Bernie Sanders had to swallow hard when he endorsed Hillary. If you listened carefully during their battles in the primary, Hillary's stance on the economy was viewed by Bernie as more Trumpian than democratic, given her cozying up to the Wall Street muckety-mucks. In fact, Hillary would have been an ideal choice as a moderate GOP presidential candidate.
11
The Democratic Party can support union interests without abandoning capitalism. Unionism itself depends on capitalist enterprise and union leadership knows it, just as Hillary Clinton does.
Unionism at its best empowers people who, individually, would be powerless. It should be co-credited with fueling our widespread national prosperity in the early- to mid-20th century. Our current weakness can be largely attributed to the shredding of the labor-business compact. Such balancing of negotiated interest is a cornerstone of democratic rule.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Unionism at its best empowers people who, individually, would be powerless. It should be co-credited with fueling our widespread national prosperity in the early- to mid-20th century. Our current weakness can be largely attributed to the shredding of the labor-business compact. Such balancing of negotiated interest is a cornerstone of democratic rule.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
16
"Neither Clinton nor Trump has shown a noticeable talent for reconciliation."
Ridiculous. Pernicious. This statement flies in the face of the remarkable historical facts: Hillary Clinton, after a hard fought primary campaign against Barack Obama, worked productively to elect him President and to serve in his Cabinet. Hillary was praised in the Senate for her notable ability to work across party lines and to gain the respect and friendship of Republican lawmakers, even those who had opposed her and her husband's earlier goals. She has gained the fervent support of Senator Bernie Sanders, her former rival, and of Senator Elizabeth Warren, whose views are to the left of hers. She has the outspoken and public support of many hundreds of Republican officials and military and intelligence leaders, including General Colin Powell and former President George H. W. Bush. She headlined a spectacularly successful Democratic Convention that embraced all wings of the party and offered a positive, future-oriented vision for the country. She has the support of a hugely diverse coalition of young, old, women, the well educated and self educated of all stripes, working age people, men, labor, racial and ethnic minorities, business leaders, students, young parents, gay citizens, educators, people from every state in the union. In contrast, we all know her opponent's pugnacity, insulting every group under the sun, his thousands of lawsuits, and complete alienation of his own Party.
Ridiculous. Pernicious. This statement flies in the face of the remarkable historical facts: Hillary Clinton, after a hard fought primary campaign against Barack Obama, worked productively to elect him President and to serve in his Cabinet. Hillary was praised in the Senate for her notable ability to work across party lines and to gain the respect and friendship of Republican lawmakers, even those who had opposed her and her husband's earlier goals. She has gained the fervent support of Senator Bernie Sanders, her former rival, and of Senator Elizabeth Warren, whose views are to the left of hers. She has the outspoken and public support of many hundreds of Republican officials and military and intelligence leaders, including General Colin Powell and former President George H. W. Bush. She headlined a spectacularly successful Democratic Convention that embraced all wings of the party and offered a positive, future-oriented vision for the country. She has the support of a hugely diverse coalition of young, old, women, the well educated and self educated of all stripes, working age people, men, labor, racial and ethnic minorities, business leaders, students, young parents, gay citizens, educators, people from every state in the union. In contrast, we all know her opponent's pugnacity, insulting every group under the sun, his thousands of lawsuits, and complete alienation of his own Party.
9
In order to build and maintain Pax Americana, the US must be global power with globalists at the helm. So, it's the goal that dictates who and what party should govern the country and, by extension, the world. Parochial approach is incompatible with Pax American.
3
There's a really salient point to be made that Clinton's contempt isn't just for "deplorables". Many people seem to have forgotten the contempt of Clinton and her allies for supporters of Sen. Sanders -- you know, the "basement dwellers" who "don't do their own research", the throngs of "sexist" and "misogynist" and "probably racist" Bernie Bros. The contempt of the Clintonian establishment extends to any who show reluctance to support their candidate.
It's hard to overstate how destructive that contempt is. A lot of people still don't realize that the moment Obama lost much of the white working class was not when or after he was elected -- it was his comment about "clinging to guns and religion" during the 2008 primaries. People remember that. They still gripe about it. Everything that came after was just affirmation. It's the same reason nobody liked John Kerry.
Contrast that with Sen. Sanders, who spoke at Liberty University early in the campaign, who stood on picket lines, who acknowledged differences he may have had on many issues with the white working class and said, "let's agree to disagree". He is the most popular politician in America, and that's a big part of the reason why.
Democrats show contempt for all who refuse to tow their line. This paper's opinion pages is a case study in these conform-or-else attitudes, where grown adults throw daily tantrums that so many of the 99% won't line up behind the chosen of the 1%. But this is a system feature, not a bug.
It's hard to overstate how destructive that contempt is. A lot of people still don't realize that the moment Obama lost much of the white working class was not when or after he was elected -- it was his comment about "clinging to guns and religion" during the 2008 primaries. People remember that. They still gripe about it. Everything that came after was just affirmation. It's the same reason nobody liked John Kerry.
Contrast that with Sen. Sanders, who spoke at Liberty University early in the campaign, who stood on picket lines, who acknowledged differences he may have had on many issues with the white working class and said, "let's agree to disagree". He is the most popular politician in America, and that's a big part of the reason why.
Democrats show contempt for all who refuse to tow their line. This paper's opinion pages is a case study in these conform-or-else attitudes, where grown adults throw daily tantrums that so many of the 99% won't line up behind the chosen of the 1%. But this is a system feature, not a bug.
18
Edsall says,
"Clinton’s outspoken support for African-American, Hispanic and immigrant rights has contributed to new levels of Republican loyalty among white working class voters."
Not true.
African-Americans and Hispanics form one group, illegal immigrants another.
The difference is that illegal immigrants broke US laws. That is a huge difference.
If we do not prosecute people for illegal entering the country, exactly what is it that we prosecute for? Why put people in jail for tax evasion, for example?
Liberals, including the editors of the NY Times portray those who oppose illegal immigration as racist.
They never allow publication of articles that suggest that illegal immigration may have victims.
Yet the transference of health care from America's citizens to an unending stream of illegal immigrants and their children results in many thousands of unnecessary deaths.
We need to provide Mexico with birth control. We need to encourage Mexico to provide access to birth control to its citizens.
And we need to uphold our immigration laws.
It is as simple as that.
"Clinton’s outspoken support for African-American, Hispanic and immigrant rights has contributed to new levels of Republican loyalty among white working class voters."
Not true.
African-Americans and Hispanics form one group, illegal immigrants another.
The difference is that illegal immigrants broke US laws. That is a huge difference.
If we do not prosecute people for illegal entering the country, exactly what is it that we prosecute for? Why put people in jail for tax evasion, for example?
Liberals, including the editors of the NY Times portray those who oppose illegal immigration as racist.
They never allow publication of articles that suggest that illegal immigration may have victims.
Yet the transference of health care from America's citizens to an unending stream of illegal immigrants and their children results in many thousands of unnecessary deaths.
We need to provide Mexico with birth control. We need to encourage Mexico to provide access to birth control to its citizens.
And we need to uphold our immigration laws.
It is as simple as that.
2
". . . [The] process of finding common ground between globalists and nationalists, between business and anti-business factions, between ethnic and racial identity groups, between male and female voters — both within the Democratic Party and between the two parties — has to be a priority. That process must begin in earnest in just six days, the morning after Election Day."
Mr. Edsall, I fully agree. I however fear that the GOP will face insurmountable difficulties in its attempts to reconcile its internal warring factions--much greater difficulties than those confronting the victorious Democrats.
The GOP will have little energy left to find common ground with Democrats, unless, of course, President Hillary Clinton uses her bully pulpit to convince the people that they must pressure GOP House obstructionists to get off of their derrières and commit to the tasks of actual governance.
It is not likely that Speaker Ryan will be fondly embraced by a further emboldened House Freedom Caucus or by thwarted Trump voters. In the Senate, will a possibly no-longer Majority Leader McConnell kiss and make up with that Freedom Caucus and Tea-Party darling, Senator Cruz? Will the alienated white workers suddenly bow to the wisdom of the pro-corporate globalist establishment?
Is your targeting of Hillary's problems and of tensions internal to the Democratic Party anything other than an attempt to distract the public from the irreconcilable differences so obviously endemic to today's GOP?
Mr. Edsall, I fully agree. I however fear that the GOP will face insurmountable difficulties in its attempts to reconcile its internal warring factions--much greater difficulties than those confronting the victorious Democrats.
The GOP will have little energy left to find common ground with Democrats, unless, of course, President Hillary Clinton uses her bully pulpit to convince the people that they must pressure GOP House obstructionists to get off of their derrières and commit to the tasks of actual governance.
It is not likely that Speaker Ryan will be fondly embraced by a further emboldened House Freedom Caucus or by thwarted Trump voters. In the Senate, will a possibly no-longer Majority Leader McConnell kiss and make up with that Freedom Caucus and Tea-Party darling, Senator Cruz? Will the alienated white workers suddenly bow to the wisdom of the pro-corporate globalist establishment?
Is your targeting of Hillary's problems and of tensions internal to the Democratic Party anything other than an attempt to distract the public from the irreconcilable differences so obviously endemic to today's GOP?
3
At least you can say she's loyal. NOBODY has ever said that about the Donald.
3
GLC has it right this country is "untied " in name only and blame goes to both parties. Long road ahead toward calls for independence by individual states ... far fetched .. so was the Trump candidacy.
2
The last time fools tried seceding from the USA, in violation of the US Constitution, America's worst war occurred, and the South has yet to recover from their disaster.
Meanwhile, Trump's candidacy was never far fetched, but his election is unlikely and would a great disaster for the USA and the world that would take decades if not centuries to recover from.
Meanwhile, Trump's candidacy was never far fetched, but his election is unlikely and would a great disaster for the USA and the world that would take decades if not centuries to recover from.
wingate--Do you mean UNITED? I'd love to see some states secede.
wingate,
Not equally. The GOP has been dividing and wedge issuing the electorate since RR.
The GOP is a malevolent clown car hell bent on destroying the country if that's what it takes to swing the SCOTUS.
Beyond that, the FBI, under Comey (R) seems to be acting as some sort of KGB state security apparatus, determined to throw the outcome to Trump.
BHO should have fired Comey on Friday. We are seeing slow-mo intervention into the '16 election with possible collusion between the GOP, Trump campaign the FBI and perhaps the Russians in light of the fact it was the Dems emails they hacked. Can you imagine how interesting the RNC and the Trump emails would read?
Not equally. The GOP has been dividing and wedge issuing the electorate since RR.
The GOP is a malevolent clown car hell bent on destroying the country if that's what it takes to swing the SCOTUS.
Beyond that, the FBI, under Comey (R) seems to be acting as some sort of KGB state security apparatus, determined to throw the outcome to Trump.
BHO should have fired Comey on Friday. We are seeing slow-mo intervention into the '16 election with possible collusion between the GOP, Trump campaign the FBI and perhaps the Russians in light of the fact it was the Dems emails they hacked. Can you imagine how interesting the RNC and the Trump emails would read?
2
Edsall is describing the Balkanization of American society. No matter how you slice and dice all of the binaries, the result is the same. The United States is no longer united. It does not matter whether Trump or Clinton wins the election, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for America.
The partisan vitriol of 2016 will seem like a love fest compared to the internecine strife that is sure to follow.
E Pluribus Chaos and Fragmentation.
The partisan vitriol of 2016 will seem like a love fest compared to the internecine strife that is sure to follow.
E Pluribus Chaos and Fragmentation.
5
Within the 5 America's within the 48 lower states, commonwealths, and republics, California alone has 4 states subsumed in its 800 mile length. It's 1100 miles if you take the coastal route thru the State of Surf.
This is a disturbing article. For one thing, Edsall usually has some data to back up the positions he's sharing. For another, the language used to describe "globalists" reminds me of the term "rootless cosmopolitans" - Soviet speak for Jews. I'm not saying this is antisemitic speech, but I'm saying that using it gives credence to the notion that championing human rights is unpatriotic, disloyal and foreign.
4
That is part of our problem too many people looking for anti-whatever. Not a good way to unite.
2
Trashing your fellow citizens in order to benefit other countries is NOT patriotic, no matter how you try to spin it. And it's not accurate to try and brand concern for American workers as anti semitism.
5
We have to find common ground and reconciliation among ourselves.
Ms Clinton and Mr Trump are just mouthpieces for the will of the rest of us and perhaps not for us as much as their corporate donors who have their own ideas about making America great and we are expected to just follow along.
Anyway I still have the idea it is our country which means all of us.
Ms Clinton and Mr Trump are just mouthpieces for the will of the rest of us and perhaps not for us as much as their corporate donors who have their own ideas about making America great and we are expected to just follow along.
Anyway I still have the idea it is our country which means all of us.
4
' Clinton’s crack about the “deplorables” and “irredeemables” wasn’t just a misstatement. It was a window into the thinking of the party’s current activist core. Central to the party’s mind-set is an arrogant dismissal of a major share of the U.S. population. These folks are dismissed as incapable of making judgments about their own lives, their aspirations, and the larger politics and society surrounding them.
Mayhew warned: “This dismissiveness does not go unnoticed.” '
In a marriage, contempt is more corrosive than hatred. The 'basket of deplorables' comment would be elaborated in private as 'rednecks, trailer trash, hicks, refugees from Jerry Springer' and so on. The consequence of this polarization will be intense Hillary-hatred from the first day of her administration to the last, and a very large group of people will have that view. She would lose in a landslide if only men (of all races voted). She would lose in a landslide if only white people voted.
If I knew the cure for this disease I would list it here, but I don't know the cure. I know the prognosis though: the obstructionism faced by Obama will look mild and well mannered by comparison to what is coming.
Mayhew warned: “This dismissiveness does not go unnoticed.” '
In a marriage, contempt is more corrosive than hatred. The 'basket of deplorables' comment would be elaborated in private as 'rednecks, trailer trash, hicks, refugees from Jerry Springer' and so on. The consequence of this polarization will be intense Hillary-hatred from the first day of her administration to the last, and a very large group of people will have that view. She would lose in a landslide if only men (of all races voted). She would lose in a landslide if only white people voted.
If I knew the cure for this disease I would list it here, but I don't know the cure. I know the prognosis though: the obstructionism faced by Obama will look mild and well mannered by comparison to what is coming.
10
The major problem is not that Hillary is hated, but that the GOP elite is manipulating baser instincts to incapacitate Congress and are within a hair of capturing the Presidency and the Supreme Court as well. The plan is to make government by the people and for the people a chaotic mess, and as the squabble goes on distracting us all, to do as they please.
7
John--at least he got the meaning of "deplorables" correct.
1
I think you missed his point.
With respect to party allegiances, there should be a realignment of interest groups after this election. It's possible that Trump, with all of his rhetoric defying the republican establishment, has enabled many less affluent white voters to recognize that their interests are far more closely in sync with those of minorities and labor unions rather than republican economic globalists, military interventionists and One Percenters. The fact that they have voted against their own interests for decades is one of the great tragedies of American history. For the democrats, a commitment to soften the blow of globalization by funding job training and public investments to generate jobs, avoiding stupid wars fought mostly by the sons and daughters of the middle class and working poor, and requiring the rich to pay more in taxes for their enormous privileges, would go far in growing the democratic constituency.
8
Unfortunately, I think professional politicians (Hillary Clinton is a good example) believe that it almost doesn’t matter what they say (someone can write that for them); if they outspend their opponent, they’ll probably win; when they lose, they should’ve spent more.
11
Ed--Well, we sure do know that Trump doesn't think anything HE says will make any difference. Like shooting someone on 5th Ave and not lose a single vote. Or ALL Mexicans are rapists and murderers. OR that woman is a pig, slob, bimbo. OR I'm "smart" for not paying my taxes. OR someone should SHOOT Hillary Clinton. None of that makes any difference...to deplorables.
2
That didn't work so well for Jeb Bush.
2
Although I would have far preferred a Democratic progressive such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, to the Rockefeller Republican economics and hawkishness of Hillary Clinton, I have no problem voting for Hillary in the 2016 election. There really is no other intelligent, pragmatic choice.
Thomas Edsall’s column today states a number of obviously inaccurate assumptions.
Edsall writes “In June 2016, CNN found that while Donald Trump had received contributions from 52 employees of technology firms, Clinton had received 2,087 such contributions”. Really? With many millions of Americans employed as employees of technology firms, how is it that only 2,139 employees of technology firms donated to Clinton or Trump? CNN’s statistics are probably referring only to the wealthy owners of technology firms, who may not be technical themselves, as opposed to the millions of technical employees, most of whom are quite progressive.
Most Americans, Democratic, Republican and independents disapprove of NAFTA and TPP, because it is bad for American employees, and only benefit the selfish wealthy who couldn’t care less about the best interests of American workers. If she wishes to be reelected in 2020, Hillary will be obligated to disapprove of TPP in any form it might be renamed.
Despite Acemoglu’s propaganda, a far larger “constituency of well-educated, socially conscious Americans” would demand Democratic Party become far more anti-market and pro-union.
Thomas Edsall’s column today states a number of obviously inaccurate assumptions.
Edsall writes “In June 2016, CNN found that while Donald Trump had received contributions from 52 employees of technology firms, Clinton had received 2,087 such contributions”. Really? With many millions of Americans employed as employees of technology firms, how is it that only 2,139 employees of technology firms donated to Clinton or Trump? CNN’s statistics are probably referring only to the wealthy owners of technology firms, who may not be technical themselves, as opposed to the millions of technical employees, most of whom are quite progressive.
Most Americans, Democratic, Republican and independents disapprove of NAFTA and TPP, because it is bad for American employees, and only benefit the selfish wealthy who couldn’t care less about the best interests of American workers. If she wishes to be reelected in 2020, Hillary will be obligated to disapprove of TPP in any form it might be renamed.
Despite Acemoglu’s propaganda, a far larger “constituency of well-educated, socially conscious Americans” would demand Democratic Party become far more anti-market and pro-union.
9
It almost does not matter who gets into the White House; both Hillary and Donald will carry on the globalist, corporatist, warmongering in spite of the wishes of the ordinary voter.
I voted for Bernie during the primary, but now I know he will not be able to get the agenda he fought tooth and nail for, and squeezed from Hillary's representatives.
Just look at what the British Parliament is trying to do with the Brexit vote; they are trying to negate it. Corporatist, globalist will not endorse the will of the majority because money rules.
Corporatist do not care about the issues I care about.
I am for preserving the environment, clean water, clean soil, air for everyone, decent food for everyone, justice for all, fair trade, end military conquest, fair housing, good schools, lower college cost, decent salaries, health care for all, reduce the trade deficit, reduced national debt.
Even though she will not have a shot at the Presidency, I voted for Dr. Jill Stein; send a message that the two party system no longer works for We, the Deplorable.
Not a Trump fan, but I consider myself an "American Deplorable" because I do not disagree with everything Trump advocates, so Hillary and her minions in this very paper will hold me in contempt because I believe the Democratic Party is deplorable.
When the "winning candidate arises from a system of deceit, that is un American, un democratic and evil.
Something has to change in the two party system before I give my vote to either.
I voted for Bernie during the primary, but now I know he will not be able to get the agenda he fought tooth and nail for, and squeezed from Hillary's representatives.
Just look at what the British Parliament is trying to do with the Brexit vote; they are trying to negate it. Corporatist, globalist will not endorse the will of the majority because money rules.
Corporatist do not care about the issues I care about.
I am for preserving the environment, clean water, clean soil, air for everyone, decent food for everyone, justice for all, fair trade, end military conquest, fair housing, good schools, lower college cost, decent salaries, health care for all, reduce the trade deficit, reduced national debt.
Even though she will not have a shot at the Presidency, I voted for Dr. Jill Stein; send a message that the two party system no longer works for We, the Deplorable.
Not a Trump fan, but I consider myself an "American Deplorable" because I do not disagree with everything Trump advocates, so Hillary and her minions in this very paper will hold me in contempt because I believe the Democratic Party is deplorable.
When the "winning candidate arises from a system of deceit, that is un American, un democratic and evil.
Something has to change in the two party system before I give my vote to either.
12
Will Rogers said "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat", and that nebulousness can be very helpful. If you want a wall you can feel the elephant's side and say "I like him, he's a wall". If you like big snakes, feel the trunk, etc. The main problem with our political system is although the Democrats are pleasing an ever bigger share of the voting public, they rely on Republicans and the ever growing national debt to produce the goodies on which the Democrats feed. The Republicans core conservative message may have the value of being correct, but it's increasingly irrelevant to the growing dependent masses.
2
"Realistically, the likelihood that Democrats will abandon labor in the foreseeable future is zero." Really? I think labor is getting thrown under the bus by the new Democratic Party. It's not being televised of course. IMO labor's profile in this election has been lower than ever. Labor unions are rarely mentioned by HRC. Mr. Edsall himself makes the point that the biggest campaign contributors are Wall St. and Tech. How can labor stick with Democrats if most of it's members don't vote that way anymore?
10
Labor has not been mentioned for many years by any politician, of either party. If it were important to the Dems, a huge step would have been democratic support for the unionization of Walmart. Another would have been help organizing workers against the gig economy, not embracing it and their gurus. Democrats would have proposed (and when a majority, enacted) punitive tax policies against companies that off shored jobs, imported workers, or moved factories. I am "relatively affluent and professional," as are most of my friends. I do not know anyone who supports the TPP. We are "tolerant of the business sector" to the degree they employ us and our paychecks are dependent upon that "tolerance." I don't know anyone who admires what the oligarchy has pulled on us-- with the exuberant support of their elected lackeys. All of us know we have been had. In fact, our deepest empathy goes with many of the Trump supporters-- we don't agree with them, we don't like their often "deplorable" style-- but we feel for their measurable losses, we understand their anxiety-- we feel it too.
4
Reconciliation? I think as the first woman president, Hillary Clinton will inspire other women and men to rise up in society and in the workforce.
I believe Clinton, in the White House, will constantly invite cooperation from the highest to the lowest levels in government.
One small step for a (W)oman. One giant leap for (H)uman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, she can. Yes, we can!
I believe Clinton, in the White House, will constantly invite cooperation from the highest to the lowest levels in government.
One small step for a (W)oman. One giant leap for (H)uman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, she can. Yes, we can!
5
Your point is well taken but I do want to take issue with one fallacy that constantly gets repeated: Unions are not strong. I was part of the teachers' union. We would go half a dozen years or more without even a cost of living raise. We worked under conditions that most businesses would consider primitive. If you were ever in the guild, you'd know that it is also a joke. (I also worked for newspapers.)
The only area where they benefit candidates is in their donations but I haven't seen that pay off for the little worker bees.
The only area where they benefit candidates is in their donations but I haven't seen that pay off for the little worker bees.
5
It's a very good thing that the chance of Democrats abandoning labor in the foreseeable future is zero.
That is because a strong organized labor movement accomplishes at least two vital ends. First, labor acts to balance the very real and important "parochial" needs of working people with the inevitable (for industrial nations) march of globalization. Second and similarly, labor's community building traits blunt the appeal of snake-oil selling demagogues. While the argument can't be made in this little box, if the government (mostly Republicans) had not decimated labor over the last 40 years, not only would the Democratic party not have "forgotten" blue collar workers, white or any other color, but we would never have had a national nightmare like the nomination of a Donald Trump.
That is because a strong organized labor movement accomplishes at least two vital ends. First, labor acts to balance the very real and important "parochial" needs of working people with the inevitable (for industrial nations) march of globalization. Second and similarly, labor's community building traits blunt the appeal of snake-oil selling demagogues. While the argument can't be made in this little box, if the government (mostly Republicans) had not decimated labor over the last 40 years, not only would the Democratic party not have "forgotten" blue collar workers, white or any other color, but we would never have had a national nightmare like the nomination of a Donald Trump.
3
Over 70 guy here. There is much more to our current crisis of economic haves and have nots than than can be characterized by simply describing it as a polarization of globalists and nationalists. Wall Street and Corporate America both function largely on a quarterly earnings basis. Earnings must always be seen as growing. Consequently, everything must be geared to that milestone. Costs, including labor and benefits must be held to as little as possible, earnings must be unencumbered by as little regulation as possible. Taxes must be kept as low as possible. Long term planning is always within the framework of perpetuating more of the same thing. There seems to be the blind assumption in many quarters that there will always be a middle class, and worse, should the middle class shrink within the US, foreign economies will make up the difference. In other words, it's ok to neglect the home front, to assume workers do not need to share in the wealth they create. Corporate America and the Street will still make money.
There is growing awareness, that this model is not sustainable over the long term, that a cynical view of short term profit not only shrinks our domestic markets, it will eventually lead to economic stagnation and the rationalization of an exploitable working class.
There is growing awareness, that this model is not sustainable over the long term, that a cynical view of short term profit not only shrinks our domestic markets, it will eventually lead to economic stagnation and the rationalization of an exploitable working class.
19
Excellent article but we know that there will be no reconciliation after election day. If anything, it will get worse because whomever is elected will face implacable opposition which will most likely stalemate any progress on our major issues. I started thinking about this problem about 30 years ago and I have watched it get worse and now it is toxic. When I was a kid there were sharp political differences between the left and right but also a set of shared core beliefs that held things together. Not so much anymore. Physical separation ala 1947 India-Pakistan is not feasible so what do we do now? I do worry about the disintegration of our country and we need to find people who can bridge the divide, Bobby Kennedy comes to mind, but it is neither of the current nominees.
4
I cannot believe what I just read. We have FBI agents in a complete revolt against an apparently corrupted DOJ and a compromised FBI leadership that is doing a very good imitation of, if not outright attempting too, suppress and kill multiple corruption investigations against Sec. Clinton. Parsing out the esoteric political challenges she may or may not face smacks of the proverbial rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Instead, I contend that the challenges she faces, if she wins, is the difficulty of trying to govern when half the country is ready to find her more criminal than presidential and therein lies the factions before her that matter. The heroes today are not just the Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians that gave us a spectacular week of the greatness of America but those brave FBI agents that are standing up for honesty and the essential premise that no person is above or beyond the rule of law.
Instead, I contend that the challenges she faces, if she wins, is the difficulty of trying to govern when half the country is ready to find her more criminal than presidential and therein lies the factions before her that matter. The heroes today are not just the Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians that gave us a spectacular week of the greatness of America but those brave FBI agents that are standing up for honesty and the essential premise that no person is above or beyond the rule of law.
11
The FBI has not suppressed anything with regard to HRC. Al Comey could pin on her was that they believe she made errors of judgement and was careless. These are not high crimes and misdemeanors as you so casually assert. What the FBI did last week is try and throw an election for a right wing demagogue, for reasons not clear to most of us. That confusion is proven by the coalition of the unlikely-- Alberto Gonzalez and Barack Obama to name two-- expressing equal outrage and distaste for FBI actions. The only flaw of these belatedly wise folks is that they did not censure Comey in July when he spoke so brazenly against her, even as he admitted he did not have a case. He should have been taken off the project then, as he revealed bias and a lack of judgement, which far exceeds any she can be accused of. And BTW, it is not appropriate for employees of the Federal government to go into a "complete revolt" based on innuendo.
1
It's refreshing to see at least this one opinion column saying something other than Trump very bad Clinton good. Mr. Edsall has identified the challenge that any Democratic candidate would face to reconcile the various factions in the party. Mrs. Clinton's worse problem is that the only consistent position that Mrs. Clinton has maintained over the past decades is that she wants to be President. All other considerations are negotiable rather than firmly part of her beliefs.
And the electorate is not fooled, as is obvious from the less than 50% approval ratings. If she really believed that people from the finance industry should decide how they should be regulated, let her say so to all the people, not only Goldman Sachs. If she thinks a borderless world, where American workers compete with foreign workers for jobs - and living standards - let her say so consistently, not only when her husband was President, but now. Let her give a response other than the equivocal offer of a study.
The two nominations from the major parties, and this election, are an American tragedy.
And the electorate is not fooled, as is obvious from the less than 50% approval ratings. If she really believed that people from the finance industry should decide how they should be regulated, let her say so to all the people, not only Goldman Sachs. If she thinks a borderless world, where American workers compete with foreign workers for jobs - and living standards - let her say so consistently, not only when her husband was President, but now. Let her give a response other than the equivocal offer of a study.
The two nominations from the major parties, and this election, are an American tragedy.
12
The American tragedy is that only simplistic formulations of the difficulties we face can be understood by the "great unwashed". The notion that problems are complex and can't be sound-bited is taken as obfuscation and overthinking. The idea that different viewpoints can all hold some truth and fitting the pieces together is the way forward simply doesn't appeal to the "winner/loser" simple-minded formulation.
When will we grow up and slog our way through it all together instead of the white hats versus black hats rah-rah-rah kid stuff?
When will we grow up and slog our way through it all together instead of the white hats versus black hats rah-rah-rah kid stuff?
4
The intraparty tensions you describe are inherent in a two party system, and have existed since the end of the "Era of Good Feeling" in the first quarter of the 19th century. Each party strives for a "big tent". However, that will always result in some being left outside.
In my view the Democrats have been more successful, and the current election seems to bear this out. For example, it appears Hillary Clinton will win white college-educated voters - the last time a Democratic did that was 1952 (when that group was very small part of the population) Hispanics have titled decided Democratic just since 2004 when Bush II won over 40% of the votes of that group. More affluent suburbanites, regardless of education, were once strongly Republican - not so today. There are other examples I'm sure.
At the same time, the GOP is left with a shrinking base. And the irony of that is that many among them would benefit fom the overall economic policies of the Democrats.
In my view the Democrats have been more successful, and the current election seems to bear this out. For example, it appears Hillary Clinton will win white college-educated voters - the last time a Democratic did that was 1952 (when that group was very small part of the population) Hispanics have titled decided Democratic just since 2004 when Bush II won over 40% of the votes of that group. More affluent suburbanites, regardless of education, were once strongly Republican - not so today. There are other examples I'm sure.
At the same time, the GOP is left with a shrinking base. And the irony of that is that many among them would benefit fom the overall economic policies of the Democrats.
4
The Democratic Party platform should offer no comfort. Since when has a candidate ever followed his party's platform when elected? This is especially true here as the platform was shoved down Hillary's throat as a concession to her primary opponents.
12
"Class-based New Deal liberalism" is challenged, you say? It didn't look that way when a no-name upstart from Vermont nearly toppled the Clinton machine on a platform that could have been plagiarized from FDR himself. The only challenge is in moving the Overton window back toward a sane center. The Democratic Party is a center-right party. It has choked out the Republican Party by occupying this space, forcing them to extremism to maintain their connection with a "conservative" identity.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's the class war, stupid.
Our political discourse purposefully had all talk of class removed from it by a business elite who wanted to associate such terminology with communism. Why? Because talk of class struggle -- the mere discussion of it! -- constituted a threat to their power, which was itself built on a class war against the middle and working classes of this country.
Really, just replace "globalist" and "establishment" in our public discourse with "bourgeoisie" and tell me I'm wrong. It has nothing to do with "nationalism", frankly. Not wanting people like Donald Trump to be able to pay zero income taxes while the rest of us struggle to feed and clothe ourselves is not "nationalism". Not wanting to live hand-to-mouth while the government gives huge subsidies to Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Ag is not "nationalism". It is class struggle.
We all know where this ends. Kings are always so shocked to find themselves without heads.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's the class war, stupid.
Our political discourse purposefully had all talk of class removed from it by a business elite who wanted to associate such terminology with communism. Why? Because talk of class struggle -- the mere discussion of it! -- constituted a threat to their power, which was itself built on a class war against the middle and working classes of this country.
Really, just replace "globalist" and "establishment" in our public discourse with "bourgeoisie" and tell me I'm wrong. It has nothing to do with "nationalism", frankly. Not wanting people like Donald Trump to be able to pay zero income taxes while the rest of us struggle to feed and clothe ourselves is not "nationalism". Not wanting to live hand-to-mouth while the government gives huge subsidies to Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Ag is not "nationalism". It is class struggle.
We all know where this ends. Kings are always so shocked to find themselves without heads.
29
I’ve been trying to recall for the past six months who Kellyanne Conway reminds me of. Last night I suddenly realized that it was a lamprey I had to dissect in biology class 50 years ago.
The thing about lampreys is that they are unpleasant creatures who once they get hold of you never lose their grip.
Before Tuesday, Americans need to wake up to the fact that Kellyanne Conway may soon be working in the White House.
The thing about lampreys is that they are unpleasant creatures who once they get hold of you never lose their grip.
Before Tuesday, Americans need to wake up to the fact that Kellyanne Conway may soon be working in the White House.
6
In the meantime, Democrats with good judgment like Huma work for corrupt politicians, marry Anthony Weiner and leave their laptop that will put her and Hillary lying around.
4
More science education needed.
2
Lamphrey. Nice misogynous sliming. Trump couldn't have phrased it worse.
2
I don't agree with Mayhew where he writes: "Clinton’s crack about the “deplorables” and “irredeemables” wasn’t just a misstatement. It was a window into the thinking of the party’s current activist core. Central to the party’s mind-set is an arrogant dismissal of a major share of the U.S. population."
Clinton (and the Democratic party with her) did not "dismiss a major part of the U.S. population" at all; she was referring to the irredeemable racist, xenophobe and misogynist "half" of Trump supporters, not to the other decent "half" who support Trump out of despair about their economic situation. She expressed concern about their situation, not arrogance or dismissal. And she had a disclaimer that "half" was a strong generalization and should not be taken literally. I find it disappointing that an academic like Mayhew misconstrues what Clinton actually said to the point of turning it into the opposite of what she expressed.
Clinton (and the Democratic party with her) did not "dismiss a major part of the U.S. population" at all; she was referring to the irredeemable racist, xenophobe and misogynist "half" of Trump supporters, not to the other decent "half" who support Trump out of despair about their economic situation. She expressed concern about their situation, not arrogance or dismissal. And she had a disclaimer that "half" was a strong generalization and should not be taken literally. I find it disappointing that an academic like Mayhew misconstrues what Clinton actually said to the point of turning it into the opposite of what she expressed.
19
I can't understand why she has never spelled this out.
2
Dismissing bigots & nativists, who seem to think they have a divine right to turn the country into a theocracy, is not wrong or unfair, even if it does reflect the views of a minority towards a growing majority.
Impatience with racism is no vice.
Impatience with racism is no vice.
3
she was referring to the irredeemable racist, xenophobe and misogynist "half" of Trump supporters, not to the other decent "half" who support Trump out of despair about their economic situation.
--------------------
Of course she was lying, as is her wont.
--------------------
Of course she was lying, as is her wont.
3
No representative of "the people" aka "politician" should tailor their message to or focus their policies on any one or two segments of our society or economy. It's as simple as that. But both parties pit employers against workers, capitalists against socialists, rich against poor, men against women, Christians against all others, white against black and brown, native-born against new immigrants, police against citizens, urban against rural, and educated against under-educated. We need leaders who see us as one country, one people who rise and thrive together, with liberty and justice for all. Leaders who are not afraid to remind us of our responsibilities for ourselves and our families but also to each other. Those leaders have not emerged yet but they'd better come quickly.
1
"These folks are dismissed as incapable of making judgments about their own lives, their aspirations, and the larger politics and society surrounding them."
Well, haven't they been voting against their interests for decades?
Well, haven't they been voting against their interests for decades?
24
There is a real possibility that America has become ungovernable. Half the population believes they would be better off with no government at all, just unlimited "freedom." In an unregulated free market, they believe they will not only survive and become billionaires. If they have failed to achieve a middle-class or higher standard of living, if they lose their jobs or can't find better ones, they blame "the government." The other half believes they need government for "equal opportunities," "safety nets," and a "level playing field" in the dog-eat-dog competition for wealth. They see government as an protector from the ruthless big and powerful economic players and as a social equalizer. Add in racial, gender, educational, cultural and religious differences and you have gridlock.
2
Edsall's column today could read as a sort of obituary for the Democratic coalition formed in the 1930's and generally durable until recently. In that sense, I believe Hillary represents the last of the old breed -- the global-oriented, socially liberal believer in government-assisted problem solving. (Joe Biden represents another vestigial example).
Post Hillary, the question confronting the Democratic Party is who builds and leads a new, different coalition that includes minorities but also represents liberal progressives. Look at the Democratic bench; where are tomorrow's leaders? Tim Kaine, perhaps. But you'd be hard-pressed to name 2-3 others from the ranks of Senators and Governors. I haven't yet heard any current Democratic office holder in Congress or in the states who is thought of as politically savvy and also articulate about the host of complex issues besetting the world. Since the Republicans will never come around to worrying about climate change, who among the Democrats will provide effective, galvanizing leadership?
I hope and pray Hillary wins, if only to hold off the dogs of divisiveness and disunion that are the face of the GOP. But she is perhaps best seen as a transitional figure between the old and the new -- whatever the new is.
Post Hillary, the question confronting the Democratic Party is who builds and leads a new, different coalition that includes minorities but also represents liberal progressives. Look at the Democratic bench; where are tomorrow's leaders? Tim Kaine, perhaps. But you'd be hard-pressed to name 2-3 others from the ranks of Senators and Governors. I haven't yet heard any current Democratic office holder in Congress or in the states who is thought of as politically savvy and also articulate about the host of complex issues besetting the world. Since the Republicans will never come around to worrying about climate change, who among the Democrats will provide effective, galvanizing leadership?
I hope and pray Hillary wins, if only to hold off the dogs of divisiveness and disunion that are the face of the GOP. But she is perhaps best seen as a transitional figure between the old and the new -- whatever the new is.
3
Saying people are "anti-business" is a gross misrepresentation and oversimplification of facts. There are manifold problems in the conduct of business and the nexus between corporations, lobbyists, elected representatives, appointed officials and administrators.
People are no longer surprised about the general lack of ethics, integrity and proper governance within corporations. This is not just in the financial sector. We are not lacking for regulation but the will to enforce is generally not there. They just look the other way or are part of a self-serving conspiracy to join the game and swindle consumers and taxpayers. This culture is reinforced by a lack of enforcement of the law. Just pay lawmakers to ensure a two-tier judicial system where corporate violators get away scot-free even for the most egregious offences. Wall street shenanigans, bank scandals, money laundering, ... the nexus makes everything possible. Just follow the money trail. It is a well-oiled system.
Voters / taxpayers have little influence on government when it comes to holding the nexus responsible for their actions and abuses. Obama made some progress, but the lack of prosecutions and kid glove treatment is a glaring failure. Hillary will unmistakably reverse and further worsen the abuses. She will just do it quietly as usual. She has received tens of millions of dollars and has to repay for that all important second term. She can always apologize when the public finds out.
People are no longer surprised about the general lack of ethics, integrity and proper governance within corporations. This is not just in the financial sector. We are not lacking for regulation but the will to enforce is generally not there. They just look the other way or are part of a self-serving conspiracy to join the game and swindle consumers and taxpayers. This culture is reinforced by a lack of enforcement of the law. Just pay lawmakers to ensure a two-tier judicial system where corporate violators get away scot-free even for the most egregious offences. Wall street shenanigans, bank scandals, money laundering, ... the nexus makes everything possible. Just follow the money trail. It is a well-oiled system.
Voters / taxpayers have little influence on government when it comes to holding the nexus responsible for their actions and abuses. Obama made some progress, but the lack of prosecutions and kid glove treatment is a glaring failure. Hillary will unmistakably reverse and further worsen the abuses. She will just do it quietly as usual. She has received tens of millions of dollars and has to repay for that all important second term. She can always apologize when the public finds out.
4
Whatever her compromises, the nation can't have Trump as president under any circumstances.
7
Several weeks ago your encomium would garner 100 or more Recommends, right off. Now, just 3, including yours. Drip, drip, drip.
4
The classification and distinction of party-political-orientations as globalists v. nationalists, cosmopolitan v. parochial, liberal v. conservatism, business v. anti-business and ethnic v. racial identity groups are no longer meaningful ever since DJT made the political scene. A more up-to-date description than described here of the political struggles in terms of major players is that between the anti-establishments v. the pro-establishments; the discontents v. the contents of the status quo; transformists v. non-transformists; revolutionaries v. anti-revolutionaries. Those described in the article are no longer the major players or main political orientations.
The two-party duopoly under the aegis of capital loses its viability because of the Long Depression in economy and the anti-establishment rebellion to which both Bernie Sanders and DJT have made contributions. Both parties are now on the brink of disarray due to internal conflicts of interests within their respective establishmental ancien régimes.
If DJT is to lose his presidential bid, the G.O.P. is more likely than not to break up in two parts: one part will merge with the Dem establishment party and the other will join the new-born anti-establishment party led by DJT and others led by the salt of the earth. Even if the G.O.P. were to remain, it would fall into decay together with the Dems.
In any case, only anti-establishmental parties can remain strong and viable and the duopoly will disintegrate.
The two-party duopoly under the aegis of capital loses its viability because of the Long Depression in economy and the anti-establishment rebellion to which both Bernie Sanders and DJT have made contributions. Both parties are now on the brink of disarray due to internal conflicts of interests within their respective establishmental ancien régimes.
If DJT is to lose his presidential bid, the G.O.P. is more likely than not to break up in two parts: one part will merge with the Dem establishment party and the other will join the new-born anti-establishment party led by DJT and others led by the salt of the earth. Even if the G.O.P. were to remain, it would fall into decay together with the Dems.
In any case, only anti-establishmental parties can remain strong and viable and the duopoly will disintegrate.
The "globalist" v. "nationalist" binary is misleading and is insisted upon mainly by and for leaders of the political right to detract attention from their own free trade, corporatist, interventionist philosophies. While it is true that there are tensions within the Democratic coalition based on the relations of its various members to global capitalism, those tensions are even more pronounced and fundamental within the Republican Party, which is a party that has twice nominated for president billionaire capitalists who have promoted and profited from globalization, free trade, and unregulated markets.
It's true that both parties manage these tensions using cultural tropes. But it is misleading to suggest that Democrats are "globalists" engaged in an "arrogant dismissal of a major share of the U.S. population" unless one immediately notes that Republicans are as well. Indeed, the Putin-loving globalist Donald Trump, who built Trump tower with undocumented labor and manufactures his branded merchandise in East Asia, launched his presidential campaign by calling Mexican Americans murderers and rapists.
It's true that both parties manage these tensions using cultural tropes. But it is misleading to suggest that Democrats are "globalists" engaged in an "arrogant dismissal of a major share of the U.S. population" unless one immediately notes that Republicans are as well. Indeed, the Putin-loving globalist Donald Trump, who built Trump tower with undocumented labor and manufactures his branded merchandise in East Asia, launched his presidential campaign by calling Mexican Americans murderers and rapists.
2
Deplorable should be called what it is. Asking Hillary and the party to "reach out" to inveterate racists screaming that she should be locked up is asking a little much, isn't it?
8
Globalist vs. nationalist is too simplistic given the history of the United States. The "deplorables" that Clinton mentioned as one part of Trump's base (in her full quotation) have their own identity politics. They are white nationalists. There are many books on white nationalists and their rise in the South after the Civil War including the corresponding Jim Crow tactics that were institutionalized.
Trump's supporters are openly bigoted like he himself is. They are racist, sexist, xenophobic and Islamophobic. This is revealed time after time. From the beginning, at every Trump rally there have been signs and shouts like "White power!" as well as Confederate flags and other paraphernalia celebrating hate. Trump's son and others have shared white nationalist memes including symbols like Pepe the Frog. Trump has a long background with all this from his father arrested for violence at a KKK rally to their refusal of black tenants, his discrimination in the work place (making black, Jewish, and others be out of sight when Trump was visiting his casinos or his friend the mobster visited), and his record of sexual assaults and mistreatment of women. His rants against Latinos and other groups are well known now. H
With Trump, the Republican Party is now the white nationalist party that includes white supremacists. Bannon and the alt-right have the full sponsorship of all the hate groups, and the KKK paper has endorsed Trump.
Trump's supporters are openly bigoted like he himself is. They are racist, sexist, xenophobic and Islamophobic. This is revealed time after time. From the beginning, at every Trump rally there have been signs and shouts like "White power!" as well as Confederate flags and other paraphernalia celebrating hate. Trump's son and others have shared white nationalist memes including symbols like Pepe the Frog. Trump has a long background with all this from his father arrested for violence at a KKK rally to their refusal of black tenants, his discrimination in the work place (making black, Jewish, and others be out of sight when Trump was visiting his casinos or his friend the mobster visited), and his record of sexual assaults and mistreatment of women. His rants against Latinos and other groups are well known now. H
With Trump, the Republican Party is now the white nationalist party that includes white supremacists. Bannon and the alt-right have the full sponsorship of all the hate groups, and the KKK paper has endorsed Trump.
5
Hillary Clinton is paying a political price for being Hillary Clinton. She is her own major problem. There is no intellectual issue involved.
9
HRC juggles. DT clowns. This election continues to be a circus.
What an abysmal choice in candidates.
What an abysmal choice in candidates.
8
It's shocking to see in print, or think about hearing, of the moral fervor of Catholics and Protestants. The reformation was 500 years ago and seeing those sentiments affirms that in some ways things have not changed over the centuries. The reality that new generations, born virtually yesterday, still cling to the myths of a distorted and bygone world is a testament to semiology and a boon for demagogues, who need only drop well placed words and phrases that can be filled by the disparate expectations of those now living in the name of an empty past that no longer exists.
2
This election is about our evolution, or devolution.
Hillary and Bill are the reigning Mistress and Master of black mass incarceration and black welfare deformation who talk down to black voters with dismissive colored contempt taking their vote for granted. Practice trump's rhetoric.
Scheme Clinton made their $121 million corruptimes crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch fortune the new fashioned way by converting their elected and selected "public service" into "earning" privileged golden perch.
Scheme Clinton is for military-industrial complex warmongering shedding the life, limb, mind and blood of anyone but their family and friends.
Donald Trump made his fortune the old fashioned way by wisely picking a white multimillionaire real estate baron father.
Hillary and Bill were honored guests at the Donald and Melania nuptials. Bill and Donald are both draft dodging serial adulterers. Both have son-in-las who are Jewish American Prince's sons of convicted felon fathers. Neither Hillary nor Donald are really for the middle nor lower class of any color beyond their respective liberal and conservative dog-whistles. The American people deserve and need a clear politically partisan choice. Clinton and Obama used moderate governing practice beneath their veiled liberal poltical rhetoric.
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
Scheme Clinton made their $121 million corruptimes crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch fortune the new fashioned way by converting their elected and selected "public service" into "earning" privileged golden perch.
Scheme Clinton is for military-industrial complex warmongering shedding the life, limb, mind and blood of anyone but their family and friends.
Donald Trump made his fortune the old fashioned way by wisely picking a white multimillionaire real estate baron father.
Hillary and Bill were honored guests at the Donald and Melania nuptials. Bill and Donald are both draft dodging serial adulterers. Both have son-in-las who are Jewish American Prince's sons of convicted felon fathers. Neither Hillary nor Donald are really for the middle nor lower class of any color beyond their respective liberal and conservative dog-whistles. The American people deserve and need a clear politically partisan choice. Clinton and Obama used moderate governing practice beneath their veiled liberal poltical rhetoric.
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
8
OK, blackmamba, who or what is the "clear politically partisan choice" you think the American people deserve?
Your usually colorful and stinging rebuttal of the status quo doesn't move us any closer to finding some solutions to the problems that a lot of see facing this nation. We need some answers. Fast.
Your usually colorful and stinging rebuttal of the status quo doesn't move us any closer to finding some solutions to the problems that a lot of see facing this nation. We need some answers. Fast.
2
Hillary Clinton lost me for good in '08 with her comment in South Carolina about Obama: "Hard working white folks won't vote for him." This followed "He (Rev. Jeremy Wright - US Marine veteran) wouldn't be my pastor." and preceded Bill's comment after she lost in SC "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too" and Andrew Cuomo, supporting her, made a comment about not needing Obama's "Shuckin' and Jivin'"
4
@GLC: Solution is easy: we need both parties to present us with credible responsible authentic candidates rather than the clearly lunatic Trump and the clearly megalomaniac inauthentic Clinton. As a first step, the media could pay attention to competent candidates rather than the click-bait they love to present.
The problem of course is how to get there. What's your suggestion?
The problem of course is how to get there. What's your suggestion?
2
The defining characteristic of the Hillary Clinton wing (the Cartel wing) of the Democratic party is its support for oligopoly and monopoly. The Globalists in the Hillary Coalition want to create and sustain globe-straddling oligopolies and monopolies that will concentrate wealth and income in the hands of the global 1 percent. The unions want to create oligopoly-enhanced pockets of union labor able to extract above-market wages from the oligopolies (the pervasive corporate form in 21st century America) while public employee unions exploit monopoly power over public services to extract wages and pensions two, three, or four times those of similarly placed private sector workers.
These highly remunerative oligopolistic-based labor and investment arrangements will inevitably kick back massive resentment from people left off the bus, many of whom will be young, possessing non-elite educations, or members of minority groups not on the public gravy train.
The Clinton Foundation is the marquee "charity" for the globalized plutocracy that is the checkbook of the Clinton Coalition, a political grouping half a century away and several galaxies from the era of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. That's why there is no "enthusiasm coalition" behind Hillary Clinton.
The electoral upheavals to come in the 2020 presidential election may be even more galvanic than this year as a new cohort of politicians assess the real lessons of 2016. Look for a non-Boomer clash of new candidates.
These highly remunerative oligopolistic-based labor and investment arrangements will inevitably kick back massive resentment from people left off the bus, many of whom will be young, possessing non-elite educations, or members of minority groups not on the public gravy train.
The Clinton Foundation is the marquee "charity" for the globalized plutocracy that is the checkbook of the Clinton Coalition, a political grouping half a century away and several galaxies from the era of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. That's why there is no "enthusiasm coalition" behind Hillary Clinton.
The electoral upheavals to come in the 2020 presidential election may be even more galvanic than this year as a new cohort of politicians assess the real lessons of 2016. Look for a non-Boomer clash of new candidates.
9
One thing this election cycle has suggested is that both parties are imploding, the GOP in a more spectacular way, the Democrats in their latent factionalism. It's apparent that the American electorate can be divided in many ways, left and right, as Mr Edsall does here, but also top and bottom, as George Packer does in a recent New Yorker. In fact, we could probably splinter the binary divisions further, creating four or more parties, say the Plutocrats (old-school GOP), the Nativists (Trump's white lower class), the Global Technocrats (Clinton's camp) and the Socialist Workers (Sanders/Warren coalition of workers and class-analysis intelligentsia). Throw in a few more like Greens and Libertarians and we will have the prospect of a European-style Congress with members from several parties. The only way this will work is if Americans abandon their reluctance to compromise and form coalitions, something that seems unlikely, given recent experience with the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus. Not a promising prognosis.
6
One can seek compromise all you want between the various factions of US society and politics. But until there is a political party which is a strong representative of the poor and working and middle classes and progressive politics in general, forming compromises won't work because progressivism has no political substance and representation. Currently, the supposed "compromises" between the ineffective left and the very adamant right thus end up way to the political right.
Progressivism needs a stronger voice than Hillary and the current Democratic party offer. Progressivism needs a new progressive political party.
Progressivism needs a stronger voice than Hillary and the current Democratic party offer. Progressivism needs a new progressive political party.
7
I am a center-right, educated Republican living in North Carolina and I just made 40 calls for Hillary. Think about that previous sentence. For me to make calls for Hillary proves how strongly I feel that the nominee of my party is not only wholly unqualified, but is also a monumental a__hole.
There is a reason that stupid people, excuse me people without college degrees, aren't put in charge of things...they're stupid and they typically f__k things up. Stupid people cannot be allowed to elect a stupid president. Smart people around this country must STAND UP and prevent the truly idiotic d trump anywhere near the oval office.
There is a reason that stupid people, excuse me people without college degrees, aren't put in charge of things...they're stupid and they typically f__k things up. Stupid people cannot be allowed to elect a stupid president. Smart people around this country must STAND UP and prevent the truly idiotic d trump anywhere near the oval office.
32
North Carolina is the new South Carolina.
It's sinking fast under your fool governor.
It's sinking fast under your fool governor.
1
Well, this is a pretty good example of the arrogance of the educated elites which support HRC. Some folks think that they are smarter and should naturally be in charge of things. A sort of a Darwinian thing, if you look closely at it. No wonder, then they elites are rejected by so many. "They" are not nearly as stupid as you have implied, my friend.
9
Where were you "educated"?
The export of factories began in the 1980s, as soon as China opened to the west. The Reagan, Bush administrations did nothing to help the workers tossed out to the export of these factories. Now, Trump tries to blame Clinton for this! Trump himself is represents a name that makes use of Chinese products sold in the US. Once again he is misrepresenting his true intentions. I can only hope that anyone who has any property or possessions votes a conservative ticket--straight Democrat.
10
Maybe we could just build a wall around the Clintons, and their laundry called The Clinton Foundation? That would be about 800 miles shorter than building a border wall, and have a faster ROI, too.
6
All true, but if Trump becomes president, we won't be able to have a discussion about reconciling these diverse interests. They'll all be down the drain.
Get out and vote for president. And don't write in somebody or vote for Johnson or Stein, which deprives Hillary of a vote and therefore increases Trump's margin.
And vote for progressives from the Senate all the way down to city council, so something might actually be able to get done.
Get out and vote for president. And don't write in somebody or vote for Johnson or Stein, which deprives Hillary of a vote and therefore increases Trump's margin.
And vote for progressives from the Senate all the way down to city council, so something might actually be able to get done.
7
We need to compromise sometimes. Why is this so hard for adults?
15
How does one compromise with someone schooled on Birther Lies, Benhazi Conspiracies, Salem Witch Trials, Creationism, Climate Change Hoaxes and Abstinence Sex Education and whose reaction to the Sandy Hook Newtown massacre is more gun "free-dumb !" ?
10
Good question...Why is it so hard to compromise? to accept trade-offs? to support/enact nuanced policy? Why is it so acceptable to demonize opponents?
We need to look at the incentives for this behavior - in our lives and in our political/media environment. For me the reasons include:
1) an increasingly segmented/polarized media & social media environment - with dubious information & rash judgement moving at the speed of light from coast to coast.
2) partisan groups that get more money/votes if they demonize opponents - now with the technology to target exactly who they want to reach
3) elections that usually only offer a polarized choice between (only 2 candidates) - often in highly gerrymandered districts
4) Ignoring the role of bias in ALL OF our actions/opinions. Every one of us is biased in everything we do. The only way to combat that is to recognize it and try to adjust for it. If
Solutions? I have no solution for what is happening in media & social media.
But for our political system, it seems we need less gerrymandering, and an ability to accept some nuance & compromise in our choice. I support Ranked Choice Voting. Personally, we need to recognize & accept bias in ourselves and in others - it goes a long way to having a meaningful conversation.
We need to look at the incentives for this behavior - in our lives and in our political/media environment. For me the reasons include:
1) an increasingly segmented/polarized media & social media environment - with dubious information & rash judgement moving at the speed of light from coast to coast.
2) partisan groups that get more money/votes if they demonize opponents - now with the technology to target exactly who they want to reach
3) elections that usually only offer a polarized choice between (only 2 candidates) - often in highly gerrymandered districts
4) Ignoring the role of bias in ALL OF our actions/opinions. Every one of us is biased in everything we do. The only way to combat that is to recognize it and try to adjust for it. If
Solutions? I have no solution for what is happening in media & social media.
But for our political system, it seems we need less gerrymandering, and an ability to accept some nuance & compromise in our choice. I support Ranked Choice Voting. Personally, we need to recognize & accept bias in ourselves and in others - it goes a long way to having a meaningful conversation.
Juggling of the wrong kind by the GOP brought us to this sorry state. After Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 the GOP dragged politics down and to the Right; Democrats followed them to argue against them, a mistake. Meanwhile, major trends took over. One is the use of money to leverage credit and to make money, as opposed to the use of money to build industry and jobs. Another is the one we call globalization but with scant understanding of what is actually afoot. Borders are dissolving, not because HRC has a malicious magic wand. When the USSR fell and the Cold War ended, major US corporations declared victory and pushed aside the little people as irrelevant to grand trans-national ventures. I think HRC sees that. Trump and the GOP do not. While all this was happening, GOPers took their eyes off the world, shut down the government and hunted RINOs. The financial parasites can be curbed but can “globalization” be stopped? We have a tiger by the tail and dare not let go where we are.
2
Tom,
A thought provoking piece which caused me to consider what camp I belong to.
I totally reject the GOP & Donald Trump because they deny the science community's findings on global warming. This is short sighted -- just plain stupid. The solution is to stop using natural gas, coal, & oil for energy.
This is a huge task, in scale, urgency, and its potential for disrupting the socioeconomic order that we live by. I can promise you that to convert to technologies that can provide the energy required to maintain and improve our quality of life, including life expectancy, will be the biggest challenge we have faced since WWII.
We have got to get beyond lip service and treaties and go directly into developing, testing and competing new systems for creating non-fossil fueled energy. It means that governments must invest in testing ideas and competing them. I doubt that the free market will accept the risks. No more than it did when we responded to Sputnik with the Apollo program.
I can only write about Pat Moynihan's idea to use the rights-of-way of our Interstate Highways and Railways to build a 300 mph, Maglev no-emission electric powered passenger, truck and freight logistics system to decongest our highways. And using the superconducting Maglev system to launch solar satellites to orbit and beam very cheap electric power to the Earth. This will begin to create non-fossil electricity as an energy source to the scale required by 2050. But we must act soon.
A thought provoking piece which caused me to consider what camp I belong to.
I totally reject the GOP & Donald Trump because they deny the science community's findings on global warming. This is short sighted -- just plain stupid. The solution is to stop using natural gas, coal, & oil for energy.
This is a huge task, in scale, urgency, and its potential for disrupting the socioeconomic order that we live by. I can promise you that to convert to technologies that can provide the energy required to maintain and improve our quality of life, including life expectancy, will be the biggest challenge we have faced since WWII.
We have got to get beyond lip service and treaties and go directly into developing, testing and competing new systems for creating non-fossil fueled energy. It means that governments must invest in testing ideas and competing them. I doubt that the free market will accept the risks. No more than it did when we responded to Sputnik with the Apollo program.
I can only write about Pat Moynihan's idea to use the rights-of-way of our Interstate Highways and Railways to build a 300 mph, Maglev no-emission electric powered passenger, truck and freight logistics system to decongest our highways. And using the superconducting Maglev system to launch solar satellites to orbit and beam very cheap electric power to the Earth. This will begin to create non-fossil electricity as an energy source to the scale required by 2050. But we must act soon.
3
james jordan,
If you're having trouble identifying the group you belong to, it is because there is no current group, certainly no political party, that recognizes the urgency you recognize: to stop using fossil fuels.
Neither the Democrats and certainly not the Republicans will even mention the need for a carbon tax to finance replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy
If you're having trouble identifying the group you belong to, it is because there is no current group, certainly no political party, that recognizes the urgency you recognize: to stop using fossil fuels.
Neither the Democrats and certainly not the Republicans will even mention the need for a carbon tax to finance replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy
3
As Jeb! said so prophetically on the campaign trail, "With Hillary it will be a constant shuttle from the White House to the Court House." So very true. Who expected the Arkansas leopards - Bill & Hill - to change their spots?
Ain't gonna happen. They're incorrigibly corrupt, in the Ozark tradition.
Ain't gonna happen. They're incorrigibly corrupt, in the Ozark tradition.
16
Neither Clinton comes near the level of personal and professional corruption of Trump.
4
The difference between Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Republicans is, Republicans think of free trade like free football, a game with no rules and no refs. Hillary Clinton will be more likely than any Republican to make sure that trade agreements balance the interests of society and workers with sensible and enforceable rules.
4
These youthful voters were decisively pro-Obama.... By Oct 31.... their earlier 56-21 margin of support for Clinton had fallen to 48-35.
--------------------
Priceless 20-something quote cited in an analysis of Hillary's abyssal "enthusiasm gap" for millennial voters: "She's so twentieth century!"
--------------------
Priceless 20-something quote cited in an analysis of Hillary's abyssal "enthusiasm gap" for millennial voters: "She's so twentieth century!"
4
If the current economic system continues down its dysfunctional path by excluding increasing numbers of the general population (as it has over the past 35-40 years), then globalist vs nationalist will mean little. The question will be how do you change the economic system so that it is capable of supporting the majority of the people again? And if the system doesn't change, what will the social and political consequences be? I see no plans for addressing inequality, automation, AI, robotics and the general lack of jobs that will increasingly be facing everyone in the near future - especially those without skills and education. There are machines (computers) that can read X-rays now often better than humans (so much for acquiring those skills and education in that case). So, are we just going to continue talking about economics in this country as if we were still living during the Eisenhower administration? You know, tax cuts to stimulate the economy or on the other hand more Keynesianism? That won't cut it for what's coming down the pike, and soon (20-30 years). Adjusting by then will be too late.
5
So let me try to get this straight.
You're trying to figure out the potential weaknesses of Hillary Clinton ... and every source you seek and cite for information happens to be male?
And probably 90% of the people who will comment on this article are male? Aren't men expected to be out working while the little gals at home wash the dishes and watch soaps and gossip and write comments to the NYT?
What is happening to America?
I would expect this kind of pattern from Douthat or Brooks, but not from you, sir.
And I'm really tired of it.
Expand your horizons.
You're trying to figure out the potential weaknesses of Hillary Clinton ... and every source you seek and cite for information happens to be male?
And probably 90% of the people who will comment on this article are male? Aren't men expected to be out working while the little gals at home wash the dishes and watch soaps and gossip and write comments to the NYT?
What is happening to America?
I would expect this kind of pattern from Douthat or Brooks, but not from you, sir.
And I'm really tired of it.
Expand your horizons.
7
Shoot the messenger!
Dear Charles, I don't own a gun and am not shooting. I am asking men to try and imagine what it's like to be female in this nation.
That's called reeducation.
Yeah, I know, it sounds a bit shrill, maybe even Commie (Commie ... not Comey), but in fact sexism is a potent force in this election. Recent studies have reestablushed that fact.
And I do expect men, including Mr. Edsall, to consult a couple of women then they're trying to analyze why Hillary, an experienced senator and Secretary of State, is trying so hard to defeat a vicious macho clown.
That's called reeducation.
Yeah, I know, it sounds a bit shrill, maybe even Commie (Commie ... not Comey), but in fact sexism is a potent force in this election. Recent studies have reestablushed that fact.
And I do expect men, including Mr. Edsall, to consult a couple of women then they're trying to analyze why Hillary, an experienced senator and Secretary of State, is trying so hard to defeat a vicious macho clown.
2
Do you have any idea how stale the misogyny card is?
3
Politics in America are complicated, but easy to describe. The Republican Party represents the richest one percent of the population. All of their real efforts are designed, as Paul Krugman has documented, to increase the after tax income of that group. All the rests--God, gays, guns--are just part of the con that has turned their base into Trump voters. If you are not a multimillionaire and you vote for a Republican, you have failed to grasp the situation.
The problem for Democrats is that they represent everybody else and that is a varied group. The Democratic high end understand that just looking out for the ultra rich is not good for the country, but the economy requires a free market, including free trade. The business community is not an enemy, though they do require regulation, and government spending is a legitimate tool for economic growth. Then you have doctrinaire liberals, special interest groups, ethnic and identity groups, and on. As this piece points out, that is a tough set of balls to keep in the air. Hillary Clinton is a pro business Democrat, committed to pragmatic government input, with a strong social conscience. That is exactly what the country needs. Damn shame Republican will keep her from getting anything done and then blame her for the failure.
The problem for Democrats is that they represent everybody else and that is a varied group. The Democratic high end understand that just looking out for the ultra rich is not good for the country, but the economy requires a free market, including free trade. The business community is not an enemy, though they do require regulation, and government spending is a legitimate tool for economic growth. Then you have doctrinaire liberals, special interest groups, ethnic and identity groups, and on. As this piece points out, that is a tough set of balls to keep in the air. Hillary Clinton is a pro business Democrat, committed to pragmatic government input, with a strong social conscience. That is exactly what the country needs. Damn shame Republican will keep her from getting anything done and then blame her for the failure.
5
"The Republican Party represents the richest one percent of the population."
Is that who pays Hillary $250k per speech?
The Left is so gullible.
Is that who pays Hillary $250k per speech?
The Left is so gullible.
11
The complacency of the Democratic Party, of the Democratic "elite" (I gag as I write that), of the DNC, of Obama, of Hillary, of the Washington Consensus, of the media elite (I'm looking at YOU, NYTs) toward the genuine needs and real concerns of the bottom 90% of the US population is truly breathtaking to behold. This level of contempt, this level of obliviousness as to the real state of the world never goes unpunished, nor should it, be that at the ballot box or worse. This complacency, this utter disregard of the well-being of the overwhelming majority of the American citizenry leads to a warning, which you may take or leave as you wish: The Hamptons is not a defensible position. Eventually, people will come for you. (See also France, 1789.)
25
I agree with you, but there are a few decent Dems - Sherrod Brown, Raul Grijalva, writer Thomas Frank...
4
The most successful non-globalist country I know is North Korea. Globalism is the new world reality, and it will continue with or without the US.
Manufacturing likely is not coming back to this country in any big way. It's simply too expensvie here to produce most goods and remain price-competitive. Technological advances are now even cutting into jobs for the highly-educated. Much legal research can already be done with AI, on-line college courses require fewer professors, and, were it not for an aging population, fewer doctors would be required due to the rapidly developing diagnostic and health monitoring technology now available.
I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do know that isolationism or refusing to engage with the new global reality would be our downfall. Trump pretends that we can go backwawrds and regain our past success. Clinton knows that complex challenges await us, and our future depends upon finding the common ground that enables us to start moving forward.
.
Manufacturing likely is not coming back to this country in any big way. It's simply too expensvie here to produce most goods and remain price-competitive. Technological advances are now even cutting into jobs for the highly-educated. Much legal research can already be done with AI, on-line college courses require fewer professors, and, were it not for an aging population, fewer doctors would be required due to the rapidly developing diagnostic and health monitoring technology now available.
I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do know that isolationism or refusing to engage with the new global reality would be our downfall. Trump pretends that we can go backwawrds and regain our past success. Clinton knows that complex challenges await us, and our future depends upon finding the common ground that enables us to start moving forward.
.
3
Yes, there's a lot to balance, and HC is the person with the sense to make that balance. It's enough in this election to elect her over Trump. It's not necessary to tie her hands by forcing her to make promises that preclude a sensible balance. If I didn't think she would make a best effort to advance the country I wouldn't support her. All I ask is to elect an intelligent person with a history of positive government service, and let's see what she can do. And at the same time, let's get rid of some of the dead wood that is against allowing the federal government to be progressive.
6
You continue to provide an intelligent, principled take on things - a perspective that will be needed in the coming months and years. From my view the globalist vs. nationalist dichotomy while helpful is not wholly so. An 'anti-globalist' need not be 'parochial'. Concerns with aspects of globalism are for many tied to principled rejection of growing and obscene levels of inequality that result from aspects of globalist institutions and practices, and related ideological positions. While one might argue against a 'fundamentalist' devotion to equality, there is a difference between calling for full, unfettered equality and seeing existing and growing levels of inequality as constituting a great moral and political crisis that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
12
Hillary is juggling reality.
Trump is juggling an alternate, fictional, fanatical, fascist reality of hate-mongering lies, fear, loathing and exceptionally American Christian ill will toward 'others'.
Both are impressive and difficult juggling acts, but the Trump Act is one of a Mad Man preaching madness to Mad White Males R Us and their shrunken grasp of reality.
Is the American lunatic asylum an electoral majority ?
Is the Birther Liar Champion and the proud Party of Stupid and voter suppression the new alt-right America, a burning, smoldering hateful city on a hill ?
The Republican Party plan to Make America Great Again includes a continuing Salem Witch Trial of a President Hillary Clinton, should she be elected on November 8....government be damned to alt-right hell.
Democrats govern.
Republicans conspire against government and democracy.
Everyone needs to get out and vote on November 8 and push the alt-right Republicans and their Trumpty Dumpty Demagogue over their wall of American sedition, sabotage and spite.
Trump is juggling an alternate, fictional, fanatical, fascist reality of hate-mongering lies, fear, loathing and exceptionally American Christian ill will toward 'others'.
Both are impressive and difficult juggling acts, but the Trump Act is one of a Mad Man preaching madness to Mad White Males R Us and their shrunken grasp of reality.
Is the American lunatic asylum an electoral majority ?
Is the Birther Liar Champion and the proud Party of Stupid and voter suppression the new alt-right America, a burning, smoldering hateful city on a hill ?
The Republican Party plan to Make America Great Again includes a continuing Salem Witch Trial of a President Hillary Clinton, should she be elected on November 8....government be damned to alt-right hell.
Democrats govern.
Republicans conspire against government and democracy.
Everyone needs to get out and vote on November 8 and push the alt-right Republicans and their Trumpty Dumpty Demagogue over their wall of American sedition, sabotage and spite.
37
Socrates says, "Elect a the Crooked Clinton Couple. Again."
I'd rather chug a pint of hemlock.
I'd rather chug a pint of hemlock.
13
Campaign rhetoric is like the wind----it blows in all directions depending upon the audience of the day----and is gone the moment after it was spoken. Follow the money, and it is clear whose interests are served by Hillary Clinton.
19
Why do the Democrats need to accommodate the racists and the bigots that are now the core of the Republican Party? Their views and attitudes represent the past and they're dying off even in the formerly solid Republican south as younger people come of age and mostly reject those values. I came of age politically in the 1950's and 1960's and was acutely embarrassed as a Democrat by our Party's dependence on those same racists and bigots in the South. Vietnam apart, LBJ was a hero for driving those Democrats to the Republicans. They're the past and have a rapidly diminishing place in the future.
2
Embedded in the immigration policy is no doubt a huge increase in the number of H1b visas.
Clinton demonstrates little regard for American students ability when she says she would staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student in STEM.
The numbers don't support any need for an increase in H1b visas (or diploma-stapled green cards) - the politicians have been led down a path by PACs and lobbyists who are simply looking for cheaper labor.
Every Obama initiative on immigration has included attempts to increase badly abused and little audited H1b, L1 and B1 visas and ease restrictions on those - with no evidence of actual need.
We need to limit immigration policy to base it on real needs and not just to lower employment costs.
Clinton demonstrates little regard for American students ability when she says she would staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student in STEM.
The numbers don't support any need for an increase in H1b visas (or diploma-stapled green cards) - the politicians have been led down a path by PACs and lobbyists who are simply looking for cheaper labor.
Every Obama initiative on immigration has included attempts to increase badly abused and little audited H1b, L1 and B1 visas and ease restrictions on those - with no evidence of actual need.
We need to limit immigration policy to base it on real needs and not just to lower employment costs.
19
Thank you for bringing this up. Other countries don't undercut and undermine their own citizens the way the US does with this program, which Obama has already expanded.
13
D. Lawton.
Indeed.
When Canada started a similar visa program it was loudly objected to by STEM workers and then promptly shut down by the government, with apologies! This is where the parliamentary system if government has clear advantages for the people.
Indeed.
When Canada started a similar visa program it was loudly objected to by STEM workers and then promptly shut down by the government, with apologies! This is where the parliamentary system if government has clear advantages for the people.
3
Interesting points, all suggesting the urgent need for a frank conversation about inclusion, welcome the richness of our diversity, and our need for recognition and assistance locally in a sometimes rough globalized economy. Certain reconciliation of the different factions, for now reluctant to compromise, will be of the essence. Full satisfaction of any given group is, of course, a distant wish; but if we could make a list for the problems that afflicts the country, and the possible approaches for their solution or repair, if both parties are assigned to contribute with ideas, our current obstructionism (read, G.O.P.) may be softened. Hope springs eternal, they say. Still, it's better than a policy of despair, the giving up of a just fight for our survival.
Its a diverse country, and at this point in history, it's a confused country. Trump is simply leveraging the opportunity to solidify his global criminal enterprise. Hint: his tax returns are much more critical tell than Hillary's email.
In the end, it's going to be a test of the 'brain depth' of the US population. There's already clear evidence that at least 40% of the population is gifted with a brain depth of somewhere around an eighth of an inch supported by an underlying mass of inert material. Woe be us!
In the end, it's going to be a test of the 'brain depth' of the US population. There's already clear evidence that at least 40% of the population is gifted with a brain depth of somewhere around an eighth of an inch supported by an underlying mass of inert material. Woe be us!
2
I think where liberals err is in being globalist to the point of not really caring about our country and ALL its people (I'm about as left-wing as liberals get--voted for Sanders in primary, now will vote--sadly--for Clinton). Those in so-called flyover country hate those of us on the coasts because they feel that we disrespect both them, and our country. (See my long-ago Berkeley professor, Arlie Hochschild's excellent new book, "Strangers in Their Own Land" in which she spent five years getting to know and understand right wingers in Louisiana.)
Hochschild says these people see themselves, metaphorically, in a long line to get to the top of a hill, which represents the American Dream. And they see the Hillary Clintons of the US as enabling minorities and immigrants to cut into that line.
I would argue that on immigration, in particular, they are correct; that here are people who, unlike African Americans who were dragged here in chains, came voluntarily, often illegally, and who get to take advantage of the fruits of identity politics while white Americans--many of whom are hurting badly, get left behind.
The problem with immigration is not immigration per se; it's the numbers. Since the millennium, there are twice as many additional immigrants as additional jobs; and added to additional working age Americans there are four times as many additional people as additional jobs.
Hochschild says these people see themselves, metaphorically, in a long line to get to the top of a hill, which represents the American Dream. And they see the Hillary Clintons of the US as enabling minorities and immigrants to cut into that line.
I would argue that on immigration, in particular, they are correct; that here are people who, unlike African Americans who were dragged here in chains, came voluntarily, often illegally, and who get to take advantage of the fruits of identity politics while white Americans--many of whom are hurting badly, get left behind.
The problem with immigration is not immigration per se; it's the numbers. Since the millennium, there are twice as many additional immigrants as additional jobs; and added to additional working age Americans there are four times as many additional people as additional jobs.
18
Unusually perceptive observations. Thanks.
3
There are not enough jobs available for all of the US citizens who want them yet the democrats want to admit more uneducated, illiterate, non-English speaking third world peasants and incompatible Muslim "refugees".
9
94.000,000 Americans unemployed = an epidemic of suicide, and many car accidents and drug overdoses camouflaging suicide for the suicides' surviving families. An inevitable, easily foreseen consequence of years of Joblessness feeding despair and depression.
"Change you can believe in" = Suicide epidemic. 8 years of No-drama Obama, fiddling while America and the Mideast burn.
"Change you can believe in" = Suicide epidemic. 8 years of No-drama Obama, fiddling while America and the Mideast burn.
7
Ms. Clinton's juggling act needs to be impressive if she is to be elected.
A far more challenging task confronts the GOP. Whatever the outcome of the election, the GOP is now and will remain quite a basket case. It will be largely up to Dr. Ryanstein to suture this self-dismembered monster back together again.
Speaker Ryan, with the Trump fiasco now upon us, is the head of the GOP establishment--a leader whom Mr. Trump and his supporters revile nearly as much as they do Trump's Democratic opponent.
The GOP House Freedom Caucus, frequently at odds with Speaker Ryan, is a group of radical right-wing Republican-Know-Nothings and quasi-nihilists who would rather destroy their own party than compromise with GOP "moderates"--much less with Democrats.
Is the GOP's condition all that much better in the Senate where current Majority Leader McConnell so often confronts obstructive opposition from House Freedom Caucus ally and Tea-Party darling, Senator Ted Cruz?
The establishment vs. the troglodyte base, Ryan vs. the Luddite Freedom Caucus, McConnel vs. Cruz, Trump and his supporters vs. factual reality--can a party in shambles re-collect itself and continue to shamble on?
Can the ministrations of Dr. Ryanstein, the donations of billionaire oligarchs, the continued support of one-or-two issue white fundamentalist Christian voters and of uninformed white working-class voters all converge to insure that the GOP even appears to be a unified, major political party?
Exciting times!
A far more challenging task confronts the GOP. Whatever the outcome of the election, the GOP is now and will remain quite a basket case. It will be largely up to Dr. Ryanstein to suture this self-dismembered monster back together again.
Speaker Ryan, with the Trump fiasco now upon us, is the head of the GOP establishment--a leader whom Mr. Trump and his supporters revile nearly as much as they do Trump's Democratic opponent.
The GOP House Freedom Caucus, frequently at odds with Speaker Ryan, is a group of radical right-wing Republican-Know-Nothings and quasi-nihilists who would rather destroy their own party than compromise with GOP "moderates"--much less with Democrats.
Is the GOP's condition all that much better in the Senate where current Majority Leader McConnell so often confronts obstructive opposition from House Freedom Caucus ally and Tea-Party darling, Senator Ted Cruz?
The establishment vs. the troglodyte base, Ryan vs. the Luddite Freedom Caucus, McConnel vs. Cruz, Trump and his supporters vs. factual reality--can a party in shambles re-collect itself and continue to shamble on?
Can the ministrations of Dr. Ryanstein, the donations of billionaire oligarchs, the continued support of one-or-two issue white fundamentalist Christian voters and of uninformed white working-class voters all converge to insure that the GOP even appears to be a unified, major political party?
Exciting times!
4
I am absolutely a globalist, a cosmopolitan. I work as a technocrat for the government. For decades, I've lived in gentrified neighborhoods with organic grocery stores, twee coffee shops and an LGBT drop-in center. I listen avidly to whatever West African pop or Appalachian roots music NPR tells me is trendy while I mock Toby Keith. I have an advanced degree in international affairs, fer Crissake. But I did not view my antipodes - the nationalists, the nativists, pick your term - as "hopelessly parochial." Globalization is implacable and it damages lives. But then, they, the nationalists, call them, nominated Trump - an ignorant, moody, petulant, authoritarian, bigoted demagogue - to be the most powerful person in the world. And they did so out of anger that the default American is no longer a white male factory worker. Because that person no longer gets the deference he thought he had coming. And if that's not hopelessly parochial, I don't know what is. With Trump's nomination, they have stepped into some other place. , I will no longer waste one brain cell contemplating the merits or even the plausibility of any American nationalist (I guess we're calling it) idea, feeling, opinion, statement, post, or tweet. I'm no longer treating them as though they make any sense. Now, to me, they are an adversary; amorphous, monolithic, and indistinct . And before Trump, I didn't believe anything remotely resembling that.
53
No, no, no. The white working class is not going away on Nov 9th. They need someone, whom they trust, to tell them that the jobs of old are going away, and Trump will not bring them back. They need an alternative sense of self, of existing, of purpose.
At least, society owes them an alternative path. I hear within 5-10 years, three million truckers could be without a job, as self-driving trucks become the norm. What in the world are these people going to do? As the saying goes, an idle mind is the devil's workshop. Peace.
At least, society owes them an alternative path. I hear within 5-10 years, three million truckers could be without a job, as self-driving trucks become the norm. What in the world are these people going to do? As the saying goes, an idle mind is the devil's workshop. Peace.
5
Nick,
When you want something or need something, who are you going to call?
There's no Ghost Busters in real life. There's no real place called Global, either.
I would ask you to think carefully about this. "Global" is a mental construct.
The United States is the country where you were born, where you are citizen and where you live.
Now, why shouldn't Americans come first in their own country?
Why should Americans help you or care about you, when you don't love us or even like us?
If it comes to it, there's a lot more nationalists in America, I think, than globalists. The globalists in Europe have already seen that their fellow countrymen are sick of them and want them out of power. That's becoming a popular attitude here too, one that I share -- me, a Democrat who voted twice for Obama.
The ground of shifting under all of our feet. If you don't feel that, if you don't feel that tolerance for being ruled by globalists who think like you is coming to an end, I don't know what to tell you.
When you want something or need something, who are you going to call?
There's no Ghost Busters in real life. There's no real place called Global, either.
I would ask you to think carefully about this. "Global" is a mental construct.
The United States is the country where you were born, where you are citizen and where you live.
Now, why shouldn't Americans come first in their own country?
Why should Americans help you or care about you, when you don't love us or even like us?
If it comes to it, there's a lot more nationalists in America, I think, than globalists. The globalists in Europe have already seen that their fellow countrymen are sick of them and want them out of power. That's becoming a popular attitude here too, one that I share -- me, a Democrat who voted twice for Obama.
The ground of shifting under all of our feet. If you don't feel that, if you don't feel that tolerance for being ruled by globalists who think like you is coming to an end, I don't know what to tell you.
2
Manufacturing is not coming back. Middle class jobs are gone for good. And our borders are wide open to poor immigrants and refugees. Entitlement spending is 60% of the budget already. And Hillary wants to continue this. Good luck.
19
If anything, we should open our borders wider, so that immigrants could more easily go back and forth. Then fewer who come to work here would settle permanently and give up their native country, just as Canadians and Americans who can go back and forth tend to go home after a while. So too with passage between States in the USA. People from out-of-state cross freely into and out of New York and then go home. There is no wall between New York and New Jersey, yet we have a State. Anyone from NJ can come here and prosper as long as they obey the law and pay their taxes. NY doesn't complain that they are stealing its jobs. You don't need a wall to have a State or a Country.
1
Except that the manufacturing jobs haven't been taken by immigrants or refugees, those jobs are being done by computer chips and automation. That's the fallacy of thinking that the lying narcissist has any kind of plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. If they were to come back it will be because the tech sector has figured a way to make a product cheaper in the US using automation than paying someone overseas to make it manually. And BTW where exactly are all of these "immigrants and refugees" pouring into the US? Do have a single fact to back up your statement?
5
I completely reject the notion that if you're against the version of corporate "free trade," which is taking middle and working class paychecks and transferring them to the rich, then you are racist, xenophobic and mysogynistic.
12
I don't mind that Mrs. Clinton is, essentially, a centrist. I wish our liberal establishment -- as well as our Republican one -- could be that pragmatic and level-headed.
Instead, they pander to their -- too often dysfunctional -- bases. And nothing gets done. Or the worst, indeed, does happen.
Brooklyn's Jumaane Williams, for example, has introduced a bill that makes it more difficult to shut down businesses that persistently sell liquor to minors. Yes, you heard that right. Trying to get rid of sleazy fronts that facilitate drug dealing and money laundering is one of the few ways the police have of cleaning up neighborhoods. Why is he behind such a law?
And we know the sorts of madness that infects reactionary politicians across the country.
Give me a centrist.
Instead, they pander to their -- too often dysfunctional -- bases. And nothing gets done. Or the worst, indeed, does happen.
Brooklyn's Jumaane Williams, for example, has introduced a bill that makes it more difficult to shut down businesses that persistently sell liquor to minors. Yes, you heard that right. Trying to get rid of sleazy fronts that facilitate drug dealing and money laundering is one of the few ways the police have of cleaning up neighborhoods. Why is he behind such a law?
And we know the sorts of madness that infects reactionary politicians across the country.
Give me a centrist.
1
Your misrepresentation of the Nuisance Abatement Fairness Act (NAFA) is remarkably misleading.
http://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/nyc-bill-would-make-it-harder-co...
According to the article "Address alcohol sales to minors. The law currently requires only 1 incident of an alcohol sale to a minor, even where such a sale was not intentional. This bill would restrict the application of the NAL to repeated, willful, and flagrant cases, and require 4 such incidents to establish a “nuisance.”"
So this proposed bill would hardly prevent the shutting down of businesses that "persistently sell liquor to minors."
http://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/nyc-bill-would-make-it-harder-co...
According to the article "Address alcohol sales to minors. The law currently requires only 1 incident of an alcohol sale to a minor, even where such a sale was not intentional. This bill would restrict the application of the NAL to repeated, willful, and flagrant cases, and require 4 such incidents to establish a “nuisance.”"
So this proposed bill would hardly prevent the shutting down of businesses that "persistently sell liquor to minors."
3
If only the Trump faction had any interest in building bridges or reaching a common understanding, this article might have some relevance to the attitudes observable in the real world.
Simple obstructionism and refusal to compromise is the tactic used on President Obama. Deliberate lies and callous indifference to the mass of American lives are what is observable in the GOP domestic economic and budget policies -- with a big give away to the oligarchy and the military industrial complex.
Throw in the rise of prosperity ideology theology (and a dash of "The Secret") as a basis for believing that being close to someone getting rich off donations and a lot of imagining yourself in that person's shoes will lead inevitably and surely to one's own improved economic status. After all, there is no other way that a President Trump is going to help the pocketbook of the average American, except by "star power" along those lines ... and that will, in the real world, fill no bellies, pay no bills, and keep no roof over one's head.
So, as we look for the political pundits who warned us about the military industrial complex and the dangers of religious promises from the please-empty-your-pockets-for-me-crowd, they are the GOP stalwarts -- President Eisenhower and Senator Goldwater.
They were right.
Simple obstructionism and refusal to compromise is the tactic used on President Obama. Deliberate lies and callous indifference to the mass of American lives are what is observable in the GOP domestic economic and budget policies -- with a big give away to the oligarchy and the military industrial complex.
Throw in the rise of prosperity ideology theology (and a dash of "The Secret") as a basis for believing that being close to someone getting rich off donations and a lot of imagining yourself in that person's shoes will lead inevitably and surely to one's own improved economic status. After all, there is no other way that a President Trump is going to help the pocketbook of the average American, except by "star power" along those lines ... and that will, in the real world, fill no bellies, pay no bills, and keep no roof over one's head.
So, as we look for the political pundits who warned us about the military industrial complex and the dangers of religious promises from the please-empty-your-pockets-for-me-crowd, they are the GOP stalwarts -- President Eisenhower and Senator Goldwater.
They were right.
4
1. Issues have largely been buried in the 'reality tv election.'
2. In some aspects, we have a variety of symptoms but we haven't found the causes, so proposed solutions are tribal guesses (read the sociologist study of Cargo Cult islanders). Gross indicators are positive, but some groups are angry. Disinformation abounds. Future projections suggest issues, but most are concerned about today, not tomorrow.
3. The projected future of automation impacts are significant and disturbing. How will half the population earn a living when automation and machines can replace them?
4. It was bad enough when politicians discovered they could spend "money" with no accountability by way of "tax incentives" for friends and donors ($1.4-$1.6 T/year), but now they've discovered an improved Big Lie bag of dirty tricks to destroy opponents (on top of gerrymandering).
5. Everything HRC has been accused of is being routinely done (and more) by Congress members every day.
6. It's going to be interesting.
2. In some aspects, we have a variety of symptoms but we haven't found the causes, so proposed solutions are tribal guesses (read the sociologist study of Cargo Cult islanders). Gross indicators are positive, but some groups are angry. Disinformation abounds. Future projections suggest issues, but most are concerned about today, not tomorrow.
3. The projected future of automation impacts are significant and disturbing. How will half the population earn a living when automation and machines can replace them?
4. It was bad enough when politicians discovered they could spend "money" with no accountability by way of "tax incentives" for friends and donors ($1.4-$1.6 T/year), but now they've discovered an improved Big Lie bag of dirty tricks to destroy opponents (on top of gerrymandering).
5. Everything HRC has been accused of is being routinely done (and more) by Congress members every day.
6. It's going to be interesting.
3
Many of the remarks summarized in this article are about opposing factions: for and against regulation, for globalization and against nationalism, for individualism and against authority, for and against unionization, for labor and against labor. All this picking of sides, are you with me or against me? Etc., etc.
These formulations suggest a juggling act between factions is inevitable because nobody can be left out or, for that matter, be put in charge.
This distension is based upon the model of politics as a power struggle between antagonistic groups, winners and losers, rather than as an attempt to solve problems that actually afflict all parties in these divisions.
I'd say it's pretty obvious that most of the problems facing us face all of us, and squabbling won't solve them. We don't know what to do. We have to figure it out. Then we have to see where solutions lie, and most probably this is not going to be question of WHO wins, but whether we ALL can win, or all lose.
These formulations suggest a juggling act between factions is inevitable because nobody can be left out or, for that matter, be put in charge.
This distension is based upon the model of politics as a power struggle between antagonistic groups, winners and losers, rather than as an attempt to solve problems that actually afflict all parties in these divisions.
I'd say it's pretty obvious that most of the problems facing us face all of us, and squabbling won't solve them. We don't know what to do. We have to figure it out. Then we have to see where solutions lie, and most probably this is not going to be question of WHO wins, but whether we ALL can win, or all lose.
5
Um no. Ms Clinton is reviled because she is an unapologetically ambitious woman of a certain age in a world that despises successful older women. It's the obvious elephant in the room that men young and old love to deny. In the mean time - mr sanders was deemed the benevolent and wise grandfather running for President for the good for country and not self interest and Mr Trump is somehow deemed "presidential" and more transparent despite not releasing any substantive information about his financials let alone his personal or campaign emails. Ask any one of the male commenters here, on the left or right, how many female bosses or professors they have hd and admired or how many women over 50 they have hired or consider a close colleague. I'm sure the answer is NONE!
3
Um no.
Hillary Clinton is reviled because she is corrupt. Period. End of story.
Rod Blagojevich sits in his prison cell wondering why he doesn't have 1% of the "crooked gene" that Hillary has. He can't wait to attend Clinton University to study under the master.
Hillary Clinton is reviled because she is corrupt. Period. End of story.
Rod Blagojevich sits in his prison cell wondering why he doesn't have 1% of the "crooked gene" that Hillary has. He can't wait to attend Clinton University to study under the master.
7
IT IS THE COALITION STUPID
Democrats should have a clear eye and learn from what happened to the Republicans over the last 25. The right wing led by Gingrich, then neo-Cons led by Cheney, then came the Tea Party led by Palin/Cruz, and then finally the Trumpism led by who else Donald Trump. What you have is a fractured party that is on life support. Even if Trump wins (I don't think he will win), there is little evidence that the Republican party will unite under Trump Administration.
If Clinton wins, I think the liberal wing of the Democratic party led by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would pursue policies that Hillary Clinton may not necessarily agree with . At the same time, they will try to block any compromises that Mrs. Clinton tries to make with Republicans in the Congress. The Democratic coalition can survive only if the leaders of the Liberal wing of the party give enough space to Mrs. Clinton (assuming she wins the presidency) while pushing forward their policies in a more gentle way. This means, be strategic and don't let one issue dictate your entire policy portfolio. You may lose some but potentially win a lot more - the 80/20 rule. But If both Mrs. Warren and Mr. Sanders pursue their policies in my way or the highway approach, they become the story themselves just like Gingrich or Cheney, or Palin have done for the Republicans.
Democrats need to be careful. DO NOT take the Republicans' destructive path.
Democrats should have a clear eye and learn from what happened to the Republicans over the last 25. The right wing led by Gingrich, then neo-Cons led by Cheney, then came the Tea Party led by Palin/Cruz, and then finally the Trumpism led by who else Donald Trump. What you have is a fractured party that is on life support. Even if Trump wins (I don't think he will win), there is little evidence that the Republican party will unite under Trump Administration.
If Clinton wins, I think the liberal wing of the Democratic party led by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would pursue policies that Hillary Clinton may not necessarily agree with . At the same time, they will try to block any compromises that Mrs. Clinton tries to make with Republicans in the Congress. The Democratic coalition can survive only if the leaders of the Liberal wing of the party give enough space to Mrs. Clinton (assuming she wins the presidency) while pushing forward their policies in a more gentle way. This means, be strategic and don't let one issue dictate your entire policy portfolio. You may lose some but potentially win a lot more - the 80/20 rule. But If both Mrs. Warren and Mr. Sanders pursue their policies in my way or the highway approach, they become the story themselves just like Gingrich or Cheney, or Palin have done for the Republicans.
Democrats need to be careful. DO NOT take the Republicans' destructive path.
7
Hillary gave herself away with her comment about deplorables just as Mitt Romney gave himself away with his comment about the 47% who contribute nothing to America.
These divisive comments reveal a mindset of cultural compartments that have little in common and have no respect for each other. Patriotism and national identity are dead in the minds of most Americans. The only reasons left for citizens to associate with each other is the economic and thuggish self interest found in street gangs.
My decision to abandon what's left of "America" 14 years ago was lack of interest in any of these thuggish gangs available to me as a retiree. There simply was not enough agreement or common interest for me to sustain pride in staying in America. The recent rejection of Bernie Sander's platform of social democracy is confirmation that mutual caring is a dying value in America.
The attraction of my multinational village neighborhood is that we all have something in common, a desire to live lives of courtesy and mutual respect between retirees from numerous cultures and educational backgrounds. We get together on a regular basis to catch up on civic events and help each other resolve problems in the community.
It is this direct human contact, unimpeded by cell phones or computers, that makes living in our community worthwhile!
These divisive comments reveal a mindset of cultural compartments that have little in common and have no respect for each other. Patriotism and national identity are dead in the minds of most Americans. The only reasons left for citizens to associate with each other is the economic and thuggish self interest found in street gangs.
My decision to abandon what's left of "America" 14 years ago was lack of interest in any of these thuggish gangs available to me as a retiree. There simply was not enough agreement or common interest for me to sustain pride in staying in America. The recent rejection of Bernie Sander's platform of social democracy is confirmation that mutual caring is a dying value in America.
The attraction of my multinational village neighborhood is that we all have something in common, a desire to live lives of courtesy and mutual respect between retirees from numerous cultures and educational backgrounds. We get together on a regular basis to catch up on civic events and help each other resolve problems in the community.
It is this direct human contact, unimpeded by cell phones or computers, that makes living in our community worthwhile!
11
Memo to myself........Hillary's deplorables and Mitt's 47% are clear descriptions of America's failing cultural decline. Without a positive and humanitarian political base, the only winning presidential candidates produced are those like Trump vomited up by the country's cultural indigestion.
Hillary's candidacy is the last vestige of the past failing political system based on cynical deal making between candidates. Bernie Sanders is the tragic loser who ironically was the one candidate who ran a campaign based on hope.
Hillary's candidacy is the last vestige of the past failing political system based on cynical deal making between candidates. Bernie Sanders is the tragic loser who ironically was the one candidate who ran a campaign based on hope.
7
Hillary never said that! She referred to the 20% who are deplorable. In my mind, the rest are just confused or blinded by ideological conviction.
Republicans have spent 60 years building a coalition of hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry rather than political consensus, and, sadly, Trump himself is the personification of the reptilian brain that they invokes, the 'small, reflexive brain', the unregulated part of the brain that underlies and over rides the empathy that makes us human.
Republicans have spent 60 years building a coalition of hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry rather than political consensus, and, sadly, Trump himself is the personification of the reptilian brain that they invokes, the 'small, reflexive brain', the unregulated part of the brain that underlies and over rides the empathy that makes us human.
5
Here it comes... more mention of TPP tucked into an article. How many times so far this week?
We already have somewhat damaging trade policies as it is and we really don't need TPP forced down our throats!
We already have somewhat damaging trade policies as it is and we really don't need TPP forced down our throats!
11
The natural outcome of globalization is federation. Ceding Asia to China leaves us out of the potentially largest federation economic development and trade opportunities in the world.
US jobs are going no matter what because of technological advances that are obsoleting humans, not because of trade agreements. We cannot defend either US jobs or the US itself without world power and presence.
It's a complex dilemma, but not a lost cause. Trump would move us further toward the 'lost cause' side of the equation as he used the country and his Presidency to "federate" with world criminals to become the 1st world trillionaire; the ultimate Don!
Before we vote, we need to take a close look at his tax returns.........and/or the upcoming FBI report on his international financial activities.
US jobs are going no matter what because of technological advances that are obsoleting humans, not because of trade agreements. We cannot defend either US jobs or the US itself without world power and presence.
It's a complex dilemma, but not a lost cause. Trump would move us further toward the 'lost cause' side of the equation as he used the country and his Presidency to "federate" with world criminals to become the 1st world trillionaire; the ultimate Don!
Before we vote, we need to take a close look at his tax returns.........and/or the upcoming FBI report on his international financial activities.
"There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry."
"The Democratic platform is the most progressive in the history of the party. So too is the Clinton campaign’s governing blueprint, which calls for the enactment of almost every proposal advocated by liberal interest groups."
How do you reconcile the statement made in a speech to Goldman Sachs in exchange for $225,000 and the Democratic Party platform?
Hillary Clinton wanted to be wealthy and she wants to be President of the United States. In order to be elected, as a matter of necessity she had to accept the principles advocated by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. She could not have had their campaign support without this commitment. Bernie Sanders is campaigning for her and with her today in North Carolina.
But the Democratic Party platform and Hillary's commitment thereto is nothing but an oral contract. Please note that her two other most prominent and active campaign supporters are President Barak and wife Michelle Obama. As a major foundation stone of his legacy, President Obama wants the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to be ratified by Congress. This is the antithesis of what Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to have happen.
After the election, President-elect Hillary Clinton has a choice to make.
"The Democratic platform is the most progressive in the history of the party. So too is the Clinton campaign’s governing blueprint, which calls for the enactment of almost every proposal advocated by liberal interest groups."
How do you reconcile the statement made in a speech to Goldman Sachs in exchange for $225,000 and the Democratic Party platform?
Hillary Clinton wanted to be wealthy and she wants to be President of the United States. In order to be elected, as a matter of necessity she had to accept the principles advocated by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. She could not have had their campaign support without this commitment. Bernie Sanders is campaigning for her and with her today in North Carolina.
But the Democratic Party platform and Hillary's commitment thereto is nothing but an oral contract. Please note that her two other most prominent and active campaign supporters are President Barak and wife Michelle Obama. As a major foundation stone of his legacy, President Obama wants the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to be ratified by Congress. This is the antithesis of what Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to have happen.
After the election, President-elect Hillary Clinton has a choice to make.
24
Read the news! Asia is already being ceded to China thanks to Trumps display of American incompetence and weakness. We are the laughing stock of competent thinkers world wide.
The TPP is an attempt to defend our future against the uncertainty of a future in which we (including all of our internal minorities), are a small minority of the worlds population. A Republican government of '1' that is solely dependent on corrupt deals and a big nuclear stick is not the answer. It ends in one of two ways: bad........or worse.
The TPP is an attempt to defend our future against the uncertainty of a future in which we (including all of our internal minorities), are a small minority of the worlds population. A Republican government of '1' that is solely dependent on corrupt deals and a big nuclear stick is not the answer. It ends in one of two ways: bad........or worse.
This is very interesting, but it also mixes in some misunderstanding of - and forgetting of - history on the part of those quoted.
Since the New Deal, we've known very well what measures help working people. Worker protections such as union style benefits and safety regulations, a robust social safety net composed of pensions (Social Security), health insurance (Medicaid and Medicare) and unemployment benefits, and enforcement of anti-trust and banking laws all served the rise of the biggest middle class in human history.
The problem isn't that those measures don't apply anymore, although they certainly present new challenges we must adjust to in a more global age. The problem is that conservatives, since Reagan, have largely dismantled them, after gaining power by exploiting social divisions. The main goals served have been lower taxes on the wealthy and less regulation of corporations, and the main effect has been a huge increase in economic inequality.
It's not dismissive of large swaths of the country to say that Trumpism won't help the struggling middle class. In fact, the policies he and a Republican Congress would enact are likely to very badly hurt what's left of the middle class. We know that because we've seen it in action for almost forty years now.
Since the New Deal, we've known very well what measures help working people. Worker protections such as union style benefits and safety regulations, a robust social safety net composed of pensions (Social Security), health insurance (Medicaid and Medicare) and unemployment benefits, and enforcement of anti-trust and banking laws all served the rise of the biggest middle class in human history.
The problem isn't that those measures don't apply anymore, although they certainly present new challenges we must adjust to in a more global age. The problem is that conservatives, since Reagan, have largely dismantled them, after gaining power by exploiting social divisions. The main goals served have been lower taxes on the wealthy and less regulation of corporations, and the main effect has been a huge increase in economic inequality.
It's not dismissive of large swaths of the country to say that Trumpism won't help the struggling middle class. In fact, the policies he and a Republican Congress would enact are likely to very badly hurt what's left of the middle class. We know that because we've seen it in action for almost forty years now.
103
What this article calls a juggling act, is simply what happens when what has to be done is complicated and not readily condensed into sound-bites.
The quote in the article from Hillary's address to Goldman Sachs is a suggestion that their expertise can contribute to a solution, not a suggestion that they should be in charge.
More generally, we have to avoid sloganizing and making every decision a decision not about what should be done, but about whose side you are on.
To interpret Hillary's actions as juggling power blocks, trying to be all things to everybody, a chameleon, simply contributes to the problems. What we need is somebody like Hillary that can see complexity. We have to hope that she also will prove persuasive and can convince everyone that dealing with immigration, making useful work pay, improving American education, straightening out the financial system, etc. etc., all are multifaceted and require cooperation. The various factions are not to be appeased by dribbling out crumbs to each player. They are to be united by the common realization that problems that everybody has identified require a cooperative effort to understand them and joint action to push toward solutions. Nobody understands these things yet, whatever DJ Trump may say, and squabbling over who's in charge won't improve that. We need sensible problem solving and the resolve to be "stronger together".
The quote in the article from Hillary's address to Goldman Sachs is a suggestion that their expertise can contribute to a solution, not a suggestion that they should be in charge.
More generally, we have to avoid sloganizing and making every decision a decision not about what should be done, but about whose side you are on.
To interpret Hillary's actions as juggling power blocks, trying to be all things to everybody, a chameleon, simply contributes to the problems. What we need is somebody like Hillary that can see complexity. We have to hope that she also will prove persuasive and can convince everyone that dealing with immigration, making useful work pay, improving American education, straightening out the financial system, etc. etc., all are multifaceted and require cooperation. The various factions are not to be appeased by dribbling out crumbs to each player. They are to be united by the common realization that problems that everybody has identified require a cooperative effort to understand them and joint action to push toward solutions. Nobody understands these things yet, whatever DJ Trump may say, and squabbling over who's in charge won't improve that. We need sensible problem solving and the resolve to be "stronger together".
9
Clinton doesn't care about ordinary working class Americans. That's why even Trump is running left of her on labor and has more in common with Sanders than Hillary.
She also wants 15M illegals to stay here and directly compete for the few manual labor jobs left for lower skill Americans. Times readers don't work with their hands so can't empathize. But how would you feel if you suddenly had 15 M illegals competing for your job?
She also wants 15M illegals to stay here and directly compete for the few manual labor jobs left for lower skill Americans. Times readers don't work with their hands so can't empathize. But how would you feel if you suddenly had 15 M illegals competing for your job?
22
Are your children going to be part of the task force that physically removes them? Is that the life you want for our kids? Are those the new jobs that you'd like to see created? Get real. They are already working and contributing to the economy. We need pragmatic, civilized solutions.
Both political parties are imploding; it's just that the Republicans are doing so in a more spectacular fashion. We're in the process of a historic realignment of both parties, which will be virtually unrecognizable in the end.
The tumultuous election season reflects the fact that we are entering a new and very dangerous era in history. The people sense it; the "leaders" are playing catch-up. Neither party has the first clue about how to adapt to it, and in all fairness, it's an incredibly daunting challenge. But the lack of leadership is astonishing, nonetheless.
Tom Edsall is exceptional, but, like so many other analyses, this one applies linear thinking to an exponential world.
We live in a VUCA world now. There is no steady-state. There will be more change in the next ten years than there was in the last fifty. In 2025 the country, and the world, will be fundamentally different than they are today. Our economy, political system, business structures, and society. The way we live, and the way we work, or don't work. Our foreign policy and domestic. All will be radically different.
Until people recognize the magnitude of the transformation that is underway, we'll keep looking at the world through the lens of the 20th century, and focus on juggling transient coalitions while we ignore the root causes of our problems. That is the path to violent revolution.
The status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. We need fresh, bold thinking. And we need it now.
The tumultuous election season reflects the fact that we are entering a new and very dangerous era in history. The people sense it; the "leaders" are playing catch-up. Neither party has the first clue about how to adapt to it, and in all fairness, it's an incredibly daunting challenge. But the lack of leadership is astonishing, nonetheless.
Tom Edsall is exceptional, but, like so many other analyses, this one applies linear thinking to an exponential world.
We live in a VUCA world now. There is no steady-state. There will be more change in the next ten years than there was in the last fifty. In 2025 the country, and the world, will be fundamentally different than they are today. Our economy, political system, business structures, and society. The way we live, and the way we work, or don't work. Our foreign policy and domestic. All will be radically different.
Until people recognize the magnitude of the transformation that is underway, we'll keep looking at the world through the lens of the 20th century, and focus on juggling transient coalitions while we ignore the root causes of our problems. That is the path to violent revolution.
The status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. We need fresh, bold thinking. And we need it now.
11
“There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.”
That those who know the industry best are those who work in it is for the most part undoubtedly true, but that doesn’t mean Hillary is saying that therefore Wall Street should determine what the regulations should be. She clearly says that too much and too little regulation are both bad. Input from those in the industry is important, but balancing that with what their impact would be on the majority of Americans is what is most important. How much or how little is the difficult part, and ultimately the job of the President with the help of her advisors, and Congress.
It’s just that in finding the best “golden key” balance for America as a whole it would be awfully helpful if our elected law and policy makers didn’t have to be so concerned about where the vast sums of money needed these days to campaign effectively for office are to come from!
That those who know the industry best are those who work in it is for the most part undoubtedly true, but that doesn’t mean Hillary is saying that therefore Wall Street should determine what the regulations should be. She clearly says that too much and too little regulation are both bad. Input from those in the industry is important, but balancing that with what their impact would be on the majority of Americans is what is most important. How much or how little is the difficult part, and ultimately the job of the President with the help of her advisors, and Congress.
It’s just that in finding the best “golden key” balance for America as a whole it would be awfully helpful if our elected law and policy makers didn’t have to be so concerned about where the vast sums of money needed these days to campaign effectively for office are to come from!
7
Yes, I'm quite sure that's why JPM paid Hill to give closed door half million $ talks. They are secretly masochists that were eager for her to tell them what naughty boys they are.
She has 0, zero, credibility on the topic of sane financial regulations. She accepted a sizable fortune in "speaking fees" from these people. If one can't see why that's a conflict of interest, one is either blind, or is in on the gag.
She has 0, zero, credibility on the topic of sane financial regulations. She accepted a sizable fortune in "speaking fees" from these people. If one can't see why that's a conflict of interest, one is either blind, or is in on the gag.
15
It is possible to care about global issues as well as having a love for your country.
The problem comes when people believe that those in power act in ways that preference global concerns over domestic concerns, particularly when it comes to jobs and the economy.
As flight attendants always say: Put on your own oxygen mask first. Then you will be better able to help others.---sadly, in the US only first class gets the oxygen masks, and they refuse to help the other passengers on the same plane.
The passengers are mad and in survival mode--what else could be expected?
The problem comes when people believe that those in power act in ways that preference global concerns over domestic concerns, particularly when it comes to jobs and the economy.
As flight attendants always say: Put on your own oxygen mask first. Then you will be better able to help others.---sadly, in the US only first class gets the oxygen masks, and they refuse to help the other passengers on the same plane.
The passengers are mad and in survival mode--what else could be expected?
38
"Clinton’s outspoken support for African-American, Hispanic and immigrant rights...."
The interests of black American citizens and immigrants are incompatible. If low-skilled immigrants are allowed to enter freely, then employers will not hire black Americans without a college degree. The only 'right' they will have is the right to vote for Hillary Clinton, unless they manage to figure out why they can't find a job.
The interests of black American citizens and immigrants are incompatible. If low-skilled immigrants are allowed to enter freely, then employers will not hire black Americans without a college degree. The only 'right' they will have is the right to vote for Hillary Clinton, unless they manage to figure out why they can't find a job.
20
Misogyny, racism, and xenophobia are not opposites of globalism. They are opposites of mature civility. Rejection of science is not the opposite of globalism; it is a further step to maturity. It’s hard for the Left to coalesce because many different issues energize different groups: women’s issues, minority issues, LGBTQ matters, unrestrained capitalism etc. On the Right, the strategy is simple: to satisfy greed; the tactics include any dirt that works or any legitimate fear or concern than can be demagogued.
American politics has been rebalancing from the beginning, even when the liberating Lincoln was succeeded by the racist Johnson. A further rictus shook America when the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy. That changed not only the GOP but also the Democratic Party. Both parties are still adjusting. That adjustment is hard because so few Americans have a grasp of world affairs and of real American history. Obsessed by detail, they nibble around the edges of a leaf and fail to see the whole tree, never mind the forest.
American politics has been rebalancing from the beginning, even when the liberating Lincoln was succeeded by the racist Johnson. A further rictus shook America when the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy. That changed not only the GOP but also the Democratic Party. Both parties are still adjusting. That adjustment is hard because so few Americans have a grasp of world affairs and of real American history. Obsessed by detail, they nibble around the edges of a leaf and fail to see the whole tree, never mind the forest.
23
Democrats' and Republican's whom the press deems viable (enough big donors) will continue to see the working class desert them, if they take the advice Thomas Edsall has compiled for Hillary Clinton.
Thomas Edsall wants Hillary Clinton to get labor and the poor allied with the influential and upscale, all supporting together pro-trade globalism as concerned with morality and transnational concerns.
The trade Edsall promotes is not so much free trade as it is protectionist anti-competition, anti-free trade pacts that exploit labor while forcing most of ours to compete on an unfair playing field.
Mr. Edsall also wants Hillary Clinton to prioritize finding common ground between the upscale, our economic predators and their prey, whom viable politicians divide into identity groups.
This will happen if our elected representatives stop protectionist trade pacts like TPP, tax the financial sector, make the tax code much more progressive, repeal legislation preventing negotiation of drug prices, start regulating and breaking up monopolies again, raise wages, commit to full employment policies, get independent over sight of police, investigate sexual assault in the military outside the chain of command, audit the Defense Department, transition our energy system now, stop corporate tax breaks like Senator Schumer and Hillary Clinton want (in exchange for infrastructure spending), and stop the buying of elections.
Thomas Edsall wants Hillary Clinton to get labor and the poor allied with the influential and upscale, all supporting together pro-trade globalism as concerned with morality and transnational concerns.
The trade Edsall promotes is not so much free trade as it is protectionist anti-competition, anti-free trade pacts that exploit labor while forcing most of ours to compete on an unfair playing field.
Mr. Edsall also wants Hillary Clinton to prioritize finding common ground between the upscale, our economic predators and their prey, whom viable politicians divide into identity groups.
This will happen if our elected representatives stop protectionist trade pacts like TPP, tax the financial sector, make the tax code much more progressive, repeal legislation preventing negotiation of drug prices, start regulating and breaking up monopolies again, raise wages, commit to full employment policies, get independent over sight of police, investigate sexual assault in the military outside the chain of command, audit the Defense Department, transition our energy system now, stop corporate tax breaks like Senator Schumer and Hillary Clinton want (in exchange for infrastructure spending), and stop the buying of elections.
22
Neither candidate has any moral fiber, or character, to be President.
Trump got this far, due to the corruption of Hillary, the DNC, and our corporate owned government.
They presumed their perception management, was so effective they could rest easy, and the sufficiently dumbed down people would hand them, yet again the golden key.
Governments survive, when people are fairly represented; all people ever want is a fair shake, and they also have a core need to trust their leaders.
Hillary will lose.
We had a key the establishment buried, terrified the power they stole would be taken from them. Bernie Sanders, was our golden key.
Trump got this far, due to the corruption of Hillary, the DNC, and our corporate owned government.
They presumed their perception management, was so effective they could rest easy, and the sufficiently dumbed down people would hand them, yet again the golden key.
Governments survive, when people are fairly represented; all people ever want is a fair shake, and they also have a core need to trust their leaders.
Hillary will lose.
We had a key the establishment buried, terrified the power they stole would be taken from them. Bernie Sanders, was our golden key.
32
Bernie is a good guy with a good heart and some good ideas. But if he had been the nominee he would have been steamrolled by the right wing attack machine within a week. His behavior late in the primary season showed that he did not have the patience, the pragmatism, or the stamina to be a good general election candidate, or a president. Stop deluding yourself.
4
Hillary will win and the boy's club is going down. Prepare yourself.
1
"The Democratic platform is the most progressive in the history of the party."
Even as the Democratic platform opposes unfair, job-killing trade deals, the Democratic president is ardently lobbying for the TPP. Among its provisions: the extension of patents for pharmaceuticals, limiting access to life-saving drugs; the right of corporations to sue governments when health, environmental, and safety regulations interfere with expected profits. Is this an example of why ordinary citizens should trust today's "cosmopolitan" Democratic party to act responsibly and to serve the public good?
Even as the Democratic platform opposes unfair, job-killing trade deals, the Democratic president is ardently lobbying for the TPP. Among its provisions: the extension of patents for pharmaceuticals, limiting access to life-saving drugs; the right of corporations to sue governments when health, environmental, and safety regulations interfere with expected profits. Is this an example of why ordinary citizens should trust today's "cosmopolitan" Democratic party to act responsibly and to serve the public good?
31
Excellent support for an argument that the modern world is probably too complex, too interconnected, too populous to manage. This growing chaos exists in the shadow of a number of looming catastrophes that are geophysical, environmental and social in nature.
12
Sorry Mr. Edsall, but as an older generation millennial, I'm not buying the canard that we or anyone else on the left side of the political spectrum have to give up our suspicion of untrammeled capitalism in order to achieve stability. Not when our current levels of inequality require entirely new vocabulary to describe. Not when we can't afford to live in any major cities or afford medical care or have financial security. Not when our futures seem to be going up in smoke—in the case of climate change, sometimes literally—because nobody is willing to tackle the serious problems we're facing. It's not that many of us harbor "reflexive antipathy" toward business and the needs of an economy—it's just that we have many reasons to be skeptical and cautious.
It's time to stop pretending that the left, and yes, it has its issues, is as culpable as the right. If we're arrogant, it's because by and large we don't think that states should be left to their own devices to make life miserable for whichever disfavored demographic(s) that state's most powerful wish to control. If we're dismissive, it's because we reject as an absolute right the desires of the few to trample on the needs of the many. Identity politics is challenging because nobody can validate your lived identity but you. That's just not sufficient as a framework to govern a country.
No one group should control a party's direction, but it's past time to work out a way for each to cooperate for the common good.
It's time to stop pretending that the left, and yes, it has its issues, is as culpable as the right. If we're arrogant, it's because by and large we don't think that states should be left to their own devices to make life miserable for whichever disfavored demographic(s) that state's most powerful wish to control. If we're dismissive, it's because we reject as an absolute right the desires of the few to trample on the needs of the many. Identity politics is challenging because nobody can validate your lived identity but you. That's just not sufficient as a framework to govern a country.
No one group should control a party's direction, but it's past time to work out a way for each to cooperate for the common good.
130
Exactly. Thank you :)
9
Come on.. Hillary, like every politician, will sell her soul to whomever is buying. She's just taken it to a level never seen before by selling access through Foggy Bottom. She will be a lousy president, dogged by scandal after scandal, all of her own making.
35
Hypothetically, if one were to investigate Congress for security issues, you might find:
1. Stacks of classified documents sitting on desks with nobody around.
2. Folks taking classified documents home to read. Leaving them in their cars while they go shopping or eating out.
3. Leaving the documents lying around home with no security safe. And housekeepers with no security clearances.
4. Classified discussions from home computers or cell phones (basically walkie talkies). Even if logged into 'secure' servers, the servers are being accessed across insecure commo lines.
5. Staffers loudly discussing secret information at restaurants in the DC area.
Just hypothetically of course. What training do they all get? After watching the hearings, apparently none.
So, the Big Lie works. If you conduct enough investigations and make enough unproven charges, it works.
1. Stacks of classified documents sitting on desks with nobody around.
2. Folks taking classified documents home to read. Leaving them in their cars while they go shopping or eating out.
3. Leaving the documents lying around home with no security safe. And housekeepers with no security clearances.
4. Classified discussions from home computers or cell phones (basically walkie talkies). Even if logged into 'secure' servers, the servers are being accessed across insecure commo lines.
5. Staffers loudly discussing secret information at restaurants in the DC area.
Just hypothetically of course. What training do they all get? After watching the hearings, apparently none.
So, the Big Lie works. If you conduct enough investigations and make enough unproven charges, it works.
4
While I agree that Democrats do not think that a significant part of Americans who support Republicans are reasonable, and that those people notice and vote according to this dismissal, it should be pointed out that about half of Republicans don't believe in evolution or global warming. What our country needs is a conservative party that puts forward conservative ideas to deal with the real problems facing America, not a political party and its base that believe in fictions designed to prop up beneficiaries of the status quo economy. Once Republicans and their party become this, Democrats will at least have people they respect to disagree with.
79
This post is so typical of the new "non-tolerant" left. You denigrate a group of people because they believe in creation and have not seen enough evidence to suggest climate change is anything other than natures continual cycle. Look at the demise of the Mayan's and the Egytians. Mother Nature does what it does and there is nothing that man can do to stop it. If one is truly concerned about climate change than do something about overpopulation. If anything is going to be done about anything in this country then the parties had better learn to compromise.
2
@Noah - Oh, you mean like the guy who shot two cops in Iowa yesterday?
Similar to Linus being the only Peanuts character to truly believe in the Great Pumpkin, it seems that the rest of the electorate has differing opinions about Hillary Clinton as the great white whale in need of either impaling or saving depending on one's place in the body politic. She is the ultimate consummate politician who will change her political position depending on how it will translate into favorable political results. Being someone who supported Bernie Sanders because his political positions were always transparent & didn't appear to waver depending on the latest change of the wind, I must say that I distrust her greatly. Given that she is running against the devil incarnate I will support her while holding my nose, I am wary that she will be able to achieve great results since she changes her position so frequently. One of the early tests will be which side she takes in the Native American and environmental protesters regarding the oil pipeline versus the union members who are in favor of the pipeline. So far she hasn't hinted which way she'll lean which fits her pattern of first supporting Keystone XL and then opposing it as she attempting to glean Bernie supporters who are avid environmentalists. Similarly she called the TPP the "gold standard" in keeping with her & the global Clinton Foundation's natural leanings although has since reversed position to be in line with the growing resentment of working class voters who are deeply angry about job losses.
42
Your pathetic defense of Trump's indefensible words and deeds is just ... deplorable.
2
She might surprise you. As a female, if she had carried on like Bernie (who also never released his tax returns) she would not be in contention for this position.
1
"Making fun of the reporter with the disability was in poor taste to be sure but again, not illegal."
But maybe it's a good indicator of what Trump would do to help those with disabilities were he to win? Mocking someone publicly would not seem to indicate that he has any respect for people with disabilities (in Trumpian terms, they're "losers"), so why would he be interested in finding ways to make their lives better?
"why was there no media scolding Hillary for having Michael Brown's mother at the Democratic convention when clearly he was a thug and a criminal trying to grab a cops gun and kill the cop after robbing a store?"
Really, you are absolutely sure of what went down in the Michael Brown case, so it's all right with you that a cop chose to act as judge, jury, and executioner? After all, he's only a "thug," and we all know that thugs don't deserve to live, and certainly their parents have not right to grieve.
But maybe it's a good indicator of what Trump would do to help those with disabilities were he to win? Mocking someone publicly would not seem to indicate that he has any respect for people with disabilities (in Trumpian terms, they're "losers"), so why would he be interested in finding ways to make their lives better?
"why was there no media scolding Hillary for having Michael Brown's mother at the Democratic convention when clearly he was a thug and a criminal trying to grab a cops gun and kill the cop after robbing a store?"
Really, you are absolutely sure of what went down in the Michael Brown case, so it's all right with you that a cop chose to act as judge, jury, and executioner? After all, he's only a "thug," and we all know that thugs don't deserve to live, and certainly their parents have not right to grieve.
Seems to me a lot of the globalists like Clinton are hypocrites. They don't like borders and have no issues with immigration that lacks assimilation. Patriotism is for the country rubes. Yet, they want the US military to defend them, US laws to operate under, US clean air and water regulations, and US air traffic certified controllers directing the planes that Grandma flies on.
How many globalists will be in the armed forces that Clinton deployed? Her daughter? Son-in-law? Just as I thought.
How many globalists will be in the armed forces that Clinton deployed? Her daughter? Son-in-law? Just as I thought.
38
The first globalization efforts occurred in the 1980's under Reagan... That's when the Japanese manufacturers of cars and other equipment moved to the USA under favorable circumstances into states like Tennessee and South Carolina. Look it up. History is a great foundation of truth. Lamar Alexander was really happy to have Nissan plant in Tennessee and Honda in Marysville Ohio.
Thanks to local Republicans in those states the USA auto manufacturers took it on the chin right here!
Thanks to local Republicans in those states the USA auto manufacturers took it on the chin right here!
10
I can't visualize the children of the five-time draft dodger signing up for service in the armed forces.
3
Clinton is juggling the likes of labor, minorities, women, business, etc... not easy, but worthy. Trump is juggling the KKK, The American Nazi Party, The NRA, the Alt Right etc...
133
Our nation is the most polarized in my sixty-something year lifetime. Both parties reflect this, and both parties are struggling with it. In my view, our divisions are now too many and too deep to be overcome without a threat perceived as existential. My father, who served in WWII, often talked about serving with men from all regions of the country, from all walks of life. In our village, there were no gated communities. In the years since, we've compartmentalized ourselves, and now spend more time with our electronic devices than we do in human-to-human conversation. How can we expect a politician, any politician, to bring us together when we act and live as if we don't want to be together? The short answer - we can't. We must either rediscover our commonality as a nation, our sense of common purpose within common ideals, or we must somehow come to terms with the fact that we are now a nation in name only.
43
The common thread of the national service draft was the equalizer. How many of the people who are in politics today served or their children?
8
Yugoslavia.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
Although the percentage of Members of Congress who have ever served in the military has been dropping steadily since the peak in 1971, census data from 2010 showed that the percentage of veterans in Congress (20%) was higher than the percentage of veterans in the general population (7%). With the 2014 election, the percentage in Congress dropped to 18.7%. .
Although the percentage of Members of Congress who have ever served in the military has been dropping steadily since the peak in 1971, census data from 2010 showed that the percentage of veterans in Congress (20%) was higher than the percentage of veterans in the general population (7%). With the 2014 election, the percentage in Congress dropped to 18.7%. .
Mr. Edsall's standard-issue, sturdy, insightful academic analysis is, well, just that. Academic.
It will never fly. Either Edsall was unaware of the breaking news when he wrote it, or he is in the throes of end-stage left-wing disease, Ostrich Syndrome, (not to be confused w/ "Stork Syndrome," the gender-specific deployment-avoidance tactic).
From RCP, the breaking news…"Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards 'Likely an Indictment'"
I understand how you all boycott Fox and all, but Fox was all over this thing all evening.
To boil it down, it looks like the Clintons finally jumped the shark, but unlike The Fonz, fell off their waterskis with the predictable result.
Happy Days are here again.
It will never fly. Either Edsall was unaware of the breaking news when he wrote it, or he is in the throes of end-stage left-wing disease, Ostrich Syndrome, (not to be confused w/ "Stork Syndrome," the gender-specific deployment-avoidance tactic).
From RCP, the breaking news…"Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards 'Likely an Indictment'"
I understand how you all boycott Fox and all, but Fox was all over this thing all evening.
To boil it down, it looks like the Clintons finally jumped the shark, but unlike The Fonz, fell off their waterskis with the predictable result.
Happy Days are here again.
10
I don't boycott Fox News, but I view the vast majority of its programming to be propaganda, shilling for the Republican Party. For that reason I don't think you can trust what you see and hear on Fox News.
6
Well, maybe. But perhaps you should check out "Bret Baier Walks Back False 'Clinton Foundation Indictment' Story" at http://crooksandliars.com/2016/11/surprise-bret-baier-has-walk-back-clinton.
2
This was one of those situations where I needed a one armed analyst. My head kept spinning with the "on the one hand, but on the other" situations. One of the questions I always asked people when they went into their "conservative/liberal" juxtaposition was, what exactly is a conservative? I never, and I mean never got an answer. Can conservatives really say they "conserve"/use national resources efficiently or effectively? Don't think so, in fact their orthodoxy says drill, drill, drill, spend, spend, spend, but don't save for the future generation. My answer: a conservative is bible thumping, anti abortion science denying rube who lives in the land of cognitive dissonance. Thanks for the confirmation.
24
Perhaps remove your USA-centric blinders, and then see if you can't distinguish what makes conservative parties different from their opponents. UK Tories, German CDU, French Republicains, Christian Democrat parties across Europe, are all quite different from their leftist opponents. Not that hard.
2
All that juggling she "has" to do just reveals once again that she has no moral center or deep convictions of her own. Everything is up for grabs as long as she gets what she really wants and is sure she deserves - to be president. She will owe so many people so many things if she wins. If the Lincoln Bedroom was for rent when Bill was president then Hillary will make it available through Air bnb for the right price. That is, unless it's not made permanently available to union leaders like Randi Weingarten.
19
Ohmigosh, no one besides Hillary Clinton has ever, ever wanted to be president or thought that HE deserved to be. Certainly not Donald Trump who has spent his entire adult life attempting to make as much money as humanly possible--frequently to the detriment of others, like all those who lost huge sums in his bankruptcies while he came away with the dollars. Of course, although he always came out of it way better off than his creditors, his partners, and in some cases, such as Atlantic City, the places where his sca--uh, businesses--were located, he didn't do anywhere near as well as he would have us believe. Have to admit that he is a genius at creating a perception that he's a brilliant businessman, though. And at pulling the wool over people's eyes that he in any way, shape, or form could be "the best" president ever to sit in the White House. And what was Hillary doing while Donald was searching for dollars from other people's pockets? H-m-m, ever hear of the term "public servant"?
A coalition of those looking ahead, realistically, versus those pining for an imagined past of milk and honey for all....
Of course the latter is more appealing.... but... pining for the womb can take you only so far.
I'm with HER...
Of course the latter is more appealing.... but... pining for the womb can take you only so far.
I'm with HER...
13
Like many young people I leaned more Liberal although my first vote was for Nixon who I believed was more capable in getting us out of Viet Nam. The Democrats had had their chance and voting absentee ballot from Danang Made a lot of sense. It was a one issue vote.
Over the years I continued to vote Republican and I became more Conservative and found more reasons to do so. Forced union membership was one issue. The creation of the Dep't of Education was another and increased federal control over more and more areas that should be the venue of the states. Add to all that the party's increasing support of immorality. But the taking of people's hard earned money to support that immorality and have policies that seemed to encourage it finally swung me over to see them without viability and I don't ever consider a Democrat any longer. They work hard to keep a certain number of groups under their control with promises rarely kept and taking on new ones that are undermining the core values of law.
The Democrat Party has become anti-American with its globalist pursuits that have cost us so much that is unrecoverable with the biggest victim being our pride in being Americans. We used to do great things to be proud of now we accept the mediocrity of the Old World our ancestors left behind and the Democrats call it great.
It was a great place once. Too bad we threw it away.
Over the years I continued to vote Republican and I became more Conservative and found more reasons to do so. Forced union membership was one issue. The creation of the Dep't of Education was another and increased federal control over more and more areas that should be the venue of the states. Add to all that the party's increasing support of immorality. But the taking of people's hard earned money to support that immorality and have policies that seemed to encourage it finally swung me over to see them without viability and I don't ever consider a Democrat any longer. They work hard to keep a certain number of groups under their control with promises rarely kept and taking on new ones that are undermining the core values of law.
The Democrat Party has become anti-American with its globalist pursuits that have cost us so much that is unrecoverable with the biggest victim being our pride in being Americans. We used to do great things to be proud of now we accept the mediocrity of the Old World our ancestors left behind and the Democrats call it great.
It was a great place once. Too bad we threw it away.
16
I agree with you and would only add that 1. Nixon DID pull the US out of Vietnam, and 2. The first SS COLA's were implemented during the Ford(Nixon) Administration, and seem to have been ended during the Obama Administration. 3.. While pretending to be "pro labor", Obama has expanded the H1B Visa program, which throws US workers out of their jobs, and is pushing the TPP. 4. Clinton has contributed to the demonizing of police officers. Working class people DO need strong police forces, because, unlike "professionals", they can't afford to hire their own security staff.
Mr. Edsall has written an excellent column.
Mr. Edsall has written an excellent column.
27
And yet it's your Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, which almost reflexively and uniformly supports corporate "free trade."
8
Half the names on the Wall belong to Nixon and Kissinger. Peace with honor!
3
Clinton's outspoken support for African Americans (?) did not cause majority of white men to prefer Trump. It happened because of Trump's racist and white nationalistic rhetoric.
30
Do you know who Cesar Chavez was? If not, please google his name. He was against open borders, because he understood that the law of supply and demand applies to the workforce, since the workforce is a commodity. Was he a "white nationalist"?
19
You have no reason to say that. Defensive, a little?
The ultra-left Occupy faction of the Democratic Party is just as rigid and extreme as the Tea Party of the Republican Party.
The difference is that the right-wing knows it's important to win. The Left would rather be right than actually win.
I know plenty of leftists who still think they were right to vote for Nader - and now they're voting for Jill Stein. The Tea Party and conservatives would never make that mistake.
The difference is that the right-wing knows it's important to win. The Left would rather be right than actually win.
I know plenty of leftists who still think they were right to vote for Nader - and now they're voting for Jill Stein. The Tea Party and conservatives would never make that mistake.
65
The problem is, as described in this piece, when a candidate happily promises the moon, and conflicting goals, to a multitude of different constituencies, what it's it that had been "won"?
Of the 3 groups, ultimately the "upscale globalist" faction will get the most, because if you liked the last 16 years, get ready for at least 4 more. Conservatives love Hill, because it is full on "don't rock the boat".
Of the 3 groups, ultimately the "upscale globalist" faction will get the most, because if you liked the last 16 years, get ready for at least 4 more. Conservatives love Hill, because it is full on "don't rock the boat".
7
Were you alive in 1992?
They HAVE made it.
Trumpf is the Stein of the Right, without even the basics, like coherence or consistency.
Trumpf is the Stein of the Right, without even the basics, like coherence or consistency.
"...the process of finding common ground between globalists and nationalists has to be a priority. That process must begin in earnest in just six days, the morning after Election Day."
Mr. Edsall, this cratered moonscape of an election season has divided America as never before. Richard Nixon, in 1968, harvested white voters who fled the Democratic party in reaction to the civil rights movement. Alarmed whites previously viewed African-Americans as an inconvenience rather than true and fellow participants in a democracy. Nixon, with George Wallace running interference, encouraged whites to move from de-facto segregation to de jure segregation (anti-affirmative action, anti-busing, anti-housing). Ronald Reagan would continue his work.
The white working class of the 1950's and 1960's thrived from racist unions who resisted black membership. They made up Nixon's (and later Reagan's) "hard hat" constituency. Democrats, those with money and power, were largely impotent in curbing the rightward shift in the American economic and social landscape, doing naught but wringing their hands.
Hillary Clinton, the presumed beneficiary of the reaction against the Nixon-Reagan-Bush axis, embraced globalism as opposed to nativism. But no one has been able to stop the bleeding of disappearing jobs. White workers, previously the great beneficiaries, blame not the right, who abandoned them, but the left, who remained and were a reminder of what they lost.
Trump is parochialism in extremis.
Mr. Edsall, this cratered moonscape of an election season has divided America as never before. Richard Nixon, in 1968, harvested white voters who fled the Democratic party in reaction to the civil rights movement. Alarmed whites previously viewed African-Americans as an inconvenience rather than true and fellow participants in a democracy. Nixon, with George Wallace running interference, encouraged whites to move from de-facto segregation to de jure segregation (anti-affirmative action, anti-busing, anti-housing). Ronald Reagan would continue his work.
The white working class of the 1950's and 1960's thrived from racist unions who resisted black membership. They made up Nixon's (and later Reagan's) "hard hat" constituency. Democrats, those with money and power, were largely impotent in curbing the rightward shift in the American economic and social landscape, doing naught but wringing their hands.
Hillary Clinton, the presumed beneficiary of the reaction against the Nixon-Reagan-Bush axis, embraced globalism as opposed to nativism. But no one has been able to stop the bleeding of disappearing jobs. White workers, previously the great beneficiaries, blame not the right, who abandoned them, but the left, who remained and were a reminder of what they lost.
Trump is parochialism in extremis.
55
The fact that you blame the victims (western white workers) and praise the globalists exemplifies the problem.
3
I would say that the fact that you accuse the OP of blaming the victims exemplifies the self-pity that is shown by many of those who are styled as "victims".
It's more probable that we're already in the middle of a political realignment. The GOP is becoming the party of the angry, aging white voter. The Dems are becoming a party of educated globalists, technologists and others with focus on global issues. There will be some horse trading going on soon and a lot of the republican types who have abandoned Trump and endorsed Clinton will merge with the Dems because the no longer have a home. Doing this will make the Dems a center (left and right) party that will have to negotiate within itself on various positions. The GOP will be a fringe party interested in disruption but not governance as we have already seen and as I hope we don't see emerging on Nov 9.
105
Maybe older Dems Will be the party of educated globalists however the younger ones not so much- they are with Bernie, and as the old guard dies out youth will have its way and things will change.
6
I also believe that we are in the midst of major shifts and changes.
But I do not think we will have just one large party (the Democrats) left along with the smashed remnants of the Republicans (which I agree may well be reduced to third party status).
I believe there will be a rise of one or more new parties and that one of these new parties will rise to the level of a major party. We may well go from having two major parties to having three or four of them.
Almost half the registered voters are not Democrats or Republicans. If we want to think of ourselves as a democracy with a functioning political system, that will have to change -- there will have to be new parties that our voters can align with. There are far too many people outside the fold at this time, they need a party that they feel offers them a true political party.
And then there are the people like me, still a Democrat but a mad, frustrated and disgruntled Democrat. I am ready to abandon the Democrats as soon as a new party emerges that puts the interests of Americans first and isn't conservative. The reasons would differ but I am sure the number of disaffected people who are still nominally attached to the Democratic or Republican Party would number in the tens of millions. Combine that with the independents and it seems to me that both our major parties are all but doomed for the future, if they don't change to match Americans' views, instead of existing to allow the elites to get their way.
But I do not think we will have just one large party (the Democrats) left along with the smashed remnants of the Republicans (which I agree may well be reduced to third party status).
I believe there will be a rise of one or more new parties and that one of these new parties will rise to the level of a major party. We may well go from having two major parties to having three or four of them.
Almost half the registered voters are not Democrats or Republicans. If we want to think of ourselves as a democracy with a functioning political system, that will have to change -- there will have to be new parties that our voters can align with. There are far too many people outside the fold at this time, they need a party that they feel offers them a true political party.
And then there are the people like me, still a Democrat but a mad, frustrated and disgruntled Democrat. I am ready to abandon the Democrats as soon as a new party emerges that puts the interests of Americans first and isn't conservative. The reasons would differ but I am sure the number of disaffected people who are still nominally attached to the Democratic or Republican Party would number in the tens of millions. Combine that with the independents and it seems to me that both our major parties are all but doomed for the future, if they don't change to match Americans' views, instead of existing to allow the elites to get their way.
8
I've thought for years that identity politics is the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party. Mr. Edsall makes a strong argument for that here. But there is more to it. The Party has been for many decades, probably since Al Smith, a party of factions, able to win elections only when it can mobilize its factions by spot-welding them together with federal money and regulating. Thus the tax and tax and spend and spend sobriquet. I don't see the globalist-union-race-gender-millennial factions as much different; in fact, they're rooted in years of electioneering and governing. This year the factions are tenuously holding together because the candidate embodies one of the two most powerful differentiators in an election - gender. (The other is race.)
12