cruz, Kasich] and their special interest lobbies are spending hundreds of millions campaigning that we can't.
1
It is not at all limited to the West, in case no one has noticed.
2
Can we stop using "neo-liberalism" as a synonym for cruel conservatism? It blackens the liberal / progressive label without any reason.
27
There is an old Middle Eastern story that is quite relevant here. Two guys were walking at the shores of Euphrates river. One notices a floating tiger skin and jumps into the river for the bounty. The other guy sees his friend struggling and almost drowning so shouts "leave the tiger skin and save yourself." The drowning man screams back " I've left the skin, , but the skin won't leave me." - there was a live tiger in the river.
The infamous 1% is captive to an economic system so fragile that leaves very little to discretion. The system is making demands and the 1% must feed it to keep it alive or it'll sink and take all of us to the bottoms.
Bleeding the rich with high taxes may make them poorer but it won't sustain the middle class . We won't get a fighting chance until we reduce the size of multinational corporations and make economy more local.
The infamous 1% is captive to an economic system so fragile that leaves very little to discretion. The system is making demands and the 1% must feed it to keep it alive or it'll sink and take all of us to the bottoms.
Bleeding the rich with high taxes may make them poorer but it won't sustain the middle class . We won't get a fighting chance until we reduce the size of multinational corporations and make economy more local.
11
I watched a Trump rally last night. He made his proposals in a very coherent, easy to follow fashion, as he often does. When he lists his policy proposals in his stump speech, he is organized, and totally understandable. His answers to questions on things that don't interest him (abortion) were incoherent. He isn't good at answering rapid fire questions from reporters who are out to get him. I think we should forgive him this. I think we should stop attacking him, when we don't attack Kasich or Cruz who are far worse.
I like Sanders for President. But Trump isn't nearly as bad as the New York Times reporting would have you believe. His stump speech isn't racist. His message isn't racist. His proposals are very close to those of Mr. Sanders in many respects.
I think the New York Times should attack Cruz and Kasich. Trump is the best of the Republicans. I just read the comments to another piece about him in today's paper and felt quite discouraged. NYT readers really don't know what Trump says; they are just so completely full of hate because they believe things that aren't accurate.
The right wing press is and should be against Trump, because his ideas are quite progressive and obviously the Right should oppose him. There isn't any reason for the liberal press to spread disinformation and hate on him. For a Republican, he is a breath of fresh air.
I like Sanders for President. But Trump isn't nearly as bad as the New York Times reporting would have you believe. His stump speech isn't racist. His message isn't racist. His proposals are very close to those of Mr. Sanders in many respects.
I think the New York Times should attack Cruz and Kasich. Trump is the best of the Republicans. I just read the comments to another piece about him in today's paper and felt quite discouraged. NYT readers really don't know what Trump says; they are just so completely full of hate because they believe things that aren't accurate.
The right wing press is and should be against Trump, because his ideas are quite progressive and obviously the Right should oppose him. There isn't any reason for the liberal press to spread disinformation and hate on him. For a Republican, he is a breath of fresh air.
20
Karen - "I think the New York Times should attack Cruz and Kasich."
The NYT is a NEWS paper not an attack dog for the Democratic party. It should not be attacking anyone but should be bringing its readers the unvarnished NEWS. It would be nice to read the news without the partisan political propaganda that has its readers wanting it to attack.
The NYT is a NEWS paper not an attack dog for the Democratic party. It should not be attacking anyone but should be bringing its readers the unvarnished NEWS. It would be nice to read the news without the partisan political propaganda that has its readers wanting it to attack.
1
Trump's proposals may seem coherent to some, but they are fundamentally wrong. His eagerness to arouse anger and hate disqualify him from office and the liberal press rightly says so.
The growing revolt of those who "feel" that they have no voice, and "believe" that they are sliding into oblivion from the past 30 years of the Far Right’s annexation of power and the Robber Barons’ inhalation of every loose penny on the planet is not a matter of perception. The fears of working people are real, and since the American middle class either knows already or is daily discovering that they have been had, and had badly, they are turning to the outer shores of politics to find salvation.
If ivory tower pundits would only spend a Friday evening carefully observing people at Walmart, they would understand the source of this revolt in the hard struggles of families who load up on high-filling, low-nutrition foods, rifle through credit cards to find one with enough available credit to cover the week’s necessities, and leave frightened by seeing “Current Balance-$5.46” at the ATM.
Desperation has become the reality for too much of America, and it is hard on the hunt for someone to blame. The Republicans point the finger at immigrants, Obama, and bad trade deals, and the Left defines the enemy as the purchased politics of oligarchy. But as history proves, fear and anger can create a common cause in which large, disparate groups cease being the enemies their handlers would have them be. Should that happen, we ought well remember that since desperation dragged even the exalted Czar of Russia from his Winter Palace, we could be in for an upheaval not seen since 1860.
If ivory tower pundits would only spend a Friday evening carefully observing people at Walmart, they would understand the source of this revolt in the hard struggles of families who load up on high-filling, low-nutrition foods, rifle through credit cards to find one with enough available credit to cover the week’s necessities, and leave frightened by seeing “Current Balance-$5.46” at the ATM.
Desperation has become the reality for too much of America, and it is hard on the hunt for someone to blame. The Republicans point the finger at immigrants, Obama, and bad trade deals, and the Left defines the enemy as the purchased politics of oligarchy. But as history proves, fear and anger can create a common cause in which large, disparate groups cease being the enemies their handlers would have them be. Should that happen, we ought well remember that since desperation dragged even the exalted Czar of Russia from his Winter Palace, we could be in for an upheaval not seen since 1860.
32
Very good analysis but like every other analysis I read has no suggestions for a cure. We need change is not a plan. We need to do some harsh and rough rearrangement in the US. The rich need to live on less. Actually I do not have to live on less but they do need to stop hoarding useless money while so many people suffer. Everyone talks about the working class. What about the poor, Social Security recipients. We paid for a benefits and then the banks took our money - all of it in my case. I was always quite comfortable but now I barely make it and no COLA for us so as prices go sky rocketing we give up one things after another. Actually inflation is very high but the government makes out tables of what old people should eat and how they can eat less and eat the junky, unhealthy foods manufactured. That is what our country thinks about the poor, the old and they sick. The US has no soul. None at all. I have wondered for over 20 years when the revolution will start. Maybe soon I hope. And by the way don't shove Bernie Sanders in the same category with those radicals. He is not radical at all. He just wants a better country. What is wrong with that. With Hillary we have no hope.
77
I miscalculated. I thought it would be Krugman carrying the NY Times edict that one of the columnists must throw Senator Sanders under the bus every day in a round robin. But, other than guessing the wrong columnist the Times is on track. Lets see who gets the privilege tomorrow.
The rich can continue to live on the money it costs them. What needs to stop in the massive excess of money the earn from exploiting labor by underpaying them. It's truly unconscionable and immoral that the rich can claim that they earn the money that they acquire.
5
It peeves me no end that we are told there are no plans that ameliorate the situation. The are many plans and they are formulated and discussed daily by people with expertise in the many fields to be considered as we face a frightening future.
Here is a link to to the papers presented at the May 2012 degrowth conference in Montreal. They just scratch the surface of the options we have if we but understand we cannot continue what we are doing.
http://montreal.degrowth.org/papers.html
Here is a link to to the papers presented at the May 2012 degrowth conference in Montreal. They just scratch the surface of the options we have if we but understand we cannot continue what we are doing.
http://montreal.degrowth.org/papers.html
2
I'm sure that Mr. Berlin said those those words.
But he sure didn't say them first.
Rather than "decades ago" they were said about two thousand years ago by a Jewish peasant from Nazareth, Galilee, with the important addition of "heal the sick."
We still hear these words dimly now and then and still ignore them.
And we all know what happened to him when he expressed these ideas rather loudly throughout Judea and Israel.
But he sure didn't say them first.
Rather than "decades ago" they were said about two thousand years ago by a Jewish peasant from Nazareth, Galilee, with the important addition of "heal the sick."
We still hear these words dimly now and then and still ignore them.
And we all know what happened to him when he expressed these ideas rather loudly throughout Judea and Israel.
6
Oh Kay: craftsmen weren't peasants!
1
One thing I think Mr. Cohen neglected to mention is the role of religion in US ideology. Yes, the social compact is stronger in Europe, but why? Is it purely that greed is a stronger force in the US? I don't think so. Part of the problem is that American capitalism has always been linked to the concepts now called the "prosperity doctrine". Its base is a Calvinist belief that God will reward the virtuous with material success, and you will be able to spot the virtuous by their property and position. Nowadays, this is mixed with a good bit of magical thinking, too -- think positive and positive things will come to you. The flip side of that is blaming the poor or unsuccessful for their failure -- if "those people" can't get ahead, it must be because of their bad character. This need to assign praise and blame is a fundamental part of the philosophy of a nation founded by Puritans. Seeing the wealthy as the deserving and the poor as the wicked explains why there is tremendous ambivalence and often outright hostility toward policies designed to benefit all. This attitude shows up in celebrity worship as well as in voters who vote against their own self-interests. Americans simply do not want to think that they might someday need a handout, because that would mark them as unworthy and possibly damned, nor do they want to give any handouts to others they view as unworthy. I am waiting for any candidate, even Sanders, to address this directly.
41
I believe an important entity that we leave out, why this backlash is not just the corporations and politicians but the media. The media is no longer seen as trustworthy and that it does not consider the voice of the common people. Media goes for the big ads from the same corporations that represent the one percent and leave out the common man. Hence the rise of the social media which does not depend on the press or journalism or editors. So whoever manages that message in this new media becomes the flavor of the month. As you can even with Mr. Cohen, he writes despite millions of US citizens supporting him, like or not, that Trump is unserious and incoherent. Yet Trump seem to resonant with many people. But not to this elite columnist who is seems to be a bit like "post cold war optimist" himself.
9
Wealth transferred from the working class in the West to an emerging working class in the developing world is not the issue. What is the issue is wealth vacuumed from the pockets of workers all over the world into the hands of a rapidly dwindling number of unimaginably wealthy Pharaohs. Almost all new wealth and income generated by workers everywhere is going into the hands of the 1%. "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." -- Balzac
193
Unfortunately for this type of simplistic thinking there is more than one issue. Globalization is real, technological change is real, a high rate of immigration really does put downward pressure on wages, etc, etc. Which is why producing positive change in the developing countries is going to be so very difficult.
1
I totally agree with Cohen's column. The economic greed of the shareholder class in our midst is out of control. All these people care about is pile money upon a pile of money they already accumulated; they feel absolutely zero sense of camaraderie with their struggling fellow citizens, they are only obsessed with amassing more money. Today's political backlash, I am afraid, is only a warm up to more chaos to come.
45
Spot on. Years ago a documentary called simply 'The Corporation' came out. I highly recommend it.
At one point in the movie, a small group of motivated and idealistic college students decide they're going to picket the home of a high level executive of a major oil company. What happened is that he and his wife came outside to sit and take quietly with the protesters. They both seemed to be very concerned with the environment and just overall a very *nice* couple. One of the students even said this on camera to the movie makers.
The idea you come away with is that the individuals who run these companies are by and large decent people, but it's the *system* that's destructive. They didn't put a name to it, but I will: the modern corporation is based on the idea of 'anonymized greed'. Most people in their bones know that greed is bad, and would never behave that way when dealing directly with someone (because the greedy also tend to be cowardly). But by buying shares in a corporation, the undeniable tacit agreement is that the people who run it will increase profits by ANY means necessary, no matter who gets abused, hurt, poisoned, and yes, even killed. But of course there's never any official quid pro quo and shareholders are immune to any and all civil or criminal liability for acts done by the corporation.
As Harry Lime pointed out near the end of 'The Third Man', those people are just dots. What do you care if one of them just disappears.
At one point in the movie, a small group of motivated and idealistic college students decide they're going to picket the home of a high level executive of a major oil company. What happened is that he and his wife came outside to sit and take quietly with the protesters. They both seemed to be very concerned with the environment and just overall a very *nice* couple. One of the students even said this on camera to the movie makers.
The idea you come away with is that the individuals who run these companies are by and large decent people, but it's the *system* that's destructive. They didn't put a name to it, but I will: the modern corporation is based on the idea of 'anonymized greed'. Most people in their bones know that greed is bad, and would never behave that way when dealing directly with someone (because the greedy also tend to be cowardly). But by buying shares in a corporation, the undeniable tacit agreement is that the people who run it will increase profits by ANY means necessary, no matter who gets abused, hurt, poisoned, and yes, even killed. But of course there's never any official quid pro quo and shareholders are immune to any and all civil or criminal liability for acts done by the corporation.
As Harry Lime pointed out near the end of 'The Third Man', those people are just dots. What do you care if one of them just disappears.
5
"The ... greed of the shareholder class in our midst is out of control." Do you mean everyone who has an employee 401k account containing shares, bought over 20 years from a not-huge salary? Because people like that are not part of the wealthy class I think you mean to describe.
1
Dawit: you give a good illustration of the dangers of Bernie's rhetoric or rancor and envy. Wall St is essential to the pensions of a hundred million people. Tar down Wall St and you'll create a massive depression. Ever ride a horse? Ever kill it because it needed guidance with the rein?
2
Terrific job of busting down an open door, Roger.
8
In 1980 we were told the lie that we could reduce taxes on the rich and that revenues wouldn't go down, and that all this money kept in the pockets of those who would come to known (erroneously) as the 'job creators' would result in prosperity for all. This was falsehood that would never have worked, yet was peddled over and over again by the right despite clear economic evidence that it was pure bunk.
In the 90s, amidst the rose colored hue of the end of the cold war, we were told that globalization would result in prosperity for all. This time the right and the left were selling the idea, with some notable fringe naysayers, one of whom helped propel Bill Clinton into the W.H.
Unlike supply-side Voodoo, globalization in the form of trade deals aren't necessarily bunk, but it depends on how they're structured, who they're designed to benefit or protect, and of course ironclad enforcement mechanisms.
NAFTA and later CAFTA were structured as very 'business friendly' deals, with little or no living wage stipulations, union protections or environmental safeguards in place.
The '20%' that this article references are getting squeezed from the bottom, but also from the top. The pie isn't shrinking, in fact it's growing, but they're not getting any of that growth, and haven't been for 30 years now.
In the 90s, amidst the rose colored hue of the end of the cold war, we were told that globalization would result in prosperity for all. This time the right and the left were selling the idea, with some notable fringe naysayers, one of whom helped propel Bill Clinton into the W.H.
Unlike supply-side Voodoo, globalization in the form of trade deals aren't necessarily bunk, but it depends on how they're structured, who they're designed to benefit or protect, and of course ironclad enforcement mechanisms.
NAFTA and later CAFTA were structured as very 'business friendly' deals, with little or no living wage stipulations, union protections or environmental safeguards in place.
The '20%' that this article references are getting squeezed from the bottom, but also from the top. The pie isn't shrinking, in fact it's growing, but they're not getting any of that growth, and haven't been for 30 years now.
92
The middle class started losing its collective wealth in the early 1970's. The manufacturing sector was the engine that drove the middle class prosperity in the post-war boom years (1945-1973). That's a relatively short period of this county's existence.
But referring the 1980 does make for a better polemic.
But referring the 1980 does make for a better polemic.
Yes. Same in France. They refer to the period 1945--1975 as the Glorious Thirty.
Roger, you are quite right that the politics that speaks only of ' liberty' without a concomitant concern for equality can deliver neither.
That much was/is implicit in what we've professed, unevenly to be sure, over our country's history. Yet there is no guarantee that our institutions and practice of politics, more and more driven by the theater of the mass media and less and less by personal encounters with fellow citizens, will or can revive the spirit of what Isaiah Berlin wrote.
Still, there is room for hope when a Bernie Sanders can call us to attend to serious messages of the sort this current campaign has generated.
Thank you.
That much was/is implicit in what we've professed, unevenly to be sure, over our country's history. Yet there is no guarantee that our institutions and practice of politics, more and more driven by the theater of the mass media and less and less by personal encounters with fellow citizens, will or can revive the spirit of what Isaiah Berlin wrote.
Still, there is room for hope when a Bernie Sanders can call us to attend to serious messages of the sort this current campaign has generated.
Thank you.
6
The working class in America have a right to complain. They have been left out of the economic recovery since 2008, Yes, they and everyone else in America should have good and affordable health care. They should be able to send their sons and daughters to college without huge debts. They should be angry and they are.
But they are not qualified to analyze why they are in this position; nor should they pretend to know the best way to solve the problems. They latch onto stupid causes and solutions. It's all because of NAFTA, they say. No it's not. A huge tariff on Chinese and Mexican goods will solve the problem. No it won't. A single payer health care insurance system will fix the health care problem. No it won't. I say this about Bernie Sanders's plan because his numbers don't add up.
I disagree with Mr. Cohen's comments about Hillary Clinton. She isn't trying to go back to the 1990s; instead she wants to build on the successes of President Obama. It is nonsense to accuse her of being beholden to corporate and bank interests just because they have made some contributions to her campaign. Read her website. She isn't going to do the bidding of Wall Street or the fossil fuel industry. She believes that the wealthiest individuals and corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. She is the only candidate in the primaries who will improve the lot of working people. Sen. Sanders won't because his policies are unrealistic for the America of today.
But they are not qualified to analyze why they are in this position; nor should they pretend to know the best way to solve the problems. They latch onto stupid causes and solutions. It's all because of NAFTA, they say. No it's not. A huge tariff on Chinese and Mexican goods will solve the problem. No it won't. A single payer health care insurance system will fix the health care problem. No it won't. I say this about Bernie Sanders's plan because his numbers don't add up.
I disagree with Mr. Cohen's comments about Hillary Clinton. She isn't trying to go back to the 1990s; instead she wants to build on the successes of President Obama. It is nonsense to accuse her of being beholden to corporate and bank interests just because they have made some contributions to her campaign. Read her website. She isn't going to do the bidding of Wall Street or the fossil fuel industry. She believes that the wealthiest individuals and corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. She is the only candidate in the primaries who will improve the lot of working people. Sen. Sanders won't because his policies are unrealistic for the America of today.
24
Just asserting something doesn't make it true. Sanders' plans have a cost and they've been detailed extensively. Saying the numbers don't add up is a meaningless statement. What should they add up to? There's no such thing - there is a cost and the question is whether we'll agree to pay for it and how (Sanders has explained how). If we can find money to fight wars and have bases all over the world, we can find the money to do this.
25
An extension is Obama's policies is an extension of groveling to the oligarchy. The insurers were the real winners Obamacare. The neocons still effect foreign policy.
2
Capitalism in the US has survived based on the Horatip Alger myth that, with some luck and pluck, anyone can succeed and get rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Millions of people don't buy that these days.
Will Rogers remarked almost 100 years ago that we have the best Congress money can buy. Now everyone knows that them that has, gits.
The problem remains that none of the candidates has a viable solution to the problems created by a changing economy. It does not help that no one, individually or collectively, makes good decisions when angry, and that is where we are. Frustrated all the way around.
Will Rogers remarked almost 100 years ago that we have the best Congress money can buy. Now everyone knows that them that has, gits.
The problem remains that none of the candidates has a viable solution to the problems created by a changing economy. It does not help that no one, individually or collectively, makes good decisions when angry, and that is where we are. Frustrated all the way around.
3
Reders must be careful not to conflate NeoLiberalism with Liberalism or Progressivism!
Neoliberalism is the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economics beginning in the '70s and '80s. Its advocates support extensive economic policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.
Neoliberalism is associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the UK & Ronald Reagan in the US
Neoliberalism is the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economics beginning in the '70s and '80s. Its advocates support extensive economic policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.
Neoliberalism is associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the UK & Ronald Reagan in the US
14
Thanks for the clarification, seriously. Sounds like a neoCON in sheeps clothing.
3
I have never quite understood: what's the difference between Neolibs ad Neocons?
@Bob Weil
Really? Confusing a wikipedia entry you plagiarized with an actual word instead of a pundit coined pejorative neologism?
The Confucian notion of the rectification of names suggests an essential corruption when you name something that doesn't exist or masks a deception or twists the truth.
Liberals believe humans are intrinsically good and unfettered can reach their full potential. Freedom, community, self worth and equality are liberal. Conservatives believe humans are essentially bad and must be controlled by authority of the powerful and superior by nature. All motivation is reward and punishment and morality is just survival of the fittest.
"Neo-liberals" is what conservatives disparagingly call disillusioned, dispirited liberals. The term makes conservatives feel vindicated and smug about their cynical calculation that human spirit is just a cocktail of greed and domination of losers. It offers an illusory sense of a rooted conservatism rigid in its convictions and a drifting, unanchored liberalism of fleeting and weak beliefs.
Human progress is the evolution of conservative to liberal. Neo-liberal is the lie that conservatives tell themselves in denial of their eventual extinction. It's how they spook the weakest of liberals, knowing they'll parrot it endlessly and spread confusion.
Liberals who live and think outside the claustrophobic conservative-owned reality aren't distracted by right wing spin. They're cunning and they win.
Neo or not.
Really? Confusing a wikipedia entry you plagiarized with an actual word instead of a pundit coined pejorative neologism?
The Confucian notion of the rectification of names suggests an essential corruption when you name something that doesn't exist or masks a deception or twists the truth.
Liberals believe humans are intrinsically good and unfettered can reach their full potential. Freedom, community, self worth and equality are liberal. Conservatives believe humans are essentially bad and must be controlled by authority of the powerful and superior by nature. All motivation is reward and punishment and morality is just survival of the fittest.
"Neo-liberals" is what conservatives disparagingly call disillusioned, dispirited liberals. The term makes conservatives feel vindicated and smug about their cynical calculation that human spirit is just a cocktail of greed and domination of losers. It offers an illusory sense of a rooted conservatism rigid in its convictions and a drifting, unanchored liberalism of fleeting and weak beliefs.
Human progress is the evolution of conservative to liberal. Neo-liberal is the lie that conservatives tell themselves in denial of their eventual extinction. It's how they spook the weakest of liberals, knowing they'll parrot it endlessly and spread confusion.
Liberals who live and think outside the claustrophobic conservative-owned reality aren't distracted by right wing spin. They're cunning and they win.
Neo or not.
In the end globalization turned out to be a mass transfer of wealth from Western working classes to developing countries. I wonder if globalization would have happened had it been predicated on the mass redistribution of wealth from Western societies one percenters. In the U.S. they were actually able to engineer a redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top through tax cuts, globalization, deregulation, etc. Amazing!
11
Yes, the angry is there and growing and does anyone really think the current brand of politicians can deal with it ? I don't and so do many others. The result may well lead to the "man/woman on the white horse".
1
The Occupy Wall Street movement did a good job making inequality in our capitalist society an issue in the name of the 99% versus the 1%. However. although it caught fire, it soon fizzled. Inequality (when you consider human nature and greed and accumulating as much as we can regardless of real need or the impact on others less fortunate) is built into capitalism. Isn't it? Thus, if the fight against inequality is fought within the framework of capitalism, doesn't that mean fighting to lessen inequality while also allowing it?
4
Muse: Oligarchs now rule, so is democracy at the point where it is no longer worth saving?
4
Good one
There are limits to how much this earth can be consumed by consumers. Perhaps the very rich this time are called to embrace a spirituality that feeds so well you never feel hungry again. Then material wealth become tools to find and maintain the wealth where you will never feel hungry again
Once you have this pearl of great price love is overflowing on all the rivers the lakes the mountains the sea the land filled with nurturing milk and honey can the snow is warm on your naked feet because they woman without the belly button is filling you with her intimacy for you the realization of just how much she loves you and her great ocean of love begins to be released into your mouth by her first kiss and the forest reveals mysterious hidden for a billion years for you
And each person has such an other without the belly button but if you are only a camel you will struggle to get through that needle of an eye
There are limits to how much this earth can be consumed by consumers. Perhaps the very rich this time are called to embrace a spirituality that feeds so well you never feel hungry again. Then material wealth become tools to find and maintain the wealth where you will never feel hungry again
Once you have this pearl of great price love is overflowing on all the rivers the lakes the mountains the sea the land filled with nurturing milk and honey can the snow is warm on your naked feet because they woman without the belly button is filling you with her intimacy for you the realization of just how much she loves you and her great ocean of love begins to be released into your mouth by her first kiss and the forest reveals mysterious hidden for a billion years for you
And each person has such an other without the belly button but if you are only a camel you will struggle to get through that needle of an eye
It is true that "globalization" has generally worked out to the advantage of many millions of people in the developing world, but to the detriment of many people in the West. The solution is obvious and has been for some time: if a country's economy is going to be open to the forces of globalization, it needs to provide a secure social safety net to its citizens. This is part of the necessary social bargain. That social safety net should provide a secure income and clear opportunities for retraining to those displaced by global economic forces. If this can be done, then the anger and insecurity that has come with lost jobs and opportunities will be allayed to a significant degree.
The problem is that doing this requires a shift of wealth from the top 1% to everyone else through taxation and other measures; it means an interventionist state that is willing to smooth over the hard edges of globalization and makes its social effects less destructive. Some states are more ready and willing to provide this kind of safety net than others. In general, the US is a state that has a problems doing what needs to be done in this respect. Deeply held racial politics and the manipulations of the American plutocracy mean that getting a decent welfare state off the ground is very difficult. Until this changes, the social pot will continue to boil.
The problem is that doing this requires a shift of wealth from the top 1% to everyone else through taxation and other measures; it means an interventionist state that is willing to smooth over the hard edges of globalization and makes its social effects less destructive. Some states are more ready and willing to provide this kind of safety net than others. In general, the US is a state that has a problems doing what needs to be done in this respect. Deeply held racial politics and the manipulations of the American plutocracy mean that getting a decent welfare state off the ground is very difficult. Until this changes, the social pot will continue to boil.
4
The first paragraph and the last two paragraphs are a great accomplishment in summarizing the bitterness of this election cycle towards money backed and money grubbing politicians like Hillary and Jeb and their corrupt legacy political parties.
We are at an inflection point where millions of voters see things for as they are not as politicians would like to spin them. Thank you internet and its social media derivatives. Hillary and Jeb represent an echo of the brazen "I deserve this" mentality which is spawned in the political parties and that voters are rejecting.
We are in a gigantic struggle between the will of the political parties and the will of the people. The parties purport to represent the will of the people but are privately held and run by the 1% mostly just to rob the people blind. Social issues just fill in the time. Don't believe me? Name one poor political figure in these parties either politician or supporter.
We are at an inflection point where millions of voters see things for as they are not as politicians would like to spin them. Thank you internet and its social media derivatives. Hillary and Jeb represent an echo of the brazen "I deserve this" mentality which is spawned in the political parties and that voters are rejecting.
We are in a gigantic struggle between the will of the political parties and the will of the people. The parties purport to represent the will of the people but are privately held and run by the 1% mostly just to rob the people blind. Social issues just fill in the time. Don't believe me? Name one poor political figure in these parties either politician or supporter.
4
Great to read some common sense. Great quote at the end! I would like to remind my friends out there that we did not arrive at this place all of a sudden. Nixon was elected to begin the destruction of the middle class, he was not implementing the shadow government's policy, so he was dumped. Reagan was the next one, and, though moderate by today's Republican standard, he edged us toward middle class destruction. The real triumph of the loss of democracy was actually under Clinton; the repeal of Glass/Steagal and the implementation of NAFTA was a middle class disaster, opening the opportunity for the Bushes to forward the Republican strategy. But W (or Cheney) ushered in a coup d'état for the 1%ers that will take generations to clean up.
Please notice that these things were small steps in the beginning but, hind sight being 20/20, we could have seen it coming, were we not distracted by wars, abortion, and gay relationships, and the screeching of Fox News.
Now Bernie has come forward to reverse this process. YES we know he can't do everything he knows should be done, but he can reverse the trend. It will take a minimum of 20years and at least 5 progressive Congresses to rebuild democracy, but we must start now, or it will be never. The Republicans took that long to destroy us, now we have to begin the revolution back to the real American way! Patience my friends, we can get back to reality if we work together.
Please notice that these things were small steps in the beginning but, hind sight being 20/20, we could have seen it coming, were we not distracted by wars, abortion, and gay relationships, and the screeching of Fox News.
Now Bernie has come forward to reverse this process. YES we know he can't do everything he knows should be done, but he can reverse the trend. It will take a minimum of 20years and at least 5 progressive Congresses to rebuild democracy, but we must start now, or it will be never. The Republicans took that long to destroy us, now we have to begin the revolution back to the real American way! Patience my friends, we can get back to reality if we work together.
7
Dear Mr. Cohen,
Thank you for your insightfulness, although I take issue with your 20% of the population I believe the loss of Jobs to foreogn labor is far greater than what you came up with. It not only affects the workers who are left to fend for themselves but the supply chain that supported the Companies that moved their manufacturing overseas.were also devastated we're talking about millions of Americans who are unemployed or are forced to work for subpar wages the $15.00 is a joke.There was a partial answer to this dilemma,& that was subsidizing the American Companies that couldn't compete with overseas labor. This would have kept jobs here & families in tact.However, the Greed was so great the 20% was expendable. It didn't help that our Government gave the Companies that moved a 10% tax credit for taking the jibs to China & elsewhere.Sanders is correct ,his is a revolution unfortunately, the Clinton supporters just can't understand it, and continue to vote against their own interests.
Thank you for your insightfulness, although I take issue with your 20% of the population I believe the loss of Jobs to foreogn labor is far greater than what you came up with. It not only affects the workers who are left to fend for themselves but the supply chain that supported the Companies that moved their manufacturing overseas.were also devastated we're talking about millions of Americans who are unemployed or are forced to work for subpar wages the $15.00 is a joke.There was a partial answer to this dilemma,& that was subsidizing the American Companies that couldn't compete with overseas labor. This would have kept jobs here & families in tact.However, the Greed was so great the 20% was expendable. It didn't help that our Government gave the Companies that moved a 10% tax credit for taking the jibs to China & elsewhere.Sanders is correct ,his is a revolution unfortunately, the Clinton supporters just can't understand it, and continue to vote against their own interests.
4
Mr. Cohen notes that "Justice and fairness have lost out in the West to 'those who wish to dominate.'"
While those on the left will define those who wish to dominate as multinational corporations and the rich, those on the right would say that it's politicians and government bureaucrats who wish to dominate.
The backlash I see is against the overweening power of government which is used to benefit the political class (e.g. Hillary Clinton) and their crony capitalist friends in favored industries (solar, Wall Street, etc.)
If you wonder why good jobs are scarce, look no further than Washington.
While those on the left will define those who wish to dominate as multinational corporations and the rich, those on the right would say that it's politicians and government bureaucrats who wish to dominate.
The backlash I see is against the overweening power of government which is used to benefit the political class (e.g. Hillary Clinton) and their crony capitalist friends in favored industries (solar, Wall Street, etc.)
If you wonder why good jobs are scarce, look no further than Washington.
6
This analysis--courtesy of Rush/Fox/Coulter/O'Reilly will only enhance the powers of those who dominate. It may look as if the "political class" is in charge, but they are not the true "masters of the universe". They are but mere underlings, servants of their masters.
Case in point--Iraq. What drove the rush to invade........yellow cake? Not so much--that turned out to be nothing more than lies. "Iraqi freedom"? OK--if you still want to believe that, I can't stop you. No--the invasion was driven by one factor--OIL--and by extension, $$$$, just as oil has been the driver of Mideast policy for over a hundred years; first British Empire policy, and then US (empire) policy.
Of course, in the case of Iraq, there was some overlap. Cheney was VP after all, and he drew up the master plan, while simultaneously enriching himself and his Halliburton cronies.
As long as attention is deflected from the bankers/industrialist/corporatists who actually call the shots, they will remain unencumbered in their desire to dominate and destroy.
Case in point--Iraq. What drove the rush to invade........yellow cake? Not so much--that turned out to be nothing more than lies. "Iraqi freedom"? OK--if you still want to believe that, I can't stop you. No--the invasion was driven by one factor--OIL--and by extension, $$$$, just as oil has been the driver of Mideast policy for over a hundred years; first British Empire policy, and then US (empire) policy.
Of course, in the case of Iraq, there was some overlap. Cheney was VP after all, and he drew up the master plan, while simultaneously enriching himself and his Halliburton cronies.
As long as attention is deflected from the bankers/industrialist/corporatists who actually call the shots, they will remain unencumbered in their desire to dominate and destroy.
8
There is - and never was - any viable and sustainable alternative to the combination of competitive private enterprise and strong democratic governance (or what used to be called "a mixed economy"). Conservatism and neo-liberalism have to die just as (non-democratic) socialism and communism are dead. The American elite misinterpreted the US's winning of the Cold War. It's victory was not a victory for the opposite extreme to communism or laissez-faire. Non-recognition of this in the US has had influence beyond American shores due to American dominance of the global economy, but that influence has been stifled lately. Consider the sacking of Australia's Tony Abbott as prime minister and Steven Harper's election loss in Canada. I don't consider the recent change in the politics of Europe to be at all comparable to recent events in American politics. The former is entirely due to the recent extensive Islamic immigration. "Only in 'America'" - really -has liberty been lauded whist the irreducible competing good of community has been forgotten. A Bernie Sanders presidency would help restore the proper balance.
7
"Justice and fairness have lost out in the West to 'those who wish to dominate.'" You need to distinguish between (1) those who wish to dominate and still can and (2) those who wish to dominate but no longer can. Class 1 is your standard Bush/Rubio/Kasich voter. Class 2 is your Trump and Cruz voter. Trump gets the ones who feel the loss of domination by whites, Cruz by those who feel the loss of domination by Christians.
4
This is a global backlash against the same ol' politicians who get elected year after year and do nothing.
Then there are the media outlets who write about the global backlash but suggest that their readers vote back in the same politicians year in and year out.
Then there are the media outlets who write about the global backlash but suggest that their readers vote back in the same politicians year in and year out.
7
What? Huh?
Just a few questions.
You think citizens in Indonesia and VIetnam are somehow "optimistic," and have joined the international "consuming class" and risen out of poverty since they've been given the opportunity to sew factory shirts and shoes for US consumers? You think the real "losers" in this competition can be found in an unhappy stratum of underemployed Westerners? Seriously? Have you ever sewn a shirt ... and then done it again and again and again?
And you think Bill Clinton surfed high on a wave of post-cold-war optimism in the early Nineties? Come on. Within a short time, he was attacked by Newt Gingrich (Contract with America), Wayne LaPierre (NRA), challenged by all the states that passed right-to-carry laws between 1994 and 1996 ... and he won reelection by the skin of his teeth. Then he was impeached.
Sporty journalists now enjoy comparing the American Lefties to the anti-establishment Republicans, but they are not honestly comparable. Bernie Sanders is plainly not a thug (like Trump), or a potentially vicious theocrat (like Cruz).
For the record, I support Hillary because she has thought about the wide world, she's been in the fight for a long time, and she's no fool.
Just a few questions.
You think citizens in Indonesia and VIetnam are somehow "optimistic," and have joined the international "consuming class" and risen out of poverty since they've been given the opportunity to sew factory shirts and shoes for US consumers? You think the real "losers" in this competition can be found in an unhappy stratum of underemployed Westerners? Seriously? Have you ever sewn a shirt ... and then done it again and again and again?
And you think Bill Clinton surfed high on a wave of post-cold-war optimism in the early Nineties? Come on. Within a short time, he was attacked by Newt Gingrich (Contract with America), Wayne LaPierre (NRA), challenged by all the states that passed right-to-carry laws between 1994 and 1996 ... and he won reelection by the skin of his teeth. Then he was impeached.
Sporty journalists now enjoy comparing the American Lefties to the anti-establishment Republicans, but they are not honestly comparable. Bernie Sanders is plainly not a thug (like Trump), or a potentially vicious theocrat (like Cruz).
For the record, I support Hillary because she has thought about the wide world, she's been in the fight for a long time, and she's no fool.
7
Mr. Cohen:
should Citizens United remain unchallenged and unchanged,
your summarizing paragraph will be both self-describing and
self-fulfilling for decades to come...
once "those who wish to dominate" command the purchased
offices of the elected and appointed, only a revolution will
sweep the "rotten" away.
these are, indeed, interesting times...
gaining ground on "1848" in Europe, "1860" in America,
"1914" - "1939" - August, 1945 in the rest of the World.
3
Yes, all you have cited has been known for sometime by many. What we all should be more concerned about is the fact that world wide human population growth will soon overcome the availability of jobs due to technology and robotics, which will require less workers, skilled or otherwise.
At some point, there has to be a pause to consider what to do with 25% unemployment in certain demographic populations in various areas. At what point do we allow people to starve, live in poverty just to enhance shareholder value in coroporations? What to do with a starving child or a young person with no hope of gainful employment or an old retiree with no work possbility. This dilemma is already here, but I no one talking about it rather than ranting about "income inequality".
At some point, there has to be a pause to consider what to do with 25% unemployment in certain demographic populations in various areas. At what point do we allow people to starve, live in poverty just to enhance shareholder value in coroporations? What to do with a starving child or a young person with no hope of gainful employment or an old retiree with no work possbility. This dilemma is already here, but I no one talking about it rather than ranting about "income inequality".
32
Amen.
1
8 years ago, if you said anything about "income inequality", they accused you of "class warfare". Thanks to Bernie, "income inequality" has found it's way into our national conversation. I have been talking for years about the inevitability of robotics and how we will soon have very few jobs available for our population. It's still about "income inequality", because the lucky will have jobs, the rentiers will have more and more, and the rest of us will starve. If that's not income inequality, I don't know what is.
The difference between Sanders supporters and the raging tea party Know Nothings that support Trump is that the Sanders crowd has understood for decades that Washington, the lobbyists and the tax code are a massive con game. That's how you get to a situation in which the richest 0.1 percent, 160,000 families, holds 22% of the country’s wealth, an increase from 7 percent in the late 1970s. But it's all envy, right? The culture-wars cannon fodder that cheer for Trump have only recently become dimly aware the games America's financial aristocracy has been playing for at least a generation. Typically, the GOP's response has been to renew its push to abolish the estate tax, which would be another huge windfall for country's ultra-wealthy. Hardly a solution to the problem, but they don't call 'em Greed Over People for nothing.
25
I think Trump makes sense. How do you happen to know so much about me (raging tea party Know Nothing, recently dimly aware of the games America's financial aristocracy played) when you have never met me? I am highly educated, have read many books, and have been interested in what causes our inequality for years. For example, the last book I read was 'Bailout: How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street' by Neil Borofsky. It was an eye opener. I am currently reading 'One Minute to Midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War' by Michael Dobbs. The latter book isn't about economics, but books like these help me understand our world.
Bottom line, Trump has a message that is at least worth debating. How do I know? I have taken the time to listen to a lot of his speeches. Have you listened to a lot of his speeches? I took the time to listen to a lot of speeches by Kasich and Cruz, and so I know they do not have good ideas. Sanders has many wonderful ideas.
Bottom line, Trump has a message that is at least worth debating. How do I know? I have taken the time to listen to a lot of his speeches. Have you listened to a lot of his speeches? I took the time to listen to a lot of speeches by Kasich and Cruz, and so I know they do not have good ideas. Sanders has many wonderful ideas.
6
The Isiah Berlin quote is well summarized in another (quoted by Jane Mayer in 'Dark Money'): 'Total liberty for wolves is death to lambs'. Among the practical interpretations of this: no rights of citizens for corporations. return to progressive taxation of the 80s at least, keep a severe estate tax, and a adopt single-payer health system. These would mean not just survival for lambs, but a better, more humane society.
60
And, at this time period, Governments are largely owned outright by the wolves. And, many lambs seem to prefer, like is their reputation, to be lead by "Strrong Volf" (russian or german accent), happily to their slaughter; until too late they realize who their leader/fuhrer is; and this story plays over and over and over.
3
It is apparent to anyone who follows the news. that governments off all stripes either legalize outright gross rapacious accumulation of "all the stuff" by the extreme few , or are simply unable to prevent it, even if they purportedly try to prevent it. Essentially , the affairs of Man, has yet to come up with a way to properly reward the legitimate work of everyone. The financial industry, and all involved in it , directly, closely, eve tangentially, can legally excessively reward themselves. Our system rewards the guy/girl moving digital money around in nanoseconds thousands times more than it does the person who builds the buildings where this work happens, or the person building this persons car(s), or his private jet(s), or his Yachts(s). We seem to have no solution to that. "The People" know this. They don't like it. These financial swine can't even see fit to allow reasonable retirement or health care for the 'chaff'.
12
Mr. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton brought cynical corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare to infect the White House with their greed, inhumanity, corruption and immorality.
Mass incarceration, welfare deformation, corporate plutocrat welfare, misogyny and war mongering represent the epitome of Scheme Clinton.
Bill and Hill have to answer for Sister Souljah and Monica Lewinsky. Hillary could not run her own White House with her predatory immoral degenerate husband running amok.
"See "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class" Ian Haney Lopez ; "Listen, Liberal:Or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People " Thomas Frank
Mass incarceration, welfare deformation, corporate plutocrat welfare, misogyny and war mongering represent the epitome of Scheme Clinton.
Bill and Hill have to answer for Sister Souljah and Monica Lewinsky. Hillary could not run her own White House with her predatory immoral degenerate husband running amok.
"See "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class" Ian Haney Lopez ; "Listen, Liberal:Or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People " Thomas Frank
17
Don't sugar coat it, just tell me how you feel . . .
8
So now, Blackmamba, you're blaming the Clintons for every train wreck that's battered this country for the last 25 years? Bill Clinton wound up being impeached thanks to his indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky. Now that Bill Clinton is pushing 70 and has had his own share of medical problems. I doubt if he'll be pursuing interns even if he and Hillary move back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.. Sister Souljah has long since faded into obscurity. Did you happen to notice that Hillary Clinton has had substantial success in the Southern primaries among minority voters?
Here's an original thought--mass incarceration can be avoided if you don't commit any crimes.
You also have a heck of a nerve complaining about misogyny. This is one of the most sexist comments I've ever read and you've said plenty!!
Here's an original thought--mass incarceration can be avoided if you don't commit any crimes.
You also have a heck of a nerve complaining about misogyny. This is one of the most sexist comments I've ever read and you've said plenty!!
8
Working-class Americans need to stop blaming the poor, whether it's our own unhealthy and unemployed or the destitute of undeveloped nations, for the financial problems that confront them. No one is forcing our affluent CEOs to relocate to Mexico or Bangladesh, to lay off productive workers in favor of outsourcing or to replace human beings with sophisticated computers- all while they continue to enjoy government subsidies and favorable rates of taxation. It doesn't help our own situations to turn our wrath upon people who aren't responsible for them, not while the corporate fat-cats (including The Donald) are out there demanding more for themselves and providing less for those who actually create and maintain their wealth.
17
“People want to be heard”.
So, what you suggest is a leader who listens to the masses, then runs ahead of them in the direction they want - a blind leading the blind. A block of buffaloes going off the cliff.
No, people want solutions to their problems they themselves do not understand. 2,400 years ago Socrates lamented the godless Law and Order Democracy, rule of the Demos, the 5% moneyed males, ruling over the 95% rest (women, plebs, slaves) He offered a more efficient Justice minded Republic led by the learned.
The profligate, wasteful, failing Corporate Capitalist Democracy offers:
1. No responsibility or limited responsibility godless culture
2. Large Corporate controlled Enterprise
3. Knowledge as a Private good
4. Top-down polity
5. Law and Order Democracy and Lawyerism
6. Positive interest regime
7. Income/spending/import taxation
8. Control of movement in goods, money, and people
Every one of these is anti-progress, anti-production, only for private profit for the few. Taxing incomes, spending, imports is no good for consumers or small and medium business alike. Not taxing assets encourages accumulation and hoarding, ties up resources needlessly.
Socrates' more efficient prescription:
1. Personally Responsible Individualist Moral God-fearing culture
2. Free Enterprise
3. Knowledge as a public good
4. Bottom Up Polity
5. Justice minded Republic
6. Zero interest regime
7. Asset taxation
8. Borderless world
America Republic morphed into Democracy in the 1920s.
So, what you suggest is a leader who listens to the masses, then runs ahead of them in the direction they want - a blind leading the blind. A block of buffaloes going off the cliff.
No, people want solutions to their problems they themselves do not understand. 2,400 years ago Socrates lamented the godless Law and Order Democracy, rule of the Demos, the 5% moneyed males, ruling over the 95% rest (women, plebs, slaves) He offered a more efficient Justice minded Republic led by the learned.
The profligate, wasteful, failing Corporate Capitalist Democracy offers:
1. No responsibility or limited responsibility godless culture
2. Large Corporate controlled Enterprise
3. Knowledge as a Private good
4. Top-down polity
5. Law and Order Democracy and Lawyerism
6. Positive interest regime
7. Income/spending/import taxation
8. Control of movement in goods, money, and people
Every one of these is anti-progress, anti-production, only for private profit for the few. Taxing incomes, spending, imports is no good for consumers or small and medium business alike. Not taxing assets encourages accumulation and hoarding, ties up resources needlessly.
Socrates' more efficient prescription:
1. Personally Responsible Individualist Moral God-fearing culture
2. Free Enterprise
3. Knowledge as a public good
4. Bottom Up Polity
5. Justice minded Republic
6. Zero interest regime
7. Asset taxation
8. Borderless world
America Republic morphed into Democracy in the 1920s.
4
This from a paper that refuses to cover the Panama Papers, the Sanders campaign, the CUNY labor fight, etc., etc., etc.
Fine and good, Mr. Cohen. But the editors need to take a long look in the mirror.
Fine and good, Mr. Cohen. But the editors need to take a long look in the mirror.
37
THANK YOU AS! I looked and looked... and looked and LOOKED.. for some coverage of the Panama papers and what they meant. Finally found a small article well below the fold (in the electronic version) with ZERO analysis and a misleading headline.
I had to turn to, of all places, USA Today to scratch the surface of the story of corruption and pillaging, with cross-country and indeed cross-continent delusion.
The NYT should have been at the forefront of this story. Instead, it buries it.
Where have you gone, New York Times? Old Gray Lady has left and gone away...
I had to turn to, of all places, USA Today to scratch the surface of the story of corruption and pillaging, with cross-country and indeed cross-continent delusion.
The NYT should have been at the forefront of this story. Instead, it buries it.
Where have you gone, New York Times? Old Gray Lady has left and gone away...
Absolutely. The NYTimes and its editors have failed to uphold the tenets of journalism and its responsibilities of a "Free Press." The paper has sold its soul - and the health of this democracy - to the highest bidders.
“People want to be heard. They want to believe their voices matter."
Yes yes! OF COURSE they do.
Oh wait. Little problem ... "As of March 22, 2016, the United States has a total resident population of 323,214,999, making it the third most populous country in the world." So says Wikipedia.
The problem for any given person wanting to "be heard"?
The OTHER 323, 214, 998 people also wanting to be heard.
Unless your name is along the lines of David Koch. Lots of "being heard" there.
Yes yes! OF COURSE they do.
Oh wait. Little problem ... "As of March 22, 2016, the United States has a total resident population of 323,214,999, making it the third most populous country in the world." So says Wikipedia.
The problem for any given person wanting to "be heard"?
The OTHER 323, 214, 998 people also wanting to be heard.
Unless your name is along the lines of David Koch. Lots of "being heard" there.
7
Cohen has not disentangled the many threads that led to this enormous wave of disgust with business as usual politics in Western democracies. First, the MSM seems incapable of addressing this issue without constantly referring to the discontented as some form of "resentful" rabble or dim "angry" toddlers. The electorate in these countries are condescendingly described as "feeling" or "perceiving" "they don't have any say about what the government does". They're not "feeling" or "perceiving" anything. They know they have no say. It's as real for them as their diminished opportunities and the corruption of a political class that gets 250K per "speech". The 2014 Gilens/Page Princeton Study used rock solid methodology to clearly establish the US is now an oligarchy and they did this on gov policy data from 1981-2002. Note, they only looked at policy data up to 2002. Since then things have only gotten worse. Second, it's not just the gov not listening to its people on economic issues. Just as importantly (and certainly very importantly for that portion of the Earth that exists outside the US and other Western Developed countries that tend to get dragooned into the US military's endless adventures) the US government also does not listen to its people on its all war all the time foreign policy. The oligarchy and their MSM errand boys are very keen on keeping the population diverted from any serious discussion of core economic justice issues or war. Hopefully they will fail.
25
Americans need someone to step up and finally do what is right FOR Americans.
Bernie or Trump, I don't care which.
Bernie or Trump, I don't care which.
7
They're hardly the same. Don't trust a billionaire who inherited his successful business to see to it that Americans are treated fairly. He, too, is part of the system we've come to despise.
17
Trump has expressed very little interest in doing "what is right" for Americans or anyone else. Doing what is right requires some notion of ethical standards or conscience. Trump has neither. He has billed himself as someone without time for "political correctness," but it is apparent that he also has no time or concern for the law, human rights or even the lowest standards of decency. To equate him with Bernie Sanders just because they are political outsiders is inappropriate. Sanders' proposals may or may not work (it will largely depend on whether U.S. citizens decide to prioritize education and healthcare), but none of his proposals are patently unconscionable. Where Sanders seeks to take anger and turn it into an ambitious, but ethically justifiable platform, Trump seeks to wants to simply unleash anger on the most vulnerable people he can identify (women, refugees, immigrants, minorities, etc.). Even setting side the legal problems with many of his proposals, accomplishing Trump's goals would only shame our country.
4
We are at no loss of people to analyze our situation and how we got here. I have seen not a single column, heard not a single candidate (including Bernie), nor read a word from any politician with one or a series of possible solutions. If you cannot envision a way to get to the future you will not get there.
6
What is rotten n America is the idea of freedom itself - and the highly hypocritical and selective way it is being lived. And it is anything but self-evident that it is an unalienable right. Freedom, American style, is fundamentally every man for himself. In Europe, for all its other faults, freedom comes second to social cohesion - or put another way, freedom is a collective notion.
Freedom is not an absolute right and the freedom to make money has become what people mean by freedom in the US. Most wouldn't know real freedom of mind if it bit them. We need to reinvent freedom as attached to tolerance. Without tolerance, freedom is merely the freedom of the sinking ship - every man for himself.
Freedom is not an absolute right and the freedom to make money has become what people mean by freedom in the US. Most wouldn't know real freedom of mind if it bit them. We need to reinvent freedom as attached to tolerance. Without tolerance, freedom is merely the freedom of the sinking ship - every man for himself.
33
Jacques, is that really your picture, looking like ze steereoteepical Frenchy? Your description of the American concept of freedom is quite accurate if applied to Republicans but to us Democrats, not so much. That's why we from time to time raise taxes on those who can afford to pay more, create things like Obamacare to help out hose who haven't made it big etc.
I know the Republicans shout louder but try listening more closely so you can hear us.
I know the Republicans shout louder but try listening more closely so you can hear us.
Take off your team shirt, Jack and think about what the man said. He said, "...without tolerance...". Could that be applied to you and other Dems?
4
The boundless cereal aisle epitomizes freedom for most unthinking Americans.
2
Something is indeed rotten in in the state of America.
And that is that one of only two parties, Republicans, supposed to co-govern with its opposition for the betterment of all, and not only the 1'%. has marched in lockstep so far to the arch-right that is has already arrive at the abyss of Fascism, albeit accompanied with a large side dish of religiosity.
In Europe, with its multi party parliamentary system, and the distribution of seats in parliament depending on the percentage of votes a party gets, the arch-right of Le Pen et al. cannot influence politics and policies with just a handful of seats out of hundreds.
No, Fascism won't return to Europe. It has though, as predicted long ago, come to America, wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
And that is that one of only two parties, Republicans, supposed to co-govern with its opposition for the betterment of all, and not only the 1'%. has marched in lockstep so far to the arch-right that is has already arrive at the abyss of Fascism, albeit accompanied with a large side dish of religiosity.
In Europe, with its multi party parliamentary system, and the distribution of seats in parliament depending on the percentage of votes a party gets, the arch-right of Le Pen et al. cannot influence politics and policies with just a handful of seats out of hundreds.
No, Fascism won't return to Europe. It has though, as predicted long ago, come to America, wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
86
"But they both draw support from constituencies that feel stuck, reject politics as usual, and perceive a system rigged against them."
I support Bernie Sanders. I am neither "stuck" nor delusional who "perceive a system rigged.." The system IS rigged Mr. Cohen and you are part of it.
I support Bernie Sanders. I am neither "stuck" nor delusional who "perceive a system rigged.." The system IS rigged Mr. Cohen and you are part of it.
44
Whoa dude! Chill out. So you don't "feel stuck"? Hmm. What do you feel? In the stuck - non-stuck continuum? Cohen didn't say you were delusional to "perceive a system rigged." That's all you. Clearly you do perceive a rigged system but you're all postal because he didn't say "perceived correctly", because, of course, all your perceptions are absolutely, totally correct and should be called facts & not perceptions. Any chance you might grow up sometime soon?
Well Mr. Toner, I feel a patronizing tone coming from the West. Often the same patronizing tone towards voters comes from pundits on this site and elsewhere. As to the "stuck - non-stuck continuum" I happened to perceive the author meant a certain economic predicament where Sanders (and Trump) voters are confined to for whatever reason.
You may want to follow your own advice in your last sentence. Thanks for the spirited feedback.
You may want to follow your own advice in your last sentence. Thanks for the spirited feedback.
2
I think Mr. Cohen puts things a little too beaky.
It is true that globalization has caused a significant shift in "wealth" to the poorest societies of the world, which is basically for the better. But being somewhat of a zero-sum game (economists tend to dispute that), when the third-world gains, others must loose something.
However, in terms of "the west", I don't see it quite as negatively as Mr. Cohen. There are variants of "market economy" different from the "free, laissez-faire" style promulgated by the US, which can control the income and wealth mis-distribution. I'm thinking of the "social market economies" of much of Europe, what Americans like to call the "failed socialist states", which, by the way, are doing much better than the US in almost every metric, except GDP.
Although these social market economies have recently been somewhat hollowed out by the seeming success of the cut-throat tactics of companies run by American style MBA's, the European social market economies are, by and large still doing much better in terms of protecting the middle class. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the American style MBA is proving to be one of the most poisonous, destructive "exports" ever from the US.
The Social Democratic movements in Europe have in the past decade lost a lot of credibility - they have largely been cooped by the more conservative parties. They must come up with a new/modified strategy to halt the rapid demise of the middle class.
It is true that globalization has caused a significant shift in "wealth" to the poorest societies of the world, which is basically for the better. But being somewhat of a zero-sum game (economists tend to dispute that), when the third-world gains, others must loose something.
However, in terms of "the west", I don't see it quite as negatively as Mr. Cohen. There are variants of "market economy" different from the "free, laissez-faire" style promulgated by the US, which can control the income and wealth mis-distribution. I'm thinking of the "social market economies" of much of Europe, what Americans like to call the "failed socialist states", which, by the way, are doing much better than the US in almost every metric, except GDP.
Although these social market economies have recently been somewhat hollowed out by the seeming success of the cut-throat tactics of companies run by American style MBA's, the European social market economies are, by and large still doing much better in terms of protecting the middle class. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the American style MBA is proving to be one of the most poisonous, destructive "exports" ever from the US.
The Social Democratic movements in Europe have in the past decade lost a lot of credibility - they have largely been cooped by the more conservative parties. They must come up with a new/modified strategy to halt the rapid demise of the middle class.
5
Wealth has always bought political power. The wealthy have always used political power to attempt to shift taxes onto the middle class. If done to excess the result is either inability to resist external invasion or an internal revolution -- both constitute "redistribution by other means."
Those with wealth and a brain understand this. They have read history -- of Rome, France, German, Russia. If they are wise they understand the thin path by which Great Britain avoided the same ... more than once in its history. Understanding Cromwell's revolution and the return of Charles II, and in particular what redistribution happened through it ... is instructive.
Picking on Hillary Clinton as unaware of history is ridiculous -- start with the GOP and trickle-down economics, catspaws for the billionaire class like Rubio ... and Cruz.
Those with wealth and a brain understand this. They have read history -- of Rome, France, German, Russia. If they are wise they understand the thin path by which Great Britain avoided the same ... more than once in its history. Understanding Cromwell's revolution and the return of Charles II, and in particular what redistribution happened through it ... is instructive.
Picking on Hillary Clinton as unaware of history is ridiculous -- start with the GOP and trickle-down economics, catspaws for the billionaire class like Rubio ... and Cruz.
8
The problem may lie between four individual groups:
The first group are the Political Elected Representatives of the People, this group no longer represent the needs of the electorate but themselves and the other three groups. This group also controls the Justice Department, thus guaranteeing that the special interests of the other groups are maintained.
The second group are the 1%, this group needs and interested usurp all others and so manipulate the other three groups to these needs and self interests.
The third group are Large Corporations, this group requires even greater profits and the enacting of laws for their special interests as well. This benefits the other three groups as well.
Finally, the last group is Wall Street, this group exists entirely to profit themselves. Their ever growing profits not only enrich themselves but include the other groups. Their self interest may and has financially endangered the country and the world.
These four groups have created where this country and the world is currently and until or if anything can remove the power of these four groups are individual and social survival is at risk.
The first group are the Political Elected Representatives of the People, this group no longer represent the needs of the electorate but themselves and the other three groups. This group also controls the Justice Department, thus guaranteeing that the special interests of the other groups are maintained.
The second group are the 1%, this group needs and interested usurp all others and so manipulate the other three groups to these needs and self interests.
The third group are Large Corporations, this group requires even greater profits and the enacting of laws for their special interests as well. This benefits the other three groups as well.
Finally, the last group is Wall Street, this group exists entirely to profit themselves. Their ever growing profits not only enrich themselves but include the other groups. Their self interest may and has financially endangered the country and the world.
These four groups have created where this country and the world is currently and until or if anything can remove the power of these four groups are individual and social survival is at risk.
5
"Hillary Clinton’s chief predicament, apart from the trust issue..." You know, continuing to repeat a tired republican talking point doesn't make it true. I've always trusted Hillary. I've never not trusted Hillary, and I am not alone by far. Does the media have a mandate to slam Hillary every time they mention one of her strengths?
15
The trust issue is real. Many voters say they don't trust Clinton. Whether or not Clinton is trust-worthy is a different, although related, matter.
1
The point is that the trust issue is not based on anything real. The media's repetition of this republican talking point has created and continues to compound the illusion. Pundits are rewarding republican operatives and should stop repeating this trope. Anyone I've asked to explain their mistrust has either been unable to do so, or has answered with other easily disproved talking points.
1
We are obviously at a crossroads around the world, at least a fork in the road.
For almost 80 years we have seen the gains made by reformers like FDR in constant tension with the forces of economic and political inertia. There must be something about extreme wealth that allows the tendency to hoard that wealth and it seems to manifest itself most in families of inherited wealth.
We are seeing a movement led by Bill and Melinda Gates of billionaires giving away sizable portions of their wealth, while we see koch bothers doing all they can do to gain and hoard more.
35 years after the New Deal America was humming right along, building an interstate highway system and sending men to the moon.
35 years after Reagan's trickle down supply side exercise in wealth hoarding America can barely fill her potholes.
All charts and graphs of the last 70 years show that everybody does better during a democratic administration, including the top 1%. During republican presidencies the only ones to do well are the top 1%, ironically they don't
do quite as well as they do during democratic years, but they do markedly better than everyone else. And I guess that is what they want.
These people have obviously forgotten about the Bastille.
Sanders and T rump both indicate a fork in the road, one way will lead to a better America, T rump's way not so much. Luckily for US Clinton seems to have taken quite a bit of Bernie's progressive nature to heart.
For almost 80 years we have seen the gains made by reformers like FDR in constant tension with the forces of economic and political inertia. There must be something about extreme wealth that allows the tendency to hoard that wealth and it seems to manifest itself most in families of inherited wealth.
We are seeing a movement led by Bill and Melinda Gates of billionaires giving away sizable portions of their wealth, while we see koch bothers doing all they can do to gain and hoard more.
35 years after the New Deal America was humming right along, building an interstate highway system and sending men to the moon.
35 years after Reagan's trickle down supply side exercise in wealth hoarding America can barely fill her potholes.
All charts and graphs of the last 70 years show that everybody does better during a democratic administration, including the top 1%. During republican presidencies the only ones to do well are the top 1%, ironically they don't
do quite as well as they do during democratic years, but they do markedly better than everyone else. And I guess that is what they want.
These people have obviously forgotten about the Bastille.
Sanders and T rump both indicate a fork in the road, one way will lead to a better America, T rump's way not so much. Luckily for US Clinton seems to have taken quite a bit of Bernie's progressive nature to heart.
11
All spot on, as usual. Interesting that you mention the Bastille, it brought to my mind the old saw that those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it....
With regard to America, there could be an additional component to Mr. Cohen’s spot on analysis and conclusion about this election cycle.
As the Republican Party’s thinking, manner of governance, and activities with regard to all aspects and levels of government come together from over the last 30 years and with the ongoing obstructionism and thug like behavior of recent times, there is a real possibility that the conservatives and the Republican Party and their backers may want to take over the country.
Apparently, the Republican Party and its backers no longer want a party system. They appear to want to be the sole controllers of the American system of governance and American political and cultural thought.
The functioning American Party system of the past had its essence in reason, comity, debate, compromise, and agreement, not in confrontation, obstruction, non-participation, and the stifling of opposition.
In America, the wonderful freedoms allow the distortions. For those private persons and politicians interested in this kind of control, it is simple: control all branches of local, state and federal government without regard for the thoughts and concerns of a diverse citizenry-the will of the people, and obstruct across the board at will and with no concern for the American political system in America’s constitutional democracy.
I hope this comment is preposterous. I fear it may not be.
As the Republican Party’s thinking, manner of governance, and activities with regard to all aspects and levels of government come together from over the last 30 years and with the ongoing obstructionism and thug like behavior of recent times, there is a real possibility that the conservatives and the Republican Party and their backers may want to take over the country.
Apparently, the Republican Party and its backers no longer want a party system. They appear to want to be the sole controllers of the American system of governance and American political and cultural thought.
The functioning American Party system of the past had its essence in reason, comity, debate, compromise, and agreement, not in confrontation, obstruction, non-participation, and the stifling of opposition.
In America, the wonderful freedoms allow the distortions. For those private persons and politicians interested in this kind of control, it is simple: control all branches of local, state and federal government without regard for the thoughts and concerns of a diverse citizenry-the will of the people, and obstruct across the board at will and with no concern for the American political system in America’s constitutional democracy.
I hope this comment is preposterous. I fear it may not be.
10
I had to look up "no-liberal" to be sure if that was the right word. It's a label used with Reagan and Thatcher to describe a new, less fettered, form of laizzez-faire capitalism.
The results were wretched disaster in the UK and "mixed" in the US. It ushered in Tom Wolfe's "Masters of the Universe" on Wall street, but a general, if slight rise, in prosperity for all; which turned out not to be so sustainable. Hence the election of Bill Clinton, and a "fair deal".
The results were wretched disaster in the UK and "mixed" in the US. It ushered in Tom Wolfe's "Masters of the Universe" on Wall street, but a general, if slight rise, in prosperity for all; which turned out not to be so sustainable. Hence the election of Bill Clinton, and a "fair deal".
6
Back in 1951, economist John Kenneth Galbraith recommended that his profession focus like a laser on achieving two simple goals: 1) a steady rise in median quality of life, and 2) full employment. Economists and governments have delivered on neither, so one shouldn't be too surprised that after six decades of failure, there might be a display of anger among the peasantry. One should not be too surprised either by the possibility of that anger being focused on the wrong villains.
The big question is why (most) governments have failed to deliver. Either they don't know how, or they choose not to. All the evidence points to the latter. As wealth and power become more concentrated in fewer hands, governments will care less and less about the welfare of the peasantry. Until they revolt.
The big question is why (most) governments have failed to deliver. Either they don't know how, or they choose not to. All the evidence points to the latter. As wealth and power become more concentrated in fewer hands, governments will care less and less about the welfare of the peasantry. Until they revolt.
25
I beg to differ: I believe that the general welfare did increase, for thirty years or so after 1951. And then the republicans took over...and everything went to a hot place in a handbasket...
1
Money didn't seem like such a big deal when I was growing up in the 50's and 60's. My family was neither rich nor poor and I lived in a town that neither had a lot of rich people or poor people. Both my brother and I went on the good colleges (Brown and RISD) without amassing untenable debt. Now I am old and financially insecure...I worked all my life and never thought this would be my fate. Thank you bankers and financiers that crashed the economy and cost me a great deal of money. Money to live now is a big deal. My grandparents immigrated from Sweden. I wouldn't mind going back to the "old country" right now. Good luck America. I probably won't be around to see how you fix this mess. Young people it is up to you. Vote and run for election and get Republicans out of the business of controlling states and congress.
172
Excellent observations.
"Money didn't seem like such a big deal when I was growing up in the 50's and 60's."
The likely reason why: Your father probably had a decent union backing him up. I don't consider it an accident that as the unions were busted, the good jobs dried up.
The likely reason why: Your father probably had a decent union backing him up. I don't consider it an accident that as the unions were busted, the good jobs dried up.
Those of us who are self-employed and small business owners have learned that capitalism is only really free and open for the Fortune 100, and a rather painful mirage for the rest of us. Cohen's final words describe it perfectly:
Justice and fairness have lost out in the West to “those who wish to dominate.”
There are so many examples of how we have abandoned the rule of law that it is foolish to try to enumerate them all. Both major parties are equally guilty---representing the interests of the plutocrats, war profiteers, and oligarchs at the expense of all other voters. As many wiser folks have written, Trump and Sanders are like the canary in the coal mine-----a sign of what is to come. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I fear it will not be pretty......
Justice and fairness have lost out in the West to “those who wish to dominate.”
There are so many examples of how we have abandoned the rule of law that it is foolish to try to enumerate them all. Both major parties are equally guilty---representing the interests of the plutocrats, war profiteers, and oligarchs at the expense of all other voters. As many wiser folks have written, Trump and Sanders are like the canary in the coal mine-----a sign of what is to come. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I fear it will not be pretty......
22
"Both major parties are equally guilty"
No. There's an adverb that makes your claim false. Both parties are indeed complicit in creating and maintaining an oligarchy, but the Republicans have advocated and advanced it, while the perennially spineless Democrats have acquiesced to it as a political survival imperative.
That is not equal, and acquiescence is more easily reversed than being the driving force in the first place.
That's what Bernie's political revolution is about.
No. There's an adverb that makes your claim false. Both parties are indeed complicit in creating and maintaining an oligarchy, but the Republicans have advocated and advanced it, while the perennially spineless Democrats have acquiesced to it as a political survival imperative.
That is not equal, and acquiescence is more easily reversed than being the driving force in the first place.
That's what Bernie's political revolution is about.
1
A social order in different countries and in different societies demand different reactions.
Here in America we condemn socialism and reward our 1% with millions of dollars of extra cash, whereas in Sweden and Denmark and many other countries of Europe, where they don't call the system 'socialist' but reward the 99% with a protection from lack of income or lowering of the standards with lot of privileges that we call in America 'welfare'.
Those countries in Europe don't have that many Billionaires like we've here in U.S. but as far as happiness models are concerned, they're more happy than we're here, only because they don't see that much of income disparity like we see and feel here.
Any countries that have a tremendous amount of inequality as far as incomes and consumer privileges are concerned, the social contracts that we sign among the citizens are bound to fall apart.
But now with Bernie's campaign in full swing with the support of "Occupy Wall Street" or the 99% group members, we see the young and very determined student groups finding their voice back after a hiatus which is really very encouraging news for the future of this country because if wealth is concentrated in few hands, the rest of the population fail to thrive which exactly is the main problem in America and other Capitalist countries where only the wealthy survive and others crumble with fewer incomes and resources.
Hope it doesn't stay this way too long which might bring more troubles for everyone.
Here in America we condemn socialism and reward our 1% with millions of dollars of extra cash, whereas in Sweden and Denmark and many other countries of Europe, where they don't call the system 'socialist' but reward the 99% with a protection from lack of income or lowering of the standards with lot of privileges that we call in America 'welfare'.
Those countries in Europe don't have that many Billionaires like we've here in U.S. but as far as happiness models are concerned, they're more happy than we're here, only because they don't see that much of income disparity like we see and feel here.
Any countries that have a tremendous amount of inequality as far as incomes and consumer privileges are concerned, the social contracts that we sign among the citizens are bound to fall apart.
But now with Bernie's campaign in full swing with the support of "Occupy Wall Street" or the 99% group members, we see the young and very determined student groups finding their voice back after a hiatus which is really very encouraging news for the future of this country because if wealth is concentrated in few hands, the rest of the population fail to thrive which exactly is the main problem in America and other Capitalist countries where only the wealthy survive and others crumble with fewer incomes and resources.
Hope it doesn't stay this way too long which might bring more troubles for everyone.
16
Sometimes you have to be unfair in order to be just. Affirmative action was needed in this country to end the discriminatory practices of businesses and colleges from either denying work or denying admission to college based on race or gender.
The Republicans are trying to end many decades of social progress in the United States. Donald Trump has ripped the mask off the face of the Republican base by openly being misogynistic and racist. Feigned disdain of his remarks by Cruz and Kascih are just that - feigned. I found it completely disingenuous of Cruz and Kasich when they disparaged Trump's remarks about criminalizing abortion. Cruz would deny a woman an abortion under any circumstances, and Kasich had just signed a bill defunding Planned Parenthood in Ohio.
This election is the most important one in my memory, and I am 70 years old. I will be voting for the Democratic nominee whoever that nominee is. If the Republicans win the White House and hold onto their majority in Congress, we will descend into a fascist/theocratic regime, with justice a distant memory. Supreme Court Justices will be handpicked by the NRA and a woman's right to choose will be gone, with Civil Rights not far behind.
The Republicans are trying to end many decades of social progress in the United States. Donald Trump has ripped the mask off the face of the Republican base by openly being misogynistic and racist. Feigned disdain of his remarks by Cruz and Kascih are just that - feigned. I found it completely disingenuous of Cruz and Kasich when they disparaged Trump's remarks about criminalizing abortion. Cruz would deny a woman an abortion under any circumstances, and Kasich had just signed a bill defunding Planned Parenthood in Ohio.
This election is the most important one in my memory, and I am 70 years old. I will be voting for the Democratic nominee whoever that nominee is. If the Republicans win the White House and hold onto their majority in Congress, we will descend into a fascist/theocratic regime, with justice a distant memory. Supreme Court Justices will be handpicked by the NRA and a woman's right to choose will be gone, with Civil Rights not far behind.
129
The Donkey and Elephant of the Establishment are yoked tight by their money masters and steered to enact policies that make business more competitive on the expense of the well being and dignity of majority of the population.
Resisting the $-Yoke-$ (Reserved Trademark of American "Democracy") are the 2 candidates on the right and the left. Both with good intentions but with incoherent policies. I hope they run against each other in the general election. Running against the Establishment puppets will make it an easy win for either one of them.
Resisting the $-Yoke-$ (Reserved Trademark of American "Democracy") are the 2 candidates on the right and the left. Both with good intentions but with incoherent policies. I hope they run against each other in the general election. Running against the Establishment puppets will make it an easy win for either one of them.
22
Much of the discontent would vanish if there were limits to the wealth individuals can accumulate. It is grotesque that labor productivity in the US has increased substantially in the last 30 years but most of the gains went to a very small percentage of the population. If corporations chose to distribute profits to shareholders, upper management (or owners) rather then raise salaries the only way to correct that is redistribution of the wealth trough taxes on the beneficiaries. The destruction of the unions in the US makes the government the only entity that can correct this imbalance. Redistribution need not be in the form of lower taxes or income tax credits but in the form of benefits like mandatory paid vacations, health care coverage, chlld care, etc.
7
the government has been infiltrated, both federal and state (many states), and can no longer stand against the oligarchy, but has become a tool of the oligarchy. Any redistribution will probably have to be outside of governmental channels.
1
"outside of government channels" equals what? Revolution?
2
Are there two Rogers?
Don't underestimate the influence of movie and TV dramas and media. Such has taught this "bitter class" something that does not really exist: that there is an overt conspiracy and code used to control the masses and, worse, only intimidation and violence can overcome such. This "lesson" suggests hard work is for suckers and discourse is for wimps. Things can only get worse as the next generation knows nothing BUT this message.
From with the advent of television, there was criticism of it's artificial world created without books or actual experience. Such crested from time to time until a decade or two ago wherein even the press now adopts soapy dramas as talking points for ideas and behavior. I watch domestic, cop and political dramas where insults, intimidation and menace are the tools that prevail. To know all is to forgive all. The "bitter class" knows only what they see on many sizes of screens.
From with the advent of television, there was criticism of it's artificial world created without books or actual experience. Such crested from time to time until a decade or two ago wherein even the press now adopts soapy dramas as talking points for ideas and behavior. I watch domestic, cop and political dramas where insults, intimidation and menace are the tools that prevail. To know all is to forgive all. The "bitter class" knows only what they see on many sizes of screens.
1
Along with this careful look at the very real gains in jobs and living wages for many of the world poor, the equal treatment to the losses of jobs that kept our nation in ample good paying jobs, there is the big question: what to do about this? Should we shrug shoulders and say to the losers, brace up, look at the global gains. Or should we say to the winners, those who once sold millions of phones who now sell billions, and now reap huge rewards, not unearned, nor unexpected, but huge.
So can we just tax those huge earnings more and share that income with those who are losing? Or does life require something more, like meaningful work? Our transfer systems yield a get by income but not a prosperous one, it isn't middle class anymore. Nor are we as a people ready for income without meaningful work. We are unprepared for what is next.
On the horizon there are better jobs in high tech or some sort but that requires lots of education and greater skills. On the horizon really is a bleak landscape with people who want meaningful work, with their dignity intact, and a chance to be a meaningful part of things.
Can the working class ever afford the Opera, the Symphony, or a vacation by the sea? Not those on transfer systems and not those on part time jobs and not those on minimum wage. Without work, transfers will never fully suffice to open the now more mythical middle class those who lose out on the international trade game of life.
So can we just tax those huge earnings more and share that income with those who are losing? Or does life require something more, like meaningful work? Our transfer systems yield a get by income but not a prosperous one, it isn't middle class anymore. Nor are we as a people ready for income without meaningful work. We are unprepared for what is next.
On the horizon there are better jobs in high tech or some sort but that requires lots of education and greater skills. On the horizon really is a bleak landscape with people who want meaningful work, with their dignity intact, and a chance to be a meaningful part of things.
Can the working class ever afford the Opera, the Symphony, or a vacation by the sea? Not those on transfer systems and not those on part time jobs and not those on minimum wage. Without work, transfers will never fully suffice to open the now more mythical middle class those who lose out on the international trade game of life.
1
The Koch brothers plan to spend one billion dollars to defeat Democratic candidates. And that is the money we know about. !6 years ago Dick Cheney met with energy executives to create a US energy policy. We still don't know who was at the meeting. How did we get here?
2
I would take issue on one point. The claim that global capitalism has lifted millions out of abject poverty is suspect at best. Not only have thousands been burned and crushed in sweatshops but millions toil in factories with suicide nets, choking smog or work as slave labor in fishing fleets. Even the hard working, low-paid workers/engineers of Asia are becoming discontent with their plight and starting to rebel. If only these developing countries would respect a living wage and the environment, they could develop domestic demand for their products and not drive a global race-to-the-bottom. This is where our trade policies should focus.
8
Unfettered "liberty for those who wish to dominate" means fettering liberty for everyone else, a precursor to fascism if not fascism as such. Ordinary citizens of the developed world have lost trust in their political institutions because those institutions have become so untrustworthy. This creates a particular barrier to the ambitions of Hillary Clinton who is bested by Donald Trump on the trustworthiness scale notwithstanding his dismal overall ratings.
Pope Francis's excoriation of the gluttonous pursuit of money speaks to a hard-wired human condition that many find unfortunate. When, however, those who have arrogated power to themselves commandeer the levers of public policy to feed such avarice at the expense of everyone else, the marginalized majority soon enough catches on. What they do with their newly-acquired awareness can seem ugly, but it isn't necessarily wrong.
In such a political setting "democracy" is a sham and the people know it, hungering for a figure to channel their disaffection into action.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Pope Francis's excoriation of the gluttonous pursuit of money speaks to a hard-wired human condition that many find unfortunate. When, however, those who have arrogated power to themselves commandeer the levers of public policy to feed such avarice at the expense of everyone else, the marginalized majority soon enough catches on. What they do with their newly-acquired awareness can seem ugly, but it isn't necessarily wrong.
In such a political setting "democracy" is a sham and the people know it, hungering for a figure to channel their disaffection into action.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Especially salient is the quote from Jonna Ivin: "People want to be heard. They want to believe their voices matter." This critical factor had been hidden throughout much political/social theory upon which the more traditional top-down systems have been based.
What is emerging today is a new broadly-based reality of meaning-making and expression made possible by the development and proliferation of social media. People are no longer confined to seeing the world through the filters of elite mass media, mass politics, mass religion. These provided explanations of the world based on elite definitions and perceptions.
No more. Using Facebook, et al, via mobile technology has put the ability to speak and be heard in the mouths and fingertips of everyone and anyone who has access. The Times recognized this with the development of the reader comment sections accompanying such columns as this. Now, I no longer read the story and, perhaps, discuss it with my friends and/or write a letter to the editor. I read the article/column, then I read the reader commentary. I then respond to either or both, engaging others in dialogues. We are no longer bounded by time or place, nor are we limited to only read what others have written.
This is unprecedented in the human experience. This is a global manifestation of the "Power of the Powerless" that Vaclav Havel wrote about in the days leading up to the Velvet Revolution in eastern Europe. And, the genie will not go back into the bottle.
What is emerging today is a new broadly-based reality of meaning-making and expression made possible by the development and proliferation of social media. People are no longer confined to seeing the world through the filters of elite mass media, mass politics, mass religion. These provided explanations of the world based on elite definitions and perceptions.
No more. Using Facebook, et al, via mobile technology has put the ability to speak and be heard in the mouths and fingertips of everyone and anyone who has access. The Times recognized this with the development of the reader comment sections accompanying such columns as this. Now, I no longer read the story and, perhaps, discuss it with my friends and/or write a letter to the editor. I read the article/column, then I read the reader commentary. I then respond to either or both, engaging others in dialogues. We are no longer bounded by time or place, nor are we limited to only read what others have written.
This is unprecedented in the human experience. This is a global manifestation of the "Power of the Powerless" that Vaclav Havel wrote about in the days leading up to the Velvet Revolution in eastern Europe. And, the genie will not go back into the bottle.
4
Was that the same "Power of the Powerless" that led to the fabulous success of the social media-driven Arab Spring?
"The success of both Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left owes a lot to the thirst for radical candidates who break the mold."
Really? If Bernie Sanders is a radical, then so was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And Roosevelt was indeed considered a dangerous radical by his political enemies - the same enemies as confront Bernie Sanders. Both were and are excoriated for their "socialist" policies. But such policies as enacted by Roosevelt turned out to be capitalists' best friends. I suspect Sanders' policies, which really amount to nothing so much as a well-reasoned stimulus, would also be as friendly to capitalists. In fact, Sanders' agenda seems the most pro-capitalist of any candidate's agenda.
Yet in his own time, and ever since, Roosevelt is considered one of our greatest Presidents.
If greatness is radical, I'll go for radical.
Really? If Bernie Sanders is a radical, then so was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And Roosevelt was indeed considered a dangerous radical by his political enemies - the same enemies as confront Bernie Sanders. Both were and are excoriated for their "socialist" policies. But such policies as enacted by Roosevelt turned out to be capitalists' best friends. I suspect Sanders' policies, which really amount to nothing so much as a well-reasoned stimulus, would also be as friendly to capitalists. In fact, Sanders' agenda seems the most pro-capitalist of any candidate's agenda.
Yet in his own time, and ever since, Roosevelt is considered one of our greatest Presidents.
If greatness is radical, I'll go for radical.
12
This was a paid ad for Bernie Sanders, right?
I had a dream and a nightmare about him just last night.
First came the beautiful dream.
There he was in front of a large college audience all gazing up at him with beaming, worshipful faces.
Nothing exceptional, you say this happens all the time?
Yes, but this time there was a difference. Because wandering among his audience was a herd of beautiful black and white milk cows with smiles on their faces -- symbols of peace, equality and togetherness, you see -- each with a hand lettered sign hanging from her side.
Many of the signs said “Obamacare Expanded.” Others said “Your College Debts Paid Off,” “Free College Educations,” “The Environment Fixed At No Cost To You,” “Soak The Rich,” and “Free Marijuana." One, I believe, said “Free Haircuts.”
The cows all had plastic tubing taped to their undersides to assist the young people partake of as much of the freebies as they wanted.
Sounds perfect doesn’t it? But then came the terrible nightmare. Bernie left the building in the company of Elvis; the crowd dispersed; and a group of workmen entered, all stepping very carefully to avoid the cow flop on the floor that was full of Bernie's promises.
They proceeded to pack it all up in heavy plastic bags labelled,"Caution, Danger, Not Good For What Ails You."
After which the poor cows were led away to where I don't know.
And the college kids?
Did they ever get what they wanted?
Well, no.
I had a dream and a nightmare about him just last night.
First came the beautiful dream.
There he was in front of a large college audience all gazing up at him with beaming, worshipful faces.
Nothing exceptional, you say this happens all the time?
Yes, but this time there was a difference. Because wandering among his audience was a herd of beautiful black and white milk cows with smiles on their faces -- symbols of peace, equality and togetherness, you see -- each with a hand lettered sign hanging from her side.
Many of the signs said “Obamacare Expanded.” Others said “Your College Debts Paid Off,” “Free College Educations,” “The Environment Fixed At No Cost To You,” “Soak The Rich,” and “Free Marijuana." One, I believe, said “Free Haircuts.”
The cows all had plastic tubing taped to their undersides to assist the young people partake of as much of the freebies as they wanted.
Sounds perfect doesn’t it? But then came the terrible nightmare. Bernie left the building in the company of Elvis; the crowd dispersed; and a group of workmen entered, all stepping very carefully to avoid the cow flop on the floor that was full of Bernie's promises.
They proceeded to pack it all up in heavy plastic bags labelled,"Caution, Danger, Not Good For What Ails You."
After which the poor cows were led away to where I don't know.
And the college kids?
Did they ever get what they wanted?
Well, no.
2
Call it a wide generalization. But the fact is what is happening is a reversal of fortunes. The West was greatly enriched by wealth from the poor countries. Now tables have turned. The greedy rich here are taking wealth away to the poor countries enabling them to shift gears from poverty to middle class. In this shift the victims are our poor and the middle class who are in a downward spiral. The rich get richer, no matter what. The developing world's ride into middle class is not healthy considering their increased wealth comes at a great price. The workers in China, Bangladesh, India are witness to their slavery.
4
Trump's candidacy arose from his personal greed for glory and an insane belief that our wealthy country should not help other countries. He argues that we should get out of mutual defense agreements; let nuclear weapons proliferate. So far, he has won support from the Rush Limbaugh extremists but he'll never win a general election, and will probably not get the nomination. He's a racist Know-Nothing doomed by his exceeding vanity.
1
While there are similarities in the current political climate of European democracies and that of the United States, there are important differences. In the United States there has not been any question of silencing or ignoring the voice of the people since John Quincy Adams left office in 1829. In Europe, even after the monarchies disappeared or became little more than constitutional appendages, a meaningful political voice for the working class has waxed and waned many times.
There will always be American demagogues who draw upon the disappointments, confusion and anger of working-class citizens trying to make ends meet. People will be more receptive to rabble-rousing when economic times are difficult. It does not follow, however, that anyone with serious experience in government is an unattractive candidate to lead the nation.
We can make this more complicated than it is. Many Americans have not shared in prosperity because the branch of our government which makes the laws and raises money and approves budgets – Congress – has been strangling on our economy.
Republicans have shown interest only in lowering taxes on the wealthy, cutting the social safety net, worshipping at the austerity altar and allowing corporations to receive the benefits of America, while reflexively turning to overseas labor.
Any presidential candidate who attacks the Republican stranglehold should be attractive – including Hillary Clinton, who understands the problem better than anyone else.
There will always be American demagogues who draw upon the disappointments, confusion and anger of working-class citizens trying to make ends meet. People will be more receptive to rabble-rousing when economic times are difficult. It does not follow, however, that anyone with serious experience in government is an unattractive candidate to lead the nation.
We can make this more complicated than it is. Many Americans have not shared in prosperity because the branch of our government which makes the laws and raises money and approves budgets – Congress – has been strangling on our economy.
Republicans have shown interest only in lowering taxes on the wealthy, cutting the social safety net, worshipping at the austerity altar and allowing corporations to receive the benefits of America, while reflexively turning to overseas labor.
Any presidential candidate who attacks the Republican stranglehold should be attractive – including Hillary Clinton, who understands the problem better than anyone else.
5
For me, these seem to be the symptoms rather than the root cause of the problem.
World wide displacement is being driven by automation, and aggravated by 'global warming'. The discontent, and malcontent is driven by the unseen footsteps of technology and information that is undermining ideological supposition, and all of its underlying [comforting] 'myth-based' absolutes and institutions. The realities of instant travel, instant information, and instant gratification have disrupted our tribal 'rules of order' and sent some folks searching for 'newer, better, attachments and rules of order, and others into the retrenchment of old and gone attachments and rules of order.
We don't seem to be prepared (or even willing to be aware) that we're facing a global epidemic of 'fact-based' reality that will require radically new ways of thinking in order to deal with the world wide displacement of excess humans.
World wide displacement is being driven by automation, and aggravated by 'global warming'. The discontent, and malcontent is driven by the unseen footsteps of technology and information that is undermining ideological supposition, and all of its underlying [comforting] 'myth-based' absolutes and institutions. The realities of instant travel, instant information, and instant gratification have disrupted our tribal 'rules of order' and sent some folks searching for 'newer, better, attachments and rules of order, and others into the retrenchment of old and gone attachments and rules of order.
We don't seem to be prepared (or even willing to be aware) that we're facing a global epidemic of 'fact-based' reality that will require radically new ways of thinking in order to deal with the world wide displacement of excess humans.
2
The interesting thing to me is that the unquenchable greed of the wealthy and large corporations has brought this on. It did not have to be this way. Corporations richly reward their CEOs and senior officers and pass out pittances to their average employees from the large windfall like profits they make.
Wealthy people are constantly in search of tax loopholes which will swell their ever fattening equities. If these two predominant groups in America had been more equitable in their approaches, we would not be having this revolt.
Wealthy people are constantly in search of tax loopholes which will swell their ever fattening equities. If these two predominant groups in America had been more equitable in their approaches, we would not be having this revolt.
6
Trump has contributed greatly to the art of the insult; in fact that's what Americans have become really excellent at doing - issuing insults to all and sundry. Meanwhile any understanding of governmental policy is irrelevant even to someone who might become president.
1
People in the USA are rightly upset. Our elected leaders, the captains of team USA, have sold many of their formerly middle class voters down the river, without bothering to ask them if that's OK. Globalization was not some inevitable force, but a deliberate plan to boost corporate profits. It's not an elected official's job to raise the living standards in the 3rd world. They were elected to look out for the people in their own country, and they caved to corporate interests instead.
9
@Bruce Rozenblit: Good points well stated. There are 5 candidates left in the presidential election. Sanders is the only one who doesn't want to continue shooting ourselves in the foot.
6
"Hillary Clinton’s chief predicament, apart from the trust issue..."
Well, yes, besides that, how did you enjoy the theater, Mrs. Lincoln?
Well, yes, besides that, how did you enjoy the theater, Mrs. Lincoln?
4
A backlash? On a planet awash in the weaponry of war, from $100 assault rifles to multimillion dollar nuclear missiles, in countries both rich and destitute, being led by the elite who know what is best for all?
Where's the downside to this?
Where's the downside to this?
2
Beg to differ on your description of Sanders as not 'incoherent'. Whenever I've seen him in an unscripted venue, he was incomprehensible. True, he stays on message, which is easy to do when your message is devoid of nuanced thought.
He's the Ronald Reagan of the left. What scares me is that Reagan got elected - twice.
He's the Ronald Reagan of the left. What scares me is that Reagan got elected - twice.
1
Can't quite tell if this is another pro-Clinton fluff piece -- an entirely reasonable question to ask considering the Times has been so one-sided with their political coverage. We are on the verge of electing "the character" Maleficent into the oval office, and many are simply rolling over.
What this world needs right now are people that set rules. Not someone like Clinton who's agenda and rule book can get be rewritten day to day if the price is right. In a time of epic uneasiness and emotional inconsistency, the last thing we need is a politician guiding us that panders or caters to one group one day and then flip flops on another. This has been the greatest omission on the coverage of this election season, that voters are favoring people like Trump and Sanders for their own principled reasons, but more than anything, because they are consistent. You know what you're going to get. The left leaning media has viewed this as a boon for their cause, to push their narrative, seemingly exploiting "the one track" mindset, but its quite different when many people are uneasy and really just want some form of focus, something that you're more likely to get from someone like Trump believe it or not, than Hillary. Hillary is all over the place and anyone who thinks otherwise, is absolutely delusional. At the end of the day, it is absolutely appropriate to question Hillary's moral, considering she continues to make her own rules and speak to virtual everyone in a condescending tone.
What this world needs right now are people that set rules. Not someone like Clinton who's agenda and rule book can get be rewritten day to day if the price is right. In a time of epic uneasiness and emotional inconsistency, the last thing we need is a politician guiding us that panders or caters to one group one day and then flip flops on another. This has been the greatest omission on the coverage of this election season, that voters are favoring people like Trump and Sanders for their own principled reasons, but more than anything, because they are consistent. You know what you're going to get. The left leaning media has viewed this as a boon for their cause, to push their narrative, seemingly exploiting "the one track" mindset, but its quite different when many people are uneasy and really just want some form of focus, something that you're more likely to get from someone like Trump believe it or not, than Hillary. Hillary is all over the place and anyone who thinks otherwise, is absolutely delusional. At the end of the day, it is absolutely appropriate to question Hillary's moral, considering she continues to make her own rules and speak to virtual everyone in a condescending tone.
1
@NYC
NYC
You can get treatment for CDS. However, your case does appear terminal.
NYC
You can get treatment for CDS. However, your case does appear terminal.
2
I am startled by a political and economic class who just ignored large segments of the electorate. The only explanation I see is the belief on the part of those in Washington and those sitting on yachts is that their earnings somehow does trickle down to the masses. What they ignored, however, were decades of policies and laws that purposefully prevented any of their earnings from trickling down---in fact, the laws did the opposite---money flowed up (not trickled). It will be interesting to see how Republicans work with an economic theory that is so central to their ideology, but, now, is in a full blow back mode.
2
We have not yet felt the politics of backlash. Just the tip of the whip from Trump and the establisment antidiluvian Republicans and the Democrats who are trying their damndest to hang onto the White House and Oval Office in November. Something is as rotten in America as it was in Denmark in Hamlet's time and cleaning up the Augean Stables of American politics and cutting off the Hydra heads of political bigwigs, kingmakers and very rich PAC donors will need more than a Hercules. Many eggs (and eggheads) will be broken to make the omelet of democracy edible again. The triumph of demogoguery in global politics will be as frightening as the spectre of demolition of ISIS zealotry.
1
The larger-than-life lie is always that we "cannot afford" a significant safety net, or to take good care of people, and to provide a cushion for the people who fall between the cracks of a system bent on the gross accumulation of capital. And anyone who offers a solution to this problem without at a minimum raising the taxes on accumulated wealth has no solution at all.
6
Point of clarification. Jeremy Corbin was elected internally, within the Labour Party. His election is, however, an indication that that party's rank and file membership (not the bigwigs, who had kittens when the result was announced) recognise the disaffection Roger speaks of. It is profoundly ironic that Trump, who so despises what he calls 'losers', has 'losers' as his greatest supporters. I'd hate to be him when they wake up.
1
All those folks from both parties(and it was both) that supported globalization didn't lift a finger to help those harmed by it and in this crazy election year, the bill is due. When 20% of the nation votes for a one-trick pony(anti-NAFTA) like Perot, take heed. But they didn't. In fact, the establishment doubled down on free trade with China. I'm glad that many have been lifted from poverty but that process has created a crippled working glass, stagnate wages, income inequality, and more importantly, it has destroyed millions of families that depended on jobs that have relocated overseas. Companies operate on profit and so if the new trade rules offer more profit by relocation, they will move. I can't blame the companies. But I do blame the government for two things. One for passing these FTAs, and secondly, for 25 years of inaction on addressing the plight of working families harmed by the FTAs.
7
Corporations did not desert the United States to 'help the world"; they did it to obtain wages of a couple of bucks an hour instead of the fair wages they would have to pay in the United States. They even used slave labor when they can find it and imposed abominable working conditions. They did it to establish themselves as the elite who would rule the world and buy up everything including democracy. Let's stop pretending that the economy is some corporeal being, each and every rotten system that has taken over pretends to be an abstraction. The truth is everything that happens in human life is done by individual or group human scheming.
12
I don't think it'll take two more decades for the policies of the global free market elite to cause social mayhem. To paraphrase Fitzgerald about bankruptcy, societies and institutions fail a little at a time, and then suddenly all at once.
We will dearly miss American democratic republican institutions and norms when we have finished destroying them.
We will dearly miss American democratic republican institutions and norms when we have finished destroying them.
1
There is yet another mass of humanity who has been left behind. Why is there never sympathy for the working class of the former socialist states, those who labored under communism to bring their countries into the modern, industrialized world? Their system lost the battle to the "greed is good" philosophy. The fruits of their labor were stolen in a heartbeat by the greediest, most selfish of their society who became the oligarchs of kleptocracy. Are the masses of the former USSR and its satellite states never going to rise up in Trumpian rebellion?
5
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Trump supporters don;t read or watch the political and intellectual discourse that highlight Trump's weaknesses. They are in a massive state of denial, falsely believing he would have the political power to accomplish what he proposes. That is even more frightening than the nonsense Trump spews.
3
"Equality may demand the restraint of the liberty of those who wish to dominate."
There are many who have written about the notion that one's individual liberty has to be viewed within the ambit of the community's liberty. Nearly a century ago A. G. Gardiner (known by his pen name Alpha of the Plough) wrote:
" You have submitted to a curtailment of private liberty in order that you may enjoy a social order which makes your liberty a reality."
In other words one's individual liberty is heavily dependent on the social contract and absent the social contract the concept of individual liberty loses its meaning.
There is dangerous trend today, particularly in right wing America, wherein the notion of a social contact is decried as useless or false. Recall the umbrage heaped on Elizabeth Warren and President Obama when the made reference to the fact that any one's success is not just the outcome of that person's hard work but a combination of that person's hard work embedded in a civil society that provides infrastructural support.
The current election cycle has, once again, brought out these differences in a stark manner. It is now up to the progressives to continue pushing their message and mobilizing voters. That is the only sure way to keep this governing philosophy alive.
There are many who have written about the notion that one's individual liberty has to be viewed within the ambit of the community's liberty. Nearly a century ago A. G. Gardiner (known by his pen name Alpha of the Plough) wrote:
" You have submitted to a curtailment of private liberty in order that you may enjoy a social order which makes your liberty a reality."
In other words one's individual liberty is heavily dependent on the social contract and absent the social contract the concept of individual liberty loses its meaning.
There is dangerous trend today, particularly in right wing America, wherein the notion of a social contact is decried as useless or false. Recall the umbrage heaped on Elizabeth Warren and President Obama when the made reference to the fact that any one's success is not just the outcome of that person's hard work but a combination of that person's hard work embedded in a civil society that provides infrastructural support.
The current election cycle has, once again, brought out these differences in a stark manner. It is now up to the progressives to continue pushing their message and mobilizing voters. That is the only sure way to keep this governing philosophy alive.
478
The Republicans have figured out that although people will give lip service to supporting democracy, what they prefer is to have influence, to dominate. With a changing demographic in America, conservative white people realize they soon may no longer dominate the politics. So they turn to demigods like Donald Trump to give them leverage in determining the direction the country takes. But the fallacy is that there is an assumption that the culture can be legislated. It can't. There will eventually be a push back by the masses against any attempt to lord over them with laws skewed to favor the influential minority.
The answer is of course 8 more years of Bill & Hillary. That will show them what a backlash really is.
"There are many who have written about the notion that one's individual liberty has to be viewed within the ambit of the community's liberty."
Exactly. Freedom isn't free and somebody has to pay for education and health care for those who don't make enough $$ to cover it themselves.
Exactly. Freedom isn't free and somebody has to pay for education and health care for those who don't make enough $$ to cover it themselves.
Isaiah Berlin's words are heartening. Martin Luther King Jr., assassinated forty-eight years ago today, April 4, 1968, would surely agree. He would also agree that something is rotten in America.
17
The argument is that we need to embrace the model of the Scandinavian welfare state. FDR started that process, but Republicans found it a point of contention they could use to elect candidates. So we have Social Security, but it doesn't provide enough money to live a decent -- or healthy -- life. We have Medicare and Medicaid, but Republicans want to drastically reduce both. Then there's Obamacare, which all Republicans agree must be repealed in its entirety and replaced -- with what? Unfortunately, President Bill Clinton signed on to the welfare "reform" initiative of Speaker Newt Gingrich, so it's no longer clear that Democrats uniformly support enhanced welfare benefits. Bernie does, but Hillary won't even agree that we should have a minimum wage of $15 an hour -- roughly 0.00005% of what she charged for an hour's speech to bankers and corporate executives. Meanwhile, Republicans are totally rejecting even the concept of graduated increases in income tax rates -- so the flat tax is back. Nothing wrong with that; it's not that different in Scandinavia -- except that the uniform tax rate is about 50%, not 10% or 15%.
39
A flat tax is uniformly regressive taking money from the food, clothing and housing budget of the middle class and poor while taking money from the investment budget or the Starbucks card of the rich. The pain of a flat tax is paid by the less wealthy. You cannot create a just society by taxing everyone the same percentage -- even if you were to tax ALL income and not just salaried income.
2
Bonnie, you could if you had a very high "personal deduction" ... but the billionaire class isn't going to go for that one!
Just point of reference -- it was Abe Lincoln who instituted the income tax, to pay for the Civil War, and as he instituted it -- applied only to those with (cash) incomes over $800/year. In the 1860s $800/year in cash was a huge income.
On your other implicit point though I agree 100% that the preferential capital gains tax rate should go away -- tax all earnings equally. It is unconscionable that a dollar somebody makes by working for it is taxed more (if they are even reasonably prosperous) than a dollar made from an investment.
One technical point is that those computing earnings from investments should be able to inflate the value of their original investment (whenever it was made) to a cost-basis in current dollars ... that avoids them from paying taxes on inflation. But other than that ... income is income.
Just point of reference -- it was Abe Lincoln who instituted the income tax, to pay for the Civil War, and as he instituted it -- applied only to those with (cash) incomes over $800/year. In the 1860s $800/year in cash was a huge income.
On your other implicit point though I agree 100% that the preferential capital gains tax rate should go away -- tax all earnings equally. It is unconscionable that a dollar somebody makes by working for it is taxed more (if they are even reasonably prosperous) than a dollar made from an investment.
One technical point is that those computing earnings from investments should be able to inflate the value of their original investment (whenever it was made) to a cost-basis in current dollars ... that avoids them from paying taxes on inflation. But other than that ... income is income.
Lifting people out of poverty means transferring resources. The global elite/wealthy have enough power so that they don't have to participate in this transfer, and instead are essentially the "middle-men" brokering (and leeching off of) the transfer, and therefore massively enriching themselves in the process. Their standard of living rises. The global poor's standard of living rises. The global middle class pays the price and their standard of living drops.
31
one could say it is simply an extension of "not in my backyard" to the global social contract.
No, lifting people out of poverty does NOT mean transferring resources. People escape from poverty when they learn to provide products or services that other people want, and receive things they want in exchange. It's not zero sum, everyone winds up better off.
1
The crux of the issue is that in the post WWII battle of ideologies, the concept of American style consumerism has won a resounding victory. Consumerism works well if it is confined to a few places, say North America and Europe, but shows fractures when applied world wide. It creates winners and losers. All that matters is price and cost. As such production keeps moving. Without going into all the other problems consumerism creates, such as environmental degradation, it has had a greater impact for the developed world's working classes than other group. As such, we are dealing with a paradigm shift that we will be addressing for years to come.
7
Another diatribe against globalization by one of it's beneficiaries. It's made doubly absurd by his invocation of Berlin the arch proponent of political pluralism and arch opponent of extreme collectivism. Berlin certainly didn't believe liberty was an absolute right but for Cohen to claim that the global economic system operates in a system of complete and untrammeled freedom is ludicrous. The fact is we live in a world made by trade and bourgeois capitalism. It's not without its problems and we do less well in the US than in many places at sharing it's benefits but to claim something is rotten in America is grotesques hyperbole.
6
John....many things are rotten in America including a corrupt political system, incompetent presidents who start unnecessary wars and get everyone killed, and the use of large amounts of money to control all three branches of government.
6
How many billionaires have been jailed for using secret foreign bank accounts and shell corporations the cheat on their taxes?
1
@ michael kittle
France by comparison is a model society of course. Isn't former president Sarkozy under investigation for corruption?
France by comparison is a model society of course. Isn't former president Sarkozy under investigation for corruption?
1
Great column and profound quote from Isaiah Berlin!
Berlin's words describe exactly a primary (but not the only) purpose of good government - or at least a goal to which a good government should aspire.
Unfortunately, the self-interested and self-righteous near-fascists on the right, both the "base" and those who wish to profit from them, will never acknowledge Berlin's words as a worthy objective. And few politicians of any stripe are capable of conveying how difficult it is to strike the right balance.
Berlin's words describe exactly a primary (but not the only) purpose of good government - or at least a goal to which a good government should aspire.
Unfortunately, the self-interested and self-righteous near-fascists on the right, both the "base" and those who wish to profit from them, will never acknowledge Berlin's words as a worthy objective. And few politicians of any stripe are capable of conveying how difficult it is to strike the right balance.
12
Globalisation is inevitable and beneficial. It is not the problem. The problem is the dearth of a response for its victims. Niethr Trump nor Sanders, nor any
9
We've barely learned to deal with the victims of capitalism here in the US. Don't hold your breath waiting for a 'world wide' solution. It's going to take a lot of disruption and a lot of incentive to get even half of our 7, going on 9 billion exceptionalists to grant the 'right to life' to the other half.
1
Not a word on global warming, which will soon dominate world problems, sink the great cities, and should be much more in discussions now. Blinkered discussion, indeed.
20
I think before global warming will come the even greater problem of the scarcity of potable water.
2
The good news is that 'global warming' is potentially the ideal substitute for world war as the incentive for increased unification (aka globalization) of our species.
Common ground, even if it is abused, polluted, and burning ultimately gets the juices of progressive, humanitarian thinking going.
Common ground, even if it is abused, polluted, and burning ultimately gets the juices of progressive, humanitarian thinking going.
How else to explain the Koch brothers' political activism than a "wish to dominate?" How many billions are enough?
192
Wannabee Kings and Emperors need to be constrained within the bubble of their corporate empires, else monopoly and overreach will dominate.
Unfortunately, the Republicans let them out, and the Dems that profited helped them. We need to toss them back in and patch the 'deregulatory holes' in their bubbles.
Unfortunately, the Republicans let them out, and the Dems that profited helped them. We need to toss them back in and patch the 'deregulatory holes' in their bubbles.
1
From what i've seen, the Koch brothers are not interested in dominating, they simply want to not be dominated.
JKW -- oh please. They want a world free of science and reality that they control.
They want a world where in effect coal and heavy crude can murder lots of people for free.
They want a world where in effect coal and heavy crude can murder lots of people for free.
2
You mentioned the desire to be heard, and both Trump and Sander's rise is partly due to a rebellion against our corrupt campaign finance system. For most people who can't give millions, we feel that candidates are too busy wooing their big donors to care about the rest of us. Both Sanders and Trump have bypassed this mode of financing, and in different ways, have made the "little guy" feel like their voice matters.
30
So a rising tide did lift all boats - worldwide. In the US, however, as you say the yachts reached new heights, the poor were able to get in the lifeboats, and the working class drowned.
Had the 1% not been pigs, this might have been less of a disaster. But the problem now is how to deal with the situation. Obviously the genie of globalization is out of the bottle. Cutting benefits to the poor to give a pittance to the working class is simply inhumane. So in the end what has to happen is that the top (5%, 1% or 0.1%) will have to give up a significant portion of their incomes and wealth.
Note to the plutocrats - this can occur through progressive taxation (see the rates from say 1934 to 1980) of income and estates, or, of course there is the 1789 / 1917 alternative. Your choice.
Had the 1% not been pigs, this might have been less of a disaster. But the problem now is how to deal with the situation. Obviously the genie of globalization is out of the bottle. Cutting benefits to the poor to give a pittance to the working class is simply inhumane. So in the end what has to happen is that the top (5%, 1% or 0.1%) will have to give up a significant portion of their incomes and wealth.
Note to the plutocrats - this can occur through progressive taxation (see the rates from say 1934 to 1980) of income and estates, or, of course there is the 1789 / 1917 alternative. Your choice.
217
Society gets to have a reset from time to time when necessary. We've done it before. it's the American Way!!!
With varying degrees of intensity and forms of manifestation the phenomenon of mass anger and resentment that's causing a great turmoil and even violence across the world should be viewed less as a reason for fear and more as an alarming call for placing the governance reforms and service delivery high on the policy agenda of the governments that have turned deaf and contemptuous to the citizenry over the years. This global backlash reflects popular urge to force systemic corrections, end social exclusionary policy regime, turn ruling dispensations more socially sensitive and attentive to their legitimate needs. In short, to arrest plutocratic drift of democratic societies. Are political and economic elites listening?
30
Every system of government is an implicit social contract between the ruling classes and those who are subject to the rules.
So long as those who are ruled perceive that their quality of life is better under the current rule set, they will be more or less tranquil and be more or less optimistic for their future. When rising expectations for a better quality of life are hindered, social unrest begins to assert itself. When the ruled perceive that their quality of life is being reduced, revolution follows.
I'm not sure that globalization per se is the root cause of the social and political dissent voiced by the unelected. If globalization resulted in raising or not destroying quality of life, people would be fine with it. But nobody wants their families to be subject to the social studies experiments of the ruling elites, especially if they perceive that the elites are getting rich at their expense.
It strikes me that the governing ineptitude of the elected officials is now being perceived as pernicious. At least in the US. We have a breakdown, driven by republican politicians, in government's ability to deal with social, economic, technological transformations not seen since the period between WWI and WWII.
Worse, we have the republican political party and a complicit right wing propaganda machine undermining the very legitimacy of our federal government time and time again. That, more than globalization, may tip the scales into revolution.
So long as those who are ruled perceive that their quality of life is better under the current rule set, they will be more or less tranquil and be more or less optimistic for their future. When rising expectations for a better quality of life are hindered, social unrest begins to assert itself. When the ruled perceive that their quality of life is being reduced, revolution follows.
I'm not sure that globalization per se is the root cause of the social and political dissent voiced by the unelected. If globalization resulted in raising or not destroying quality of life, people would be fine with it. But nobody wants their families to be subject to the social studies experiments of the ruling elites, especially if they perceive that the elites are getting rich at their expense.
It strikes me that the governing ineptitude of the elected officials is now being perceived as pernicious. At least in the US. We have a breakdown, driven by republican politicians, in government's ability to deal with social, economic, technological transformations not seen since the period between WWI and WWII.
Worse, we have the republican political party and a complicit right wing propaganda machine undermining the very legitimacy of our federal government time and time again. That, more than globalization, may tip the scales into revolution.
83
Yes, yes, and yes.
1
The old Roger Cohen is back. No provocations to wage war with ISIS or it's primary target Iran!
Of the candidates, Sanders tackles the injustice of inequality square on. While his critics claim that his proposals and plans are "unaffordable" or "unrealistic", most Americans are able to search Google to learn that most of his proposals are in place in Europe and cost far less than what Americans are paying for college and healthcare. Yes Europeans pay more in taxes, but not so much more that they do not realize a net gain in their income and they are not bankrupted by college or healthcare. Inequality causes inefficiency. Excess wealth generates economic bubbles and curtails innovation as individuals bet on increasingly "bubbled" investments and corporations scramble to buy or suppress innovation and preserve their privileged profits, for example: Apple and the entire pharmaceutical industry.
Democracy and Capitalism are necessary bed partners. What Roger is addressing is a serious imbalance in their relationship. Capitalism is perverting and victimizing Democracy. Corporate person-hood, corporate free speech, money is speech, unlimited money is unlimited speech, corporate religious rights are all the consequence of a corrupt SCOTUS that is anti-democratic and pro capitalist. This imbalance can be corrected with the appointment of a Justice committed to democracy and equality and opposed to capitalist corruption. That is the battle worth winning.
Of the candidates, Sanders tackles the injustice of inequality square on. While his critics claim that his proposals and plans are "unaffordable" or "unrealistic", most Americans are able to search Google to learn that most of his proposals are in place in Europe and cost far less than what Americans are paying for college and healthcare. Yes Europeans pay more in taxes, but not so much more that they do not realize a net gain in their income and they are not bankrupted by college or healthcare. Inequality causes inefficiency. Excess wealth generates economic bubbles and curtails innovation as individuals bet on increasingly "bubbled" investments and corporations scramble to buy or suppress innovation and preserve their privileged profits, for example: Apple and the entire pharmaceutical industry.
Democracy and Capitalism are necessary bed partners. What Roger is addressing is a serious imbalance in their relationship. Capitalism is perverting and victimizing Democracy. Corporate person-hood, corporate free speech, money is speech, unlimited money is unlimited speech, corporate religious rights are all the consequence of a corrupt SCOTUS that is anti-democratic and pro capitalist. This imbalance can be corrected with the appointment of a Justice committed to democracy and equality and opposed to capitalist corruption. That is the battle worth winning.
38
The greatest political delusion of this era is the belief in Trumpian populism. He is the zenith of the conservative lie of the past 30 years - that economic justice will come from more free enterprise. This is a man who thinks wages are too high, and yet low wage, low information, working class white people support him?
People support Trump because they agree that "People like me don't have any say about what the government does."
Does anyone in her right mind think that anyone will have any say about anything when a narcissist bully like Trump is in the White House?
People support Trump because they agree that "People like me don't have any say about what the government does."
Does anyone in her right mind think that anyone will have any say about anything when a narcissist bully like Trump is in the White House?
58
You know what's rotten? 40 years of democrats controlling Detroit, Baltimore and 8 years of this President, where economic progress was halted and education was destroyed by unions.
3
Perhaps economic progress was halted by the financial crisis of 2008 and the republican refusal to enact infrastructure programs which are sorely needed and would have created jobs? I believe this president had such an infrastructure program but the republicans refused to even consider it.
7
John, if we want to hear Rush Limbaugh's opinions, we can listen to him, okay?
6
You know what's rotten? Ignorance (especially willful ignorance), greed, racism, cowardice. and lack of self-awareness.
7
The people who are attracted to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders do not want to be the beneficiaries of social welfare. They do not want someone else to feed them, shelter them, or clothe them. They want the opportunity to be gainfully employed and fairly compensated so they can do those things for themselves and their families.
56
"The people who are attracted to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders do not want to be the beneficiaries of social welfare."
As opposed to the people who are NOT attracted to Trump or Sanders? In other words, you believe that if someone finds Trump repellent and Sanders unrealistic, that person must want to be a beneficiary of social welfare; he or she wants someone to feed them, shelter them, or clothe them? They don't want the opportunity to be gainfully employed? Really?
As opposed to the people who are NOT attracted to Trump or Sanders? In other words, you believe that if someone finds Trump repellent and Sanders unrealistic, that person must want to be a beneficiary of social welfare; he or she wants someone to feed them, shelter them, or clothe them? They don't want the opportunity to be gainfully employed? Really?
1
Trump says you're already "over payed" why do you think you will receive " fair compensation" from a Trumpolini administration?
1
We cannot have globalization, democracy, and national sovereignty simultaneously. We must choose two among the three.
Thus Rodrik's trilemma describes the situation. The several global "trade deals" in the works undercut national sovereignty so perhaps we shall have globalization and democracy, but I doubt it as these same deals lay the foundation and a good deal of the framework for a world dominated by transnational entities. This suggests some sort of deal on the government side that leaves the general population in the lurch and at the tender mercies of those to whom cash is king, nay emperor. Money already controls the government of the USA and from whichever side you view it money , new or old, runs Brazil to name but two. Perhaps an authoritarian corporate oligopoly will rule the world until the moment of pitchforks and torches in the night.
Thus Rodrik's trilemma describes the situation. The several global "trade deals" in the works undercut national sovereignty so perhaps we shall have globalization and democracy, but I doubt it as these same deals lay the foundation and a good deal of the framework for a world dominated by transnational entities. This suggests some sort of deal on the government side that leaves the general population in the lurch and at the tender mercies of those to whom cash is king, nay emperor. Money already controls the government of the USA and from whichever side you view it money , new or old, runs Brazil to name but two. Perhaps an authoritarian corporate oligopoly will rule the world until the moment of pitchforks and torches in the night.
8
Those in need look to Trump and le Pen...but not to Sanders? Are you saying that Sanders backers, being younger, smarter and more highly educated, don't need the same relief that Trump and le Pen promise? I think they are all worried about the same things...making a living, being respected, feeling that they can give their kids a leg up.
8
"Republican primary voters are 86.5 percent more likely to favor Donald Trump if they ‘somewhat agree or ‘strongly agree’ with the statement, ‘People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.”’"
For the me the great wonder is that these folks think that voting for Trump is going to restore their voice! Trump doesn't care about the "little guy"--Trump is all out for Trump. He's doing a snow job on these supporters, and they can't even see it.
William Yeats wrote poetry that defined the post-World I era as time when the "center would not hold". We no longer have a center: it's been obliterated and squeezed raw between two opposing forces, domination and subjugation.
The only way to restore human dignity is to free up this center. The question always is, which is the party--and the leader--that can do it.
For the me the great wonder is that these folks think that voting for Trump is going to restore their voice! Trump doesn't care about the "little guy"--Trump is all out for Trump. He's doing a snow job on these supporters, and they can't even see it.
William Yeats wrote poetry that defined the post-World I era as time when the "center would not hold". We no longer have a center: it's been obliterated and squeezed raw between two opposing forces, domination and subjugation.
The only way to restore human dignity is to free up this center. The question always is, which is the party--and the leader--that can do it.
85
Wrong, the center you speak of does not exist. Really it never did.
The end game of this is that Trump does not care. Neither does Hillary.
Blow it all up and start over is eventually what is going to happen.
The end game of this is that Trump does not care. Neither does Hillary.
Blow it all up and start over is eventually what is going to happen.
1
The enemy of my enemy is my friend...
2
It is true that the middle classes of the world are being hollowed out and is affecting all industrialized nations. People are working harder for less and less. We can't save money. We can't invest in ourselves and our futures, while at the same time government safety nets are being cut by austerity hacks. To make matters worse, we elected the hacks.
What we are seeing is that there are limits to capitalism. It can't provide paradise to all. There are limits to production and consumption. Capitalism is somewhat of a zero sum game. For one to gain another loses.
For centuries, those gains were made on the backs of the exploited. We used slavery, indentured servitude, colonization, disgustingly low wages and working conditions. We fought those forces with unions, labor laws, regulations and the New Deal. We have since exported those jobs to other places that don't have these provisions. Technology has taken the rest.
Then we shoot ourselves in the foot. We blame our problems on the very components of society that delivered us. We blame the safety net, organized labor, and regulations. An entire political party, the GOP, strives to tear it all down.
Well they are and we are suffering for it. They have fed us the lie about what made us great but left out the part about the exploitation. They blame the corrections that built the middle class. The result is the rise of anti-government extremism and fascism.
What we are seeing is that there are limits to capitalism. It can't provide paradise to all. There are limits to production and consumption. Capitalism is somewhat of a zero sum game. For one to gain another loses.
For centuries, those gains were made on the backs of the exploited. We used slavery, indentured servitude, colonization, disgustingly low wages and working conditions. We fought those forces with unions, labor laws, regulations and the New Deal. We have since exported those jobs to other places that don't have these provisions. Technology has taken the rest.
Then we shoot ourselves in the foot. We blame our problems on the very components of society that delivered us. We blame the safety net, organized labor, and regulations. An entire political party, the GOP, strives to tear it all down.
Well they are and we are suffering for it. They have fed us the lie about what made us great but left out the part about the exploitation. They blame the corrections that built the middle class. The result is the rise of anti-government extremism and fascism.
515
Couldn't agree with you more. The plain fact is that in a capitalist economy with unfettered and efficient markets, wages are determined by the marketplace. While this could be the sole reason for the stagnant wages, it is the government that gets blamed as if it plays any role in this process (save for prescribing the minimum wage which the Republicans are opposed to). Now, both Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders want protectionist trade policies which of course would not be considered as a 'safety net' or 'entitlement. '
Within the next hundred years, I expect robots to do most of the work. I suppose there would be proposals restricting the use of robots but at least we will quit blaming Mexicans.
Capitalism is not God-given. This man-made construct has served most of us well, but is badly in need of some reexamination.
Within the next hundred years, I expect robots to do most of the work. I suppose there would be proposals restricting the use of robots but at least we will quit blaming Mexicans.
Capitalism is not God-given. This man-made construct has served most of us well, but is badly in need of some reexamination.
6
Capitalism is the problem. Anyone can succeed but not everyone! Moreover, the motivation is greed. Globalization is not done to raise the standard of living of the poor countries, it is used to reduce production costs thus increasing profit margins.
Indeed the question is , how much is enough?
Indeed the question is , how much is enough?
209
Completely agree with you. The problem is also that we don't have a true free market economy when there are special rules for certain industries - subsidies for oil companies, ethanol subsidies, immunity from liability for the gun industry, etc., etc. Not to mention bailing out the financial industry instead of the homeowners.
11
Sadly, the angry and disaffected Trump supporters allow themselves to be sold a bill of goods instead of looking for a leader who can really help them. They are responding to a demagogue who plays on their resentment with empty slogans to assuage their wounded pride, but whose promises are empty pablum (we're going to fix that. we'll have a plan. it's going to be wonderful. you're going to love it. Yay America!).
What they (and America) need is not someone to stoke their resentment, but rather someone who will fund serious job training. The world has computerized; the old factory assembly line is no longer what it was. The service sector is growing. Trump and his ilk have worked mightily to undermine unions. It is unions which helped make their old jobs pay so very well and offer such great benefits, but unions are weak or non-existent. That is the real world.
Slogans are satisfying; Trump knows how to make the crowd feel powerful and proud and hopeful. He does not have an answer that will actually change their lives for the better - neither does Cruz.
What they (and America) need is not someone to stoke their resentment, but rather someone who will fund serious job training. The world has computerized; the old factory assembly line is no longer what it was. The service sector is growing. Trump and his ilk have worked mightily to undermine unions. It is unions which helped make their old jobs pay so very well and offer such great benefits, but unions are weak or non-existent. That is the real world.
Slogans are satisfying; Trump knows how to make the crowd feel powerful and proud and hopeful. He does not have an answer that will actually change their lives for the better - neither does Cruz.
161
So unions "are weak or non-existent" and the old jobs that "pay so very well and offer such great benefits" are kaput. A-M H - your recipe is pretty glib. The old factory assembly line is gone and everyone can be trained for the computerized world? The kinds of computerized jobs just about everyone can do are also now off-shored.
No, we now have a growing, angry underclass of permanently unemployed or under-employed Americans. Our public educational system is broken and we are not educating average people to do high tech jobs. A real fix is investment by corporations in manufacturing jobs in the USA - rather than in Mexico (see Carrier) or Asia (see our entire textile and garment industry, once the linchpin of red state employment). Our big corporations are not inversting in the US period.
No, we now have a growing, angry underclass of permanently unemployed or under-employed Americans. Our public educational system is broken and we are not educating average people to do high tech jobs. A real fix is investment by corporations in manufacturing jobs in the USA - rather than in Mexico (see Carrier) or Asia (see our entire textile and garment industry, once the linchpin of red state employment). Our big corporations are not inversting in the US period.
3
"Trump and his ilk have worked mightily to undermine Unions"
That struck me as implausible. The Trump I know has been at least fairly progressive for most of his career. Note this article in Politico that looks at Trumps shifting views over the decades: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/will-the-real-donald-trump-please-...
Trump has shifted on abortion, health care and gun rights. But the article states he has always been pro non-public-service unions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/will-the-real-donald-trump-please-...
I don't know if I can quote the article directly, but you will be surprised if you read it. Trump has stated unequivocally that because of globalization, unions are completely necessary to help American families. His pro union stance is unwavering. He is a Union member.
That struck me as implausible. The Trump I know has been at least fairly progressive for most of his career. Note this article in Politico that looks at Trumps shifting views over the decades: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/will-the-real-donald-trump-please-...
Trump has shifted on abortion, health care and gun rights. But the article states he has always been pro non-public-service unions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/will-the-real-donald-trump-please-...
I don't know if I can quote the article directly, but you will be surprised if you read it. Trump has stated unequivocally that because of globalization, unions are completely necessary to help American families. His pro union stance is unwavering. He is a Union member.
I totally agree with you, all Trump and Cruz are doing is pandering, and exploiting the fears of the many who have lost there jobs and even there homes in many cases.
“… rising inequality, stagnant middle-class incomes, politicians for sale, social exclusion, offshoring of jobs, free trade, mass immigration, tax systems skewed for giant corporations and their bosses, and what Pope Francis has lambasted as the “unfettered pursuit of money”.
Wow. All of global society BELONGS in New Jersey.
One thing that I haven’t seen adequately parsed by the pundit liberati regarding the implications of this class of western desdichados is that regardless of whom they elect, left or right, globalization may well be at an end, at least for a while. Trump would follow his own instincts, but Hillary would come under immense pressure to erect barriers to globalization, perhaps needing to trade it for other things from a Republican Congress. In any event, we may not be serenaded much longer by level-1 support technicians for Amazon who hail from Hyderabad.
And what will that mean for “just call me ‘Gus’” from Hyderabad? Nothing good, I’d wager.
Let’s assume that this happens, and acknowledge as well that absolutely EVERYTHING is connected in some way. We have an editorial today that not-so-convincingly (to me) flogs the advantages of what it claims is cheaper energy from renewable sources, that I respond is cheaper (and far less reliable) because of immense subsidies that don’t fool emerging economies and that they aren’t prepared to dedicate.
How much MORE likely is India to develop renewables if “just call me Gus” can no longer find work?
Wow. All of global society BELONGS in New Jersey.
One thing that I haven’t seen adequately parsed by the pundit liberati regarding the implications of this class of western desdichados is that regardless of whom they elect, left or right, globalization may well be at an end, at least for a while. Trump would follow his own instincts, but Hillary would come under immense pressure to erect barriers to globalization, perhaps needing to trade it for other things from a Republican Congress. In any event, we may not be serenaded much longer by level-1 support technicians for Amazon who hail from Hyderabad.
And what will that mean for “just call me ‘Gus’” from Hyderabad? Nothing good, I’d wager.
Let’s assume that this happens, and acknowledge as well that absolutely EVERYTHING is connected in some way. We have an editorial today that not-so-convincingly (to me) flogs the advantages of what it claims is cheaper energy from renewable sources, that I respond is cheaper (and far less reliable) because of immense subsidies that don’t fool emerging economies and that they aren’t prepared to dedicate.
How much MORE likely is India to develop renewables if “just call me Gus” can no longer find work?
8
And how will the political system respond when all the jobs that can be lost to globalization are already gone, but millions more jobs, white collar and blue, start falling to automation and artificial intelligence?
1
Richard -- the citizens of New Jersey can throw Trump's lackey out. I am puzzled why the people of the state ever voted for him in the first place, but he's clearly not doing his job as Governor ... get rid of him.
New Jersey could stop making itself such an easy butt for snide comments and jokes ... wouldn't be that hard to do. Christie can go on to his role as a modern-day Grima Wormtongue or Wormtail, to some Lord of the Billionaires somewhere.
As to renewable energy and costs -- obviously you don't know the numbers or the reality now; in fact they are very simple.
Wind and solar energy from good sites are now cheaper than coal, if the coal-fired plants must meet even less-stringent emissions requirements, NOT considering CO2. Even with the EU's emission requirements (about 15-years behind those of the US) coal cannot compete economically.
Coal is cheap only if you can poison large numbers of people "for free." The world knows this now. China and India know it, their people know it. The morbidity and mortality from unrestrained coal-fired emissions are extreme in those countries.
The lowest-cost energy mix in the US now is renewables plus natural-gas fired backup/peaking. The subsidies for renewables are about 2 - 3 cents/kWH at present. This is not "immense" and any real effort to control CO2 would require taxing it to an extent where the current subsidy for renewables (that would then go away, presumably) would seem small.
New Jersey could stop making itself such an easy butt for snide comments and jokes ... wouldn't be that hard to do. Christie can go on to his role as a modern-day Grima Wormtongue or Wormtail, to some Lord of the Billionaires somewhere.
As to renewable energy and costs -- obviously you don't know the numbers or the reality now; in fact they are very simple.
Wind and solar energy from good sites are now cheaper than coal, if the coal-fired plants must meet even less-stringent emissions requirements, NOT considering CO2. Even with the EU's emission requirements (about 15-years behind those of the US) coal cannot compete economically.
Coal is cheap only if you can poison large numbers of people "for free." The world knows this now. China and India know it, their people know it. The morbidity and mortality from unrestrained coal-fired emissions are extreme in those countries.
The lowest-cost energy mix in the US now is renewables plus natural-gas fired backup/peaking. The subsidies for renewables are about 2 - 3 cents/kWH at present. This is not "immense" and any real effort to control CO2 would require taxing it to an extent where the current subsidy for renewables (that would then go away, presumably) would seem small.
5
Right Mr Luettgen, beat the drum once again to preserve the status quo. So, your Republican long term strategy is to defeat the Democrats by bringing down the entire government so that you can remake the government to preserve the already well entrenched oligarchy? Are you one of the 1% Mr. Leuttgen?
4
Hillary Clinton's problem is the constant, decades-old sliming by the GOP. And uncritical or dishonest writers make that worse by failing to see that, or to acknowledge it.
Bernie's problem is that America is not ready for a socialist. Perhaps Cohen would show us where Bernie can get 270 Electoral College votes? Perhaps, Cohen might start by explaining the EC to those who feel the Bern?
A problem I have is that I don't really know what's in Bernie's heart. What does he mean by revolution? An anti-aging formula? Or blood in the streets? Those for whom the election is a theoretical exercise may indeed win the nomination for Bernie. What then? Certainly, a GOP POTUS. Trump? Cruz? Kasich?
Bernie's problem is that America is not ready for a socialist. Perhaps Cohen would show us where Bernie can get 270 Electoral College votes? Perhaps, Cohen might start by explaining the EC to those who feel the Bern?
A problem I have is that I don't really know what's in Bernie's heart. What does he mean by revolution? An anti-aging formula? Or blood in the streets? Those for whom the election is a theoretical exercise may indeed win the nomination for Bernie. What then? Certainly, a GOP POTUS. Trump? Cruz? Kasich?
31
@dEs JoHnson: Bernie is not a socialist. He's a democratic socialist. Yuge difference. Bernie beats all the (R)s in GE match-ups, often in double digits. 270 EC votes is not the problem.
The problem is that so many people still don't know (as you so eloquently put it), "What is in Bernie's heart?" A very legitimate concern!
Sanders has worked all his adult life for working and middle class people of every color and creed to get a bigger slice of the VERY big US economy pie. We are the richest country the world has ever seen. Our economy is twice the size of #2 China. And yet we have child poverty rates and mortality rates like a 3rd world country. We (Bernie and supporters) think that is a disgrace. By making some changes to our priorities:
- Employees higher, large corporations lower
- Average earners higher, millionaires and billionaires lower
- Mortgage holders and student borrowers higher, banks lower
- Domestic infrastructure higher, international wars lower
- etc.
we can affect big improvements in US quality of life. Many small priority changes together lead to big improvements.
The "revolution" is to elect candidates, not just a president, to implement these plans. Bernie can't do it alone. We need House members, Senators, governors, mayors, state congresspeople, etc. To achieve that, we need to have an engaged voter base that *stays* engaged. That is our "revolution".
Watch Sanders upcoming 14 April rally and you'll see and hear what it is about.
10:10 EST
The problem is that so many people still don't know (as you so eloquently put it), "What is in Bernie's heart?" A very legitimate concern!
Sanders has worked all his adult life for working and middle class people of every color and creed to get a bigger slice of the VERY big US economy pie. We are the richest country the world has ever seen. Our economy is twice the size of #2 China. And yet we have child poverty rates and mortality rates like a 3rd world country. We (Bernie and supporters) think that is a disgrace. By making some changes to our priorities:
- Employees higher, large corporations lower
- Average earners higher, millionaires and billionaires lower
- Mortgage holders and student borrowers higher, banks lower
- Domestic infrastructure higher, international wars lower
- etc.
we can affect big improvements in US quality of life. Many small priority changes together lead to big improvements.
The "revolution" is to elect candidates, not just a president, to implement these plans. Bernie can't do it alone. We need House members, Senators, governors, mayors, state congresspeople, etc. To achieve that, we need to have an engaged voter base that *stays* engaged. That is our "revolution".
Watch Sanders upcoming 14 April rally and you'll see and hear what it is about.
10:10 EST
7
dEs JoHnson states, "Hillary Clinton's problem is the constant, decades-old sliming by the GOP. And uncritical or dishonest writers make that worse by failing to see that, or to acknowledge it." There is much truth to this. But unfortunately
many of Ms Clinton's problems are of her own making. An uncritical or dishonest commenter makes that worse by failing to see that, or to acknowledge it.
many of Ms Clinton's problems are of her own making. An uncritical or dishonest commenter makes that worse by failing to see that, or to acknowledge it.
9
My problem with Bernie is that for 25 years he has equated talking about problems to doing something about them. Judging from the lack of a plan (besides assuming that the masses will rise up) he hasn't changed.
4
JFK, March 1962: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
A succinct and insightful column from Mr. Cohen. I have roots on both sides of the Atlantic and see things almost the same. I would only quibble that the bitter class of losers in the US from the globalization wave of the last 20+ years (NAFTA, CAFTA, trade relations with China, TPP, etc.) are also looking to Bernie Sanders.
Sanders peaceful revolution is gaining steam. Trump's violent revolution unfortunately is as well. We still have time to get on what brother Cornell West describes as Sanders' "Love Train" of a campaign. That it isn't clear which choice we'll make is frightening in and of itself.
06:20 EST (0 comments)
A succinct and insightful column from Mr. Cohen. I have roots on both sides of the Atlantic and see things almost the same. I would only quibble that the bitter class of losers in the US from the globalization wave of the last 20+ years (NAFTA, CAFTA, trade relations with China, TPP, etc.) are also looking to Bernie Sanders.
Sanders peaceful revolution is gaining steam. Trump's violent revolution unfortunately is as well. We still have time to get on what brother Cornell West describes as Sanders' "Love Train" of a campaign. That it isn't clear which choice we'll make is frightening in and of itself.
06:20 EST (0 comments)
240
Thanks for taking this break from beating your war drum to say something that needed to be said.
78
Be aware that for a long time we have seen transfer of wealth from place to place but not real growth, a zero sum game that hurts those from whom much is taken. Real growth would supply the necessities of middle class existence to more people. To do that you need a growing economy but we don't have that, we have a zero sum situation. Real growth would encompass new paradigms that would employ more people domestically such as investments in modernizing energy production and consumption. However, the status quo and the oligarchy would lose much in such a realignment. Trillions invested in the current fossil fuel paradigm would become stranded assets. We face our current troubles because we refuse to face those facts.
28
I suspect you wouldn't make these statements if you lived in China, India, Vietnam, Kenya, or Peru. The experience of billions of people outside the rich countries cannot be characterized as zero-sum transfers of wealth. The combined forces of education, birth control, and expanding communications, among others, have lifted billions of humans out of the depths of poverty over the past half-century. They just don't happen to live in the US or other rich economies.
6
Transition to investment in "modernizing energy production and consumption" can, and arguably must, occur within a "degrowth" paradigm.
Increasing inequality and environmental degradation are not simply inevitable results of trends of "globalization" but rather of policy decisions which socialize risk while privatizing gain, manifesting the "Tragedy of the Commons."
We have now had more than 40 years to observe predictions of the "Limits to Growth" simulation model:
"The warnings that we received in 1972 ... are becoming increasingly more worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the ... scenario had generated." -- Ugo Bardi bit.ly/203LDbE
The WorldWatch Institute publication "Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity" of 2012 provides both perspective and policy recommendations:
"For most people, who deeply believe growth is essential to modern economies, it seems to be a recipe for economic and societal collapse. But the rapidly warming Earth and other declines in ecosystem services reveal that economic degrowth is essential and will need to be pursued as quickly as possible in order to stabilize Earth’s climate and prevent irreparable harm to the planet and, in the process, human civilization." -- bit.ly/1uDErkE
A revolutionary paradigm, which Senator Sanders advocates, requires a change in perspective, as stated in the US Green Party 2014 platform,
"We need to acquire the ability to distinguish between need and greed." -- bit.ly/1MQ649V
--
Increasing inequality and environmental degradation are not simply inevitable results of trends of "globalization" but rather of policy decisions which socialize risk while privatizing gain, manifesting the "Tragedy of the Commons."
We have now had more than 40 years to observe predictions of the "Limits to Growth" simulation model:
"The warnings that we received in 1972 ... are becoming increasingly more worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the ... scenario had generated." -- Ugo Bardi bit.ly/203LDbE
The WorldWatch Institute publication "Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity" of 2012 provides both perspective and policy recommendations:
"For most people, who deeply believe growth is essential to modern economies, it seems to be a recipe for economic and societal collapse. But the rapidly warming Earth and other declines in ecosystem services reveal that economic degrowth is essential and will need to be pursued as quickly as possible in order to stabilize Earth’s climate and prevent irreparable harm to the planet and, in the process, human civilization." -- bit.ly/1uDErkE
A revolutionary paradigm, which Senator Sanders advocates, requires a change in perspective, as stated in the US Green Party 2014 platform,
"We need to acquire the ability to distinguish between need and greed." -- bit.ly/1MQ649V
--
Not all developing countries are better off. Countries that are already under the Trumps and the Sanders of the world are much worse off.
As the economist points out, Venezuela is like Zimbabwe 15 years ago and will have an inflation over 700% this year.
Chavez died but Chavismo is very much alive in a very corrupt Narco-State. The leaders are billionaires and the country is broke.
Even after Trump’s defeat “Trumpism” will be very much alive.
As the economist points out, Venezuela is like Zimbabwe 15 years ago and will have an inflation over 700% this year.
Chavez died but Chavismo is very much alive in a very corrupt Narco-State. The leaders are billionaires and the country is broke.
Even after Trump’s defeat “Trumpism” will be very much alive.
11
@Aurace Rengifo: Countries "under Sanders" are much worse off? You mean countries like Denmark (Forbes #1 best country for business) or Austria (where Vienna has won Mercer's #1 quality of life award for the seventh consecutive year), or Germany, France, Norway, and Sweden? I could go on a while.
You've bought into the MSM propaganda against Sanders. Those of us living in democratic socialist countries are *in general* doing much better than my countrymen back in the US. The 1% in the US are doing better than here, true, but not the vast majority of Americans. One example: In Germany an auto worker makes on average $67; in the US $34 (from 2010).
Think about how much better the US economy would be just from having 900,000 auto workers (one group of many) almost double their average income. That money would go (mostly) right back into the economy for goods and services. Instead the US keeps adding more millionaires who keep most of their money in investments and not circulating in the economy.
In downtown Manhattan, average workers can't afford an apartment. I live 4 km from the center of Vienna in a mostly working class district with thriving mom and pop businesses (Not textiles. Globalization has decimated that market). Everyone here makes a living wage if they work full time.
According to the OECD, 5 of the top 6 after tax income countries in the world are in Europe. Most of the EU is in the top 25. That is how countries "under Sanders" actually live.
08:25 EST
You've bought into the MSM propaganda against Sanders. Those of us living in democratic socialist countries are *in general* doing much better than my countrymen back in the US. The 1% in the US are doing better than here, true, but not the vast majority of Americans. One example: In Germany an auto worker makes on average $67; in the US $34 (from 2010).
Think about how much better the US economy would be just from having 900,000 auto workers (one group of many) almost double their average income. That money would go (mostly) right back into the economy for goods and services. Instead the US keeps adding more millionaires who keep most of their money in investments and not circulating in the economy.
In downtown Manhattan, average workers can't afford an apartment. I live 4 km from the center of Vienna in a mostly working class district with thriving mom and pop businesses (Not textiles. Globalization has decimated that market). Everyone here makes a living wage if they work full time.
According to the OECD, 5 of the top 6 after tax income countries in the world are in Europe. Most of the EU is in the top 25. That is how countries "under Sanders" actually live.
08:25 EST
506
Your points are well taken and well supported. So, then, let me ask you, why is there so much squawking on that side of the Atlantic if people in general are ok?
3
Yes, but by and large, the US has been paying their defense bill. The question is, what do European Social States look like when they pay for their own defense against aggressors?
3
The Pope should know about the "unfettered pursuit of money" - his organization has a lot of it, even after shelling out millions to make the pedophile scandal go away.
TAX THE CHURCH
TAX THE CHURCH
171
Let's pluralize that put an S after church.
1
No need to tax the Church or the churches or any house of worship. Simply require them to file the type of documentation that any non-religious not-for-profit has to file. Such not-for-profits include organizations focused on atheism and the separation of the state and religion.
I'm sorry, that's unfair.
One thing to understand about the Roman Catholic Church is that they are one of the largest sources of charity and social justice work in the world. Not so much here in the US (although they definitely help out here too), but in countries like Pope Francis' Argentina they really are very much the friend of the working man. For all its many faults, the Catholic Church on the whole takes the admonitions to house the homeless and feed the hungry and clothe the naked quite seriously.
Taxing the church, ok, but don't ignore the good they are actually doing.
One thing to understand about the Roman Catholic Church is that they are one of the largest sources of charity and social justice work in the world. Not so much here in the US (although they definitely help out here too), but in countries like Pope Francis' Argentina they really are very much the friend of the working man. For all its many faults, the Catholic Church on the whole takes the admonitions to house the homeless and feed the hungry and clothe the naked quite seriously.
Taxing the church, ok, but don't ignore the good they are actually doing.
2
Good for you Roger........yes, something is indeed rotten in America. .......the level of corruption and cynicism has reached a point of total control where candidates like Trump seem reasonable and desirable.
The level of selfishness in America's aggressive capitalism has eroded most significant human values. There is rage, sadness, and hopelessness across the country. This has opened the door to autocrats, religious nuts, and fascists.
The solution requires a government leadership that is truly trusted to be fair with all citizens. America must be reborn with renewed values if it to avoid further decline!
The level of selfishness in America's aggressive capitalism has eroded most significant human values. There is rage, sadness, and hopelessness across the country. This has opened the door to autocrats, religious nuts, and fascists.
The solution requires a government leadership that is truly trusted to be fair with all citizens. America must be reborn with renewed values if it to avoid further decline!
121
"People want to be heard. They want to believe their voices matter."
Then why don't more people VOTE? All too often the worst people elected win by slender margins because apathetic people stay home.
These types deserve their fates.
Then why don't more people VOTE? All too often the worst people elected win by slender margins because apathetic people stay home.
These types deserve their fates.
129
They are not apathetic - they just don't like any of the candidates.
You will notice than when Trump and Sanders ran, many people who never voted before were suddenly interested.
You will notice than when Trump and Sanders ran, many people who never voted before were suddenly interested.
2
I've asked that same question to many people many times. The response invariably falls into two categories.
1) My vote doesn't make a difference.
2) I'm too busy; it's too hard.
They have their right to vote and I wish they'd engage. However, I'm not sure I'd want either group deciding the fate of elections for me. Legitimate voter suppression is to be despised. True apathy or laziness is on the voter.
1) My vote doesn't make a difference.
2) I'm too busy; it's too hard.
They have their right to vote and I wish they'd engage. However, I'm not sure I'd want either group deciding the fate of elections for me. Legitimate voter suppression is to be despised. True apathy or laziness is on the voter.
3
Vote for who ? Some choices ! My vote is a vote for "none of the above "
1
Roger Cohen presents a very bleak picture. In the history of the world, wisdom has never overcome the force of "those who wish to dominate." Nor has wisdom prevented those who are being dominated from turning to Fascism or other unhealthy "life preservers." The "successful" emergent societies are at a different point in the cycle. They too will in time fall victim to "those who wish to dominate." Brazil is a good example. What globalization and technology have done, is enlarge the sphere and the rapidity in which individuals and small groups may dominate.
10
Yes, Roger Cohen, the greater good must be attended to. But I do not agree that globalism has brought that much to the world. Many people who you say are not longer in abject poverty, have lost some freedom in doing so. They are now in a western style consumer society which in many instances were not necessary before. Farmers have lost their land to agribiz all around the world for instance. Sustainability has been lost in other words. Natural population controls are out of whack, as we see in the Middle East, where oil provided an unreal and unsustainable population growth. They do not have enough water or viable farmland on which to sustain the population. They are more and more dependent on Europe and elsewhere to provide wheat for their bread, a must in their society. Big international banks have squeezed countries and coerced them into dependence on big corporations as national assets have been forced into privatization, causing more destabilization of societies and countries. I for one am not too impressed with these developments. I do not call them progress. It is the core reason we now have to focus on the greater good not just here in America but all around the world.
103
I think you romanticize the freedom of desperately poor subsistence farmers a bit much. As an American, we have no clue what a world looks like where a blight or drought can lead to death by starvation, disease is easily communicated and also deadly, and civil society and the safety it brings is absent. There is a reason people risk their lives to immigrate to the West.
35
Well said, Carolyn. Hard T9 feel sorry for disaffected Trumpsters seen by Buckminster Fuller living better than any Egyptian Pharoah.
Ley us not forget as Buckminster Fuller would have said these Trumpsters live better lives than Egyptian Pharoahs.
I normally criticize Mr. Cohen, but I find this column very good.
"A rising tide may raise all yachts. It does not raise all boats." Very well put.
"A rising tide may raise all yachts. It does not raise all boats." Very well put.
301
What happens if you don't even have a boat? You drown.
25
Ah yes. Clipped that very sentence for my 'too good to forget' file.
Regarding a rising tide lifting all boats... every time I encounter this oft repeated phrase, I have yet to hear someone acknowledge that so many haven't got a boat, and are quite desperately, treading water or worse, waiting for a lifeline that never comes.
It is increasingly apparent that the status quo and yachting class simply regard the above as just so much flotsam and jetsam to navigate around. The words anger and resentment barely scratch the surface.
It is increasingly apparent that the status quo and yachting class simply regard the above as just so much flotsam and jetsam to navigate around. The words anger and resentment barely scratch the surface.
6