Eric Ethington: The problem isn't Trump, it's the neoliberal Democrats
Well, at least one Democrat is sort of figuring out they are not Democrats anymore, but this, if it ever gets picked up and understood, will open the door to more radical socialist "workers parties". I do think he has caught one of the things none of the democrats at the top caught, or admitted: Trump just spoke plainly to most people and said what they were thinking, while the rest tried to just do the old pander and tap special interests and hot buttons (just like Hillary and Bernie did). thinking.
Another piece of this toxic brew is the Sanders-Warren duopoly that have threatened to start a "peoples party" that would drain away millennials, old hippies, and low income minorities that make up much of the party's support base. Despite warnings to the contrary, they continue to ignore the blue collar labor that stood by them for decades, leaving them for Trump (the Republican elite better understand, Trump is a populist, so the hold on these voters will be tenuous unless the party evolves to follow Trump's lead).
What was a strong influence on public thought for the Democrats, the Hollywood-media cabal, have pretty much spent their energy, with asinine statements and acts, and the publication of gossip dressed as news. Most people now regard these sources as jesters at the court of public opinion.
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and other conservative information sources, conservatives have an edge on conventional media, and have also been quick to pick up social media. Obama and Sanders recognized the need to feed these new information sources, but Clinton, with her conventional ties to old media, set the party back while Trump was roaring through the social networks.
Unless the Democrats listen to the few old schoolers among them, the party is toast.
What is pretty interesting in that work among much else is that within the military, while the top leadership is overwhelmingly self-identified as "conservative" or "Republican" that same top leadership favors stricter gun control laws.
There is much else along the same lines. Elites are elite for a reason: they are achievers. They are not unanimous in their opinions. A surprising minority of military leaders self-identify as "liberals" or "Democrats."
Conversely, even if you could actually identify your "left wing elite" you would find significant minority opinions.
Your "Hollywood-media cabal" is just people you do not agree with because within the same pool are conservatives and Republicans with whom you do agree. See the comments in another discussion of Hollywood. Google for "conservative actors."
And on that note, always bear in mind that Ayn Rand was not a conservative. Objectivists are radicals for capitalism. Conservatives betray "free markets and free minds" at many turns because of their unfocused "traditional" values.
The Hollywood crowd with the most influence is largely left wing, and the most vocal. Because of the power this group wields, determining who gets production money and roles, many of the Hollywood conservatives avoid public political statements.
Established conventional media is predominantly left wing, and has tried passionately to suppress conservative media, without much luck, thanks to the 1st amendment. From the start of the republic, media has never been that objective, swinging like a pendulum from liberal to conservative political support. What's now called "fake" news has always been a part of the media picture, with an editorial slant to news stories, and promoting questionable positions from shaky sources. Hearst unquestionably used his news platform to instigate the Spanish-American conflict, as one example of how dangerous untrustworthy media can be.
Likewise, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson were opposed to every fundamental of political liberty and an open economy.
From the article:
"It was a neoliberal Democrat who acquiesced to demands to gut welfare programs that had for decades helped workers build their lives without an ax of abject poverty constantly hanging over their heads. It was neoliberal Democrats who helped strip workers of the right to organize and supported anti-worker policies like the so-called "right to work" laws. It was neoliberal Democrats who implemented free trade deals that shipped jobs overseas to low-wage countries while simultaneously repressing unions. It was neoliberal Democrats who supported the dismantling of regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act that protected working people from vulture financial firms."
"The way forward should be clear: If you want to stop the conservative and neoliberal laissez-faire capitalist agenda destroying the nation, go after the Democrats. Throw out the neoliberal oligarchs controlling the party with tomorrow's trash."
The rhetoric is from the populism and clearly demonstrates why fascism is a form of socialism. Fascism is right wing populism, right wing syndicalism, in which the government is the mediating center to guide and control labor, capital, arts, sciences, education, athletics, religion, every sector of society is to be made safe, secure, even, and fair, according to the needs of the people as enacted by their representatives of the state.
==> Objectivists are radicals for capitalism. Ayn Rand advocated for full and complete laissez faire.
==> Objectivists are globalists. As patriotic Americans, Objectivists do not support the submergence of American culture. That said, though, trade and commerce are primaries. There is no such thing as a protected American job. If goods and services can be produced better, faster, cheaper elsewhere and imported here, then we benefit. Otherwise, we must subsidize inefficient, ineffective, out-dated, obsolete businesses and business practices in order to ensure that everyone always has the same job their whole life. That is the stagnation of collectivism.
Neoliberalism - whatever else it brings - is an attempt by some to re-establish the 19th century liberalism of open markets, individual rights, and political equality under law. It was a reaction to the drift of modern liberalism of the mid-20th century (1930-1970) that sacrificed those values to voting blocs defined by race, class, and gender. While far from perfect, perhaps ultimately flawed, neoliberalism is an attempt to stop the drift to leftwing collectivism.
That the responses here were so quick and impassioned indicates a lack of analytical thinking.
"For the past 40 years, the Democratic Party as a national organization has systematically abandoned its historic representation of the working class in favor of a wholesale embrace of the professional elite and neoliberal principles that squash workers' representation at all levels of political and workplace engagement, and enhance the power of the wealthy few to govern all aspects of our lives. "
While mixing in the usual "I'm smarter than your are" use of names, tags, labels and political mashup, there is truth in that statement for BOTH parties. They both have morphed into a party of specific "elites" who dictate policy, law, and power. They consider themselves above the law, and exist as the "real rulers" of the country. You just have to look at Clintons on the left, and Ryan and Mcconnell. They drive the agenda, and Bernie has been grabbing the chunk of the party that is more radically socialist and "want more free stuff". Clinton tried to "out free" him in the primaries, and by the time it was done, they had free healthcare, free college and I don't know what all else they were offering for votes. The surprise is that the arrogance of the Republican party has far outstripped their ability to cover it up with patriotic or pretty talk, their current health bill is a prime example. They will not do what they said, they will not repeal Obamacare, and they will modify what we have so that they will be able to funnel huge amounts of money to insurance companies already ripping off Americans.
Ref: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...
And:
"The idea that Trump is somehow unique, or distinctly worse than other conservatives in his policies is laughable. If Trump were to be impeached today, the same agenda would continue rolling forward without a moment's pause, because for all the posturing of House Speaker Paul Ryan, or Sen. Orrin Hatch or Rep. Mia Love, the ideas Trump is pushing is exactly what they have been advocating for years — albeit with much more disguised and sophisticated rhetoric. The only difference seems to be the more overtly authoritarian, racist and sexist rhetoric Trump uses and the boneheaded clumsiness of his incompetent staff. "
This point is telling: The Democrats blamed EVERYTHING on TRUMP, and if it could not be proved, they made it up, which is why we have this huge circus of the "Russia Connection". Blame Russia, Blame Trump, Blame someone. It could never be that the voters just did NOT want what Clinton offered, and that the Democrats have voided their carefully built up position of Labor and Unions with their own aristocracy. The unions tried to keep pace but could never match the money that the companies and lobbyists had, or the foreign nationals could funnel. They are correct in that the agenda in play is NOT one of either party, but of the powers behind them, that have bought BOTH sides and own them both. It is, and has been, all about MONEY.
Your point about :
"Objectivists are globalists. As patriotic Americans, Objectivists do not support the submergence of American culture. That said, though, trade and commerce are primaries. There is no such thing as a protected American job. If goods and services can be produced better, faster, cheaper elsewhere and imported here, then we benefit. Otherwise, we must subsidize inefficient, ineffective, out-dated, obsolete businesses and business practices in order to ensure that everyone always has the same job their whole life. That is the stagnation of collectivism."
Would all be true, IF that was the case. China subsidies many, many businesses, performs government sponsored theft of intellectual property (many weapons and technology have been directly lifted from the US), Russia the same, and Europe practices government control of subsidies and taxes. All of it is regressive and is offset by deals and special "Trade laws". There is no need for a trade treaty if there is no government involved, but we have no "Free Markets" as you describe, so Objectivism, by that definition, is a non starter, and CANNOT exist in this world. We have to play the game we were given, and it is SO corrupt, and there is SO much "Wesley Mouching" going on, you cannot tell free market from controlled for payoff market.
Cute tags like "neoliberalism", "neofascist" "neoXXXXX" are pure BS being sold to cover up the same old crap, and to act as a tool to unseat the ones who back-stabbed their way to power.
Your statement: "Fascism is right wing populism, right wing syndicalism, in which the government is the mediating center to guide and control labor, capital, arts, sciences, education, athletics, religion, every sector of society is to be made safe, secure, even, and fair, according to the needs of the people as enacted by their representatives of the state."
This is incorrect because BOTH parties/sides/groups whatever you want to call them, do it the same: They control the laws and money, deal out the government grants and payolla, and then claim it is their greatness that makes it work. Left or right, doesn't matter, Bernie is a Fascist as Hillary, as Trump, as Rand as any of the rest of them. They all will make it control by government rules and money, and make YOU pay for it, or drive us bankrupt in the process. The states are the same thing in microcosm, they are all ruled by one party or another, and very few are functional, and on the verge of financial ruin, all because they have used it to giveaway to their supporters and take from their opponents.
The article voices a fundamental truth for the Democrats: It's not Trumps fault, nor can he be blamed. It did illustrate the obsession one group has with "making everything fair and equal" and they WILL always do that by imposing MORE rules, laws regulations, etc, exactly what you profess to dislike. Other than the fact they guy writes like a rejected early communist party propaganda geek, he is overall correct. They must blame themselves. The other bit is: The Republicans need to blame themselves as much.
All this adds up to a Third party, and an attempt to muzzle the beast of greed that always takes over.
I can only recommend that you spend more time with the works of Ayn Rand, especially The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. She did a great job explaining why capitalism depends on egoism and the consequences of that in a world of mixed economies.
And the specifics of free trade in a global economy are argued well by many others such as FEE, the Mises Institute, and the Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/), even as some of their own premises are flawed.
(Ayn Rand specifically distanced herself from FEE, and as much as she liked Ludwig von Mises personally, she was uncompromising in her criticism of the rationalist-idealist errors in Human Action. And in that vein, here in the Gulch, Dale Halling has been vocal on that point as well: the Mises Institute can be as bad as the conservatives at attempting to defend capitalism. Just saying, Ayn Rand was brilliant in her consistent and integrated philosophy.)
We can go back and forth on every one of your points. But, as you can see, we are really pretty far apart on much. I grant that you "liked" the Atlas Shrugged movies, but you owe it to yourself to benefit from the philosophy behind them.
Yes. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will be more neo-liberal (like Clinton) or more socialist (like Sanders).
"if it ever gets picked up and understood, will open the door to more radical socialist "workers parties""
Or they might become Republicans. One party could end up being the party of gov't activism and the other for laissez faire.
I don't have a sense for what will happen because it seems Republicans and Democrats claim to be so divided, but they actually have minor policy differences and end up just hoping to catch the other side on a technicality accidentally breaking the law.
"Trump just spoke plainly to most people and said what they were thinking, "
I actually think he said things that most people find offensive, causing him to get millions fewer votes than Clinton, despite Clinton being an unpopular establishment candidate. I think some people who voted for him based on issues like Obamacare lied to pollsters because they didn't want to be associated with his disgusting antics. I see him as an attention seeker. When he's going this issue you and this article point out will still be there.
BTW, I'm one of those neo-liberals or tech optimists Mr. Ethington is talking about. I think America is great and far from "the unimaginable heights of moral bankruptcy." It really remains to be seen if the Democrats will be the party for tech optimists like me or for Ethingtons. Either way doesn't hurt/help me. I'll go to Democrat or Republican fundraisers. I just want see liberty prevail.
The problem is chicken-hearted RINOs who view rocking any boat as only a way of their lifetime careers potentially sinking.
RINOs also add enough nays to why we can't shrug off those cowards in the GOP by way of term limits.
Too bad these Pied Piper professional politicians keep themselves propped up by mind-numbed voting sheeple who buy into their brayed false promises over and over and over again.
Oh, +1 for the Trey Gowdy reference.
I can see how I might sound like that, but I actually do not think President Trump is evil. I he says and does lurid things get attention.
"much greater loathing for Clinton, Sanders"
I do not loath any politician. I think the fundamental problem is there's no effective system to limit gov't power and spending. So their job function becomes pitting groups' needs against one another, like the way the guy on the train in AS described conditions at the motor plant.
"sabotage of Trump"
They way they kept grilling Trump in the third debate about his rude private comments caught on tape had meet rooting for him in that exchange, even though I think Trump is an attention-seeking clown and Clinton was far-and-away the best person for the "leader of the free world" job, a job I wish did not exist BTW.
"His inability to get anything moving is because he does not wheedle, deal "
I also don't think he knows where he's trying to go. I think he still is doing the job he knows- marketing.
"there is 0 people in public life I would want to see as President"
I think I agree, but not because I think people are bad. The founders set up a gov't with a limited federal gov't and a limited executive branch within the fed gov't. They didn't want a king or "leader of the free world".
"I am hoping the Convention of States will break both parties into little pieces"
Yes. I do not understand the mechanics of this, but I want the result of a less powerful fed gov't and a less powerful presidency. I've heard people say it could result in something like removing the Bill of Rights, but if we are going to ignore the Bill of Rights maybe we should remove it. Obviously we shouldn't. We should go back to what the Constitution says.
"Trump just spoke plainly to most people and said what they were thinking, "
I actually think he said things that most people find offensive, causing him to get millions fewer votes than Clinton...
There is a simple test for honesty. True or False: Most people are basically honest. You only know yourself.
I suppose that's how we choose our presidents. I didn't agree with President Obama on everything, but he seemed like someone I would know saying things we all think.
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-...
https://nyti.ms/2ujSyqz